« The Adventures of Chester Radio: Interview with Daveed Gartenstein-Ross | Main | Ten Kilotons and The Port of Long Beach »

October 24, 2006

A Simple Plan

The New Media Journal carries a fictional bit of prognostication by one Raymond S. Kraft. It is the story of a surprise nuclear attack on the United States, performed with aplomb by Iran and North Korea [via Rocket's Brain Trust].

At 0723 Hawaii time on the 67th Anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack three old fishing trawlers, about 100 miles apart, and each about 300 miles off the east coast, launched six small cruise missiles from launch tubes that could be dismantled and stored in the holds under ice, or fish, and set up in less than an hour. The missiles were launched at precisely one minute intervals. As soon as each boat had launched its pair, the skeleton crew began to abandon ship into a fast rubber inflatable. The captain was last off, and just before going overboard started the timer on the scuttling charges. Fifteen minutes later and ten miles away, each crew was going up the nets into a small freighter or tanker of Moroccan or Liberian registry, where each man was issued new identification as ship's crew. The rubber inflatables were shot and sunk, and just about then charges in the bilges of each of the three trawlers blew the hulls out, and they sank with no one on board and no distress signals in less than two minutes.

The missiles had been built in a joint operation by North Korea and Iran, and tested in Iran, so they would not have to overfly any other country. The small nuclear warheads had only been tested deep underground. The GPS guidance and detonating systems had worked perfectly, after a few corrections. They flew fifty feet above sea level, and 500 feet above ground level on the last leg of the trip, using computers and terrain data modified from open market technology and flight directors, autopilots, adapted from commercial aviation units. They would adjust speed to arrive on target at specific times and altitudes, and detonate upon reaching the programmed GPS coordinates. They were not as adaptable and intelligent as American cruise missiles, but they did not need to be. Not for this mission.
Commentary

I'm unfamiliar with Mr. Kraft's work, but here he succeeds in rapidly painting a scenario that is entirely plausible. The more interesting questions are those it merely implies.

And what are these? Well, the idea that two rogue states might be completely undeterred by the US arsenal of some 5000+ nuclear weapons is enough to give one pause to say the least. But is it possible?

Perhaps yes. Consider the scenario that Mr. Kraft introduces and ask what a US response would be. Even if one were to adopt mafia-like rules of deterrence as proposed by Ted Koppel, those systems are still dependent upon their credibility. Yet if America has shown that it can't be trusted to enforce its commitments and defend its interests elsewhere in the world, a determined and risk-neutral enemy might be more than willing to call the deterrence bluff too.

The missing element, in the end, is willpower, and none should be surprised to learn it. A degree of willpower has already been sacrificed as a "bridge too far" in Mr Koppel's plan. A system of nuclear deterrence that allows Iran to go ahead and have its regional caliphate, so long as it doesn't harm those under the US nuclear umbrella, fails at an unusually unspoken goal: preserving American primacy. But how to justify this to a public, or at least elites, that all too often seem to need the most legalistic of justifications for the most basic aspects of self-preservation? Preserving the primacy of one's own way of life in the world -- in this case, classical liberalism -- requires a moral willpower much greater than that required to merely guarantee the physical security of one's homeland, people, and allies. This is a weakness that we emit like a pheromone and that our enemies sense like the animals that they are.

Posted by Chester at October 24, 2006 4:10 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theadventuresofchester.com/MT/mt-tb.cgi/967

Comments

If the countries mentioned do not have a similar plan -- they do now.

It's tantamount to admitting, at grassroots level, the lack of resolve (willpower) in the government, that citizens talk about buying survival equipment. (Referencing following articles on this site.) We have no faith and why should we, look how Washington handles the tasks we face today.

On November 7, the choice is between those on the left anxious to wave white flags and those on the right debating "cut and run". The strength, the willpower is in the people anxious for backbone when it counts and resolve we can be proud of. The change in policy we need is a change in strategy which brings the enemy to his knees before he can carry out surprise attacks.

Posted by: JimboNC at October 24, 2006 11:38 PM

This scenario sounds eerily similar to a blog post I read several months ago:

http://neoconmadrassa.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_neoconmadrassa_archive.html

Posted by: rickl at October 25, 2006 1:00 AM