Kill 16-28 million people within 3 weeks

[pixelsmith]

The Center for Strategic and International Studies has come up with a great plan to kill millions of people very very quickly. This should satisfy some of the people that think there are too many people on the planet.

July 20, 2009
In a hare-brained nightmare scenario dreamed up by the Center for Strategic and International Studies — home-base for neocon crackpots such as Michael Ledeen and war criminals of Madeleine Albright’s caliber — Iran manages to produce a nuclear weapon and drops it on Israel, ultimately killing 800,000 people. “Retaliatory Israeli nuclear strikes, with higher-yield bombs and accurate rocket delivery systems, would be far more destructive,” writes Peter Goodspeed for the National Post. “A full-fledged Israeli nuclear response, using some, but not all, of its 200 nuclear weapons, would target most major Iranian cities and major military bases. It would kill 16 million to 28 million people within three weeks.”

Globalist Think Tank Trots Out Iran Attack Scenario

 

[cottonzway]

I've read one of Ledeen's books on Iran. The guy is a total delusional nutcase. How we didn't wind up in a war with Iran under the Neo-Cons should make people believe in a god. lol

 

[Schuyler]

I don't see this so much as a 'plan' but an assessment of what could happen and how bad it would be. It's a version of MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction which, hopefully, both sides in that dispute will pay attention to. 29 million people killed won't do a thing for 'over' population. That's less than half of 1%. You'd need a virulent plague that killed billions for that, a Black Death on steroids.

The issue here is the escalation of tension between Israel and Iran, fueled mostly by the Iranian protests against their government. Ratcheting up the anti-Israel rhetoric is an attempt to change the focus of the population to an external enemy rather than on internal repression. Recall that President Ahmadinejad of Iran has threatened to 'wipe Israel off the face of the map.'

The conflict within Iran is not all about 'freedom,' but is between the old guard clerics who were leaders in the revolution and the younger generation represented by Ahmadinejad who were in the streets during the revolution. Ahmadinejad accuses the clerics of getting rich