Ilia Rainer and Jacqueline Passey direct my attention to this analysis, which you don't really need to read. Nor do I need to explain the problem...
Here are a few views:
1. Economizing hand motions is the key, so just leave it "as is" when done. It might be needed in that same position again.
2. Such matters should be arranged to please your wife. It is signaling and a symbolic recognition of her value. The only question is what you get in return, but if you get anything at all it is worth it.
3. Avoiding midnight surprises is the key, which means always leave it down.
4. Many women don’t like the idea that guests could show up and see the insides of their toilet bowls.
#2-4 all point in the same direction, and I don’t give a damn about #1. But somehow I, like many other men, fail to optimize on this question. The more interesting question is why this remains a issue. Here goes:
1. Women keep it an issue, rather than delivering decisive argumentation, to test their men and their sense of commitment.
2. Men cannot help but rebel against the female ethic of caring, especially when it concerns something so infantile as a toilet seat.
3. Existential freedom. I once had a European roommate, and it drove me crazy that he closed all the doors around the apartment. Perhaps an occasional open seat is a quixotic demand that our universe show true randomness and openness.
4. Men prefer to focus more intensely on a smaller number of issues and this isn’t one of them. But obviously that explanation can no longer apply to me.
Addendum: Mikhail directs my attention to this paper.
I believe Israel has submarines with nuclear weapons ,perhaps in the Indian Ocean . Are we discounting too quickly a possible nuclear free Mideast ? The big danger in the future is the use of nuclear bomb without a return address .If Iran is first to use a nuclear weapon , we know how to respond .If Israel uses it first we better respond with our own interest whatever that maybe .What happens with a nuclear event (sender unknown ) in Tel Aviv, NYC ,Moscow, etc? The kneejerk reaction in Israel would be an Iranian source .The bottom line is that if you have the weapons you better be beyond suspicion if this occurs . The new 99% rule.
I don’t see why people don’t talk more about the importance of giving Israel second strike capability.
I was under the impression that Israel has been developing a second strike capability on its own with nuclear missile subs. This is from 2000:
Israel Makes Nuclear Waves With Submarine Missile Test
And since then, apparently, Germany has agreed to supply Israel with two more of the subs. But yes, given that it doesn’t appear likely that Iran is really going to be prevented from developing nuclear weapons, a large second-strike capability is the only way Israel is going to feel it has the deterrence it needs to live with that.
Matt,
Wouldn’t all of that apply to Iranian nukes and the US?
Probably because giving a country second strike capability is going to increase the incentive for other countries to join the nuclear club. Second strikes don’t deter potential terrorists anyway, while proliferation of nuclear weapons increases the chance of a rogue group or even general to create massive destruction. The only sensible approach is to promote a nuclear free middle east and a nuclear weapon free globe. Reality does not exactly correspond to a prisoner’s dilemna. A peaceful, non-interventionist country with no nuclear weapons need not be bullied by a country with nuclear weapons. While the US is insisting on obedience to the IAEA, why not have Israel actually sign the non-proliferation treaty, and why doesn’t the US commit to it likewise and make concrete steps to scale down our nuclear weaponry?
“given that it doesn’t appear likely that Iran is really going to be prevented from developing nuclear weapons, a large second-strike capability is the only way Israel is going to feel it has the deterrence it needs to live with that”
- According to this logic and (if I read TC right) the original posting is that Israel (with nuclear weapons) is now vulnerable against an Iran who has none yet. And so to get “the deterrence it needs” Israel need a large expansion of its nuclear arsenal. Presumably also a decentralization of control over launching them, in case of a first strike.
The dangers of nuclear proliferation can never be solved while we think that one country has nuclear weapons for defence (and that’s OK) and another has them for evil reasons (and must be stopped). You don’t need to sympathize with the leaders of Iran to see that they have incentives too.
Do you know who wrote the essay?
