US Overconfidence re Air Attack on Iran a Cause for Concern
The goal being preventing the emergence of a "radical Islamic caliphate stretching from Spain to Indonesia" that is a threat to non-Muslim nations outside of itself; the supposed positive side-effect being the US improving its own security by strengthening its grip on foreign oil; the methodology proposed being an air-attack on Iran to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons potential--the crucial complication that has arisen, is that according to expert military officers, the air attack on Iran will succeed not in destroying Iran's ability to produce nuclear weapons, but rather in merely delaying the time at which Iran will become capable of producing nuclear weapons.
RE the ability to carry the methodology, what we have been hearing from the war-hawks, is that Iran should be attacked to eliminate their nuclear weapons potential, that such is a lesser evil than allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons--whereas what we are shocked to be hearing now from experts is that an attack on Iran would delay Iran's nuclear weapons program not destroy it.
The aura of overconfidence re the US ability to permanently de-nuclearize Iran, is in line with US overconfidence in its own achievements/capabilities in past conflicts in Vietnam, Bosnia, Gulf War I, and Gulf War II.
The expert argument is that the whereabouts of many of Iran's nuclear facilities are unknown, which reminds one of: the Viet Cong unknown to their US enemies, inhabiting underground forts located directly beneath US HQ/forts above them on the surface; the US thinking it had destroyed Serbian tanks/weapons in the Bosnian conflict whereas the reality was that decoys/dummies were destroyed.
These experts imply the war-hawks are hiding the fact that due to the limited penetration capabilities of pollution-creating "bunker-buster" missiles several hits on the exact same target would be necessary to destroy concrete-hardened Iranian nuclear "bunkers", which reminds one of: the US overestimating the Patriot anti-missile success rate in Gulf War I; the US apparently sending insufficient numbers of troops into Gulf War II.
Looking at the past and the present, the indications are, that the war-hawks are overconfident regarding the ability of an air attack to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons capability. And this is without even taking into account, that a third party could after a US air attack on Iran: help Iran deal with its nuclear equipment losses; help Iran to even exceed the nuclear weapons production capability it had before it was attacked; give/sell/loan Iran nuclear weapons delivery-systems/bombs.
The US seems to foolishly trust, that the current situation, which apparently features Russia and China staying out of US conflicts with middle-eastern nations, will continue forever--have they never heard of an ambush? History is filled with examples of clever military leaders, who lured their overconfident enemies ever onwards upwards and forward into traps and defeated them.
Likewise the US seems to foolishly trust, that the current world wind direction patterns, will never change--this despite the fact that at the present time the world is experiencing new and strange meteorogical phenomena; this despite the fact, that nations are beginning to learn how to use hi-tech to actually change the weather. The reality is, a change in wind direction, could bring more of the pollution produced by modern weapons of war used in the mideast to America's shores than has already been the case so far.
Overconfidence--including that aspect of overconfidence that assumes the future will be like the present--is recognized outside of fanatically proud (proud of being proud) circles, as a source of failure. The overconfident entity, leaves itself unprepared for successes achieved by its opponent, unprepared for a lack of success on its own part. Overconfident entities, tend to laziness or to spending tine on the wrong things both prior to and during their participation in a given contest. Overconfident entities, underestimate the amount of time energy and money required to accomplish a goal and they overestimate the likelihood that they will succeed in achieving their goal.
The apparently overconfident war-hawks who want to attack Iran, can reasonably be suspected to be underestimating the time energy and money and pollution required to achieve given levels of reduction in Iran's nuclear weapons potential--such should be taken into account when evaluating the relative cost-benefits of various possible methods that could be used in efforts to achieve goals such as making the world safer for non-Muslims or Americans. It would seem unwise for the US to plunge into an air-attack on Iran while its national mind is clouded by overconfidence.