How sure would you have to be that you could eliminate the threat that the other posed if they struck first, before you would take the risk. Would Israel risk a 10% or 20% chance of losing a major city in the near term and the probablity of a neuclear terrorist attack in the future, to gain extra security of a first strike. The theoretical capabilties of weapons systems that political anaylists use are never what is actually possible in the real world. We just had a decades long debate by political scientist about the strategic implications of a missile defence system that did not have a chance in hell of actually working.
Israel has had nuclear weapons, probably by the time of the 1967 war, and certainly by the 1973 war. It appears to have at least 100 nuclear weapons. If it hasn’t created a submarine deterrent yet, it is quite capable of it.
Christina,
“One way to deal with it pre-emptively would be to follow the lead of elementary school teachers.”
I think we have to remember that one portion of the population responds to different punishments and rewards than you and I would. Islamic fundamentalism and messianism are very strong with many people in Iran. I think the Iran pres was on state controlled TV bragging about the tens of thousands of suicide martyrs he has queued up.
Now you don’t have to think that all of them are crazy, just a significant enough portion that a few of them would be willing to help in delivering a nuclear weapon. It might be quite possible that the official regime didn’t want to create a nuclear attack, but that only a small group within it did.
We would still be left with the results of a nuclear attack and a possibly unclear target. Now, it’s possible that a threat in the gist of what you are saying will motivate enough of the “reasonable” people in Iran or No Ko, but it doesn’t seem watertight enough considering the stakes.
Steve-
That sure is a rational brand of Islam they practice in Iran, ain’t it? I am reminded of an old song by Commander Cody, “the words she said sounded so sweet, but none of them was true”. I suppose the works of Iranian proxies like Hezbollah wouldn’t disturb the picture you paint of our peaceful Iranian friends. Or maybe their part in mischief and murder in Iraq.
As far as the US and Israel being most likely to “start” a sizeable war, I believe that Israel has been the one attacked on numerous occasions and the US “started” a war under UN authorization twice, in response to Saddaam’s agression and then because of his failure to comply with the surrender terms of the first Gulf War.
I really wonder how you can overlook such obvious flaws in your arguments.
I think people are getting too hung up on the issue of Iran. I just used Iran as an illustration of a more fundamental problem. As I said in the last paragraph of the essay†¦.
The time when America could give Israel a sense of security just by selling it advanced weapons is gone. So what is the United States going to do now to try to minimize the chance that Israel will use their nuclear weapons?
But if people want to talk about Iran, let us talk about Iran. A number of people have raised the point that they believe that there is no threat from Iranian nukes. Even if this is true, it is irrelevant. What matters is whether Israel perceives a threat from Iran.
Iran can be totally innocent and millions of people could still die. The same point will hold true if Iran ever does acquire nuclear bombs. Iran could very easily misinterpret Israeli action and assume that they need to “use them or lose them”.
Have people forgotten their Cold War history? No one wanted nuclear war. But it almost happened on numerous occasions. Most of the close calls that almost lead to nuclear war came from miscommunication and miscalculation.
I worry that lot of people have learn exactly the wrong lesson from the Cold War. With the benefit of hindsight, some people think that it was natural and obvious that Russia and the US would not drop the big one. But if you go back and read some of the stuff that has been declassified it will turn your hair white. As late as the Regan years, Russia and the US were still having incidents that almost went hot.
But very few people seem to be taking this issue seriously. Most liberals like to say that Iran poses no real threat so we don’t need to worry. And most conservatives like to talk about how smart the Israelis are and how many cool toys they have and so we do not need to worry.
Remember how close Iraq came to bomb before the First Gulf War? Remember how badly Israel miscalculated with its recent invasion of Lebanon?
By the way, I wrote the essay awhile ago and if I remember correctly, Israel had not received the diesel subs from Germany at that time. That is why I did not mention them.
But I don’t think they really change anything.
First of all, they are diesel subs and they have some pretty big limitations. That is why the US does not use diesel subs for our backup nukes. I have yet to see convincing proof that Israel feels confident that they can serve as an effective backup. Most the stuff I have read on them comes from Conservatives who are confident that because Israel has purchased them they must automatically be these great wonder machines. Maybe they are. But it is not a forgone conclusion.