Rumor that a drug a pharmaceutical corporation has produced has passed a clinical trial/test, boosts that pharma-corporation's stock value; rumors that missiles-bombs produce dramatically impressive results boost the stock of the corporation producing the missile-bombs. For a nation to allow such rumor/stock-price linkage to plunge it into military overconfidence and all the disadvantages such overconfidence entails, is folly.
@2007 David Virgil Hobbs
RE the ability to carry the methodology, what we have been hearing from the war-hawks, is that Iran should be attacked to eliminate their nuclear weapons potential, that such is a lesser evil than allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons--whereas what we are shocked to be hearing now from experts is that an attack on Iran would delay Iran's nuclear weapons program not destroy it.
The aura of overconfidence re the US ability to permanently de-nuclearize Iran, is in line with US overconfidence in its own achievements/capabilities in past conflicts in Vietnam, Bosnia, Gulf War I, and Gulf War II.
The expert argument is that the whereabouts of many of Iran's nuclear facilities are unknown, which reminds one of: the Viet Cong unknown to their US enemies, inhabiting underground forts located directly beneath US HQ/forts above them on the surface; the US thinking it had destroyed Serbian tanks/weapons in the Bosnian conflict whereas the reality was that decoys/dummies were destroyed.
These experts imply the war-hawks are hiding the fact that due to the limited penetration capabilities of pollution-creating "bunker-buster" missiles several hits on the exact same target would be necessary to destroy concrete-hardened Iranian nuclear "bunkers", which reminds one of: the US overestimating the Patriot anti-missile success rate in Gulf War I; the US apparently sending insufficient numbers of troops into Gulf War II.
Looking at the past and the present, the indications are, that the war-hawks are overconfident regarding the ability of an air attack to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons capability. And this is without even taking into account, that a third party could after a US air attack on Iran: help Iran deal with its nuclear equipment losses; help Iran to even exceed the nuclear weapons production capability it had before it was attacked; give/sell/loan Iran nuclear weapons delivery-systems/bombs.
The US seems to foolishly trust, that the current situation, which apparently features Russia and China staying out of US conflicts with middle-eastern nations, will continue forever--have they never heard of an ambush? History is filled with examples of clever military leaders, who lured their overconfident enemies ever onwards upwards and forward into traps and defeated them.
Likewise the US seems to foolishly trust, that the current world wind direction patterns, will never change--this despite the fact that at the present time the world is experiencing new and strange meteorogical phenomena; this despite the fact, that nations are beginning to learn how to use hi-tech to actually change the weather. The reality is, a change in wind direction, could bring more of the pollution produced by modern weapons of war used in the mideast to America's shores than has already been the case so far.
Overconfidence--including that aspect of overconfidence that assumes the future will be like the present--is recognized outside of fanatically proud (proud of being proud) circles, as a source of failure. The overconfident entity, leaves itself unprepared for successes achieved by its opponent, unprepared for a lack of success on its own part. Overconfident entities, tend to laziness or to spending tine on the wrong things both prior to and during their participation in a given contest. Overconfident entities, underestimate the amount of time energy and money required to accomplish a goal and they overestimate the likelihood that they will succeed in achieving their goal.
The apparently overconfident war-hawks who want to attack Iran, can reasonably be suspected to be underestimating the time energy and money and pollution required to achieve given levels of reduction in Iran's nuclear weapons potential--such should be taken into account when evaluating the relative cost-benefits of various possible methods that could be used in efforts to achieve goals such as making the world safer for non-Muslims or Americans. It would seem unwise for the US to plunge into an air-attack on Iran while its national mind is clouded by overconfidence.
Rumor that a drug a pharmaceutical corporation has produced has passed a clinical trial/test, boosts that pharma-corporation's stock value; rumors that missiles-bombs produce dramatically impressive results boost the stock of the corporation producing the missile-bombs. For a nation to allow such rumor/stock-price linkage to plunge it into military overconfidence and all the disadvantages such overconfidence entails, is folly.
@2007 David Virgil Hobbs
posted by David Virgil at 12:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home