More importantly, having a second strike capability only helps stabilize the situation if both sides feel that the other side is rational. Since the majority of the Israeli public does not believe that their opponents are rational, I am not sure that this would help much.
I have been guilty of leading people down this rabbit path myself by talking about how vulnerable Israel’s arsenal is to a first strike. But the real issue boils down to what Israel thinks. If they feel they can deter their enemies then they will probably feel safe. If they feel that their enemies are insane, they won’t feel safe no matter how survivable their deterrent is.
How do you convince the Israelis that their enemies are sane (and what if they are insane?). How do you convince any potential nuclear armed opponents of Israel that Israel won’t go for a first strike (and what if Israel does go for a first strike)?
Those are the real questions in my un-humble opinion.
To Matt and all others who doubt that Israel pursued and obtained the ability to hit Moscow.
Read this from Jane’s†¦
According to analysts, Israeli strategy vis-Ã -vis the USSR was to immediately retaliate, before the base was destroyed.
And this from the Federation of American Scientists†¦
Hersh relates extensive (and highly successful) efforts by Israel to obtain targeting data from US intelligence. Much satellite imaging data of the Soviet Union was obtained through the American spy Jonathan Pollard, apparently indicating Israel’s intention to use its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent, political lever, or retaliatory capability against the Soviet Union itself.
And this (also from the Federation of American Scientists†¦
Israel can undoubtedly deploy nuclear weapons using its capable air force. The aircraft and crews dedicated to nuclear weapons delivery are located at the Tel Nof airbase. Originally the F-4 Phantom II acquired in 1969 was probably the designated carrier, today it would be the F-16. The F-16 has an unrefueled radius of action of 1250 km, extending out to western Iran, the shores of the Black Sea, Riyadh, or the Libyan border. With refueling it can travel much farther of course, and an unrefueled one-way mission could take it as far as Moscow†¦†¦.
The Jericho-2 can reach any part of Syria or Iraq, and as far as Teheran, and Benghazi, Libya. The Jericho-2B will be able to reach any part of Libya or Iran, and as far as southern Russia.
All of this information was taken from the sources linked to in my essay. There are many other sources of information (including more Jane’s articles) that are not linked to by my essay.
The idea that Israel wanted to be able to threaten the Soviet Union may not be true, but it is widely held by those who study the issue. And it is beyond question that they could hit Russian targets as soon as the got F-16′s.
Some people think that the Jericho 2 could as well, but that is not a settled question (at least, not until the Jericho-2b came along.)
I don’t think al Qaeda is “at war” with Shiites. As Wahabbis/Salafis they might not regard them as “true muslims” but dealing with them is not high on their priorities. It’s primarily the Sunni regimes that al Qaeda wants to overthrow, and when Zarqawi was going after Shia Zawahiri sent him messages saying to stop causing so much trouble. Iran has detained some al Qaeda operatives, but they often release them into neighboring countries.
Sailer:
“I would suggest putting aside the presumption that Iranians are evil/crazy and assume they are rational actors.”
Is it possible that they are evil and rational at the same time?
Or the fact that they hate Jews makes them not evil in your opinion?
If Iran is immune to deterrence, perhaps in the sense that some crazy person convinced he’s Superman is immune to deterrence, then why hasn’t it attacked the US and Israel already? The leaders of Iran hate us, and they *really* hate Israel. But they know how the war will end. I don’t see how that will change when they get nukes.
Iran getting nukes is a very bad thing, but not because they’re crazies who can’t be deterred.
Gee yes the Israelies are a great bunch of guys. Democracy sure, ask the palestinians about that. We are a democracy as well and lets recall how we were the moral authority of the world and at the same time hand jim crow. Second strike capability to a terrorist regime (Israel) with 3 million people intent on keeping 80 million arabs in our place is not a long term winning solution and not in anybodys interest.
å´å°Š
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王ç¿
Mac DVD Ripper
ç«ç‹æµè§ˆå™¨
Firefoxæµè§ˆå™¨
thank you very much for this article
Comments on this entry are closed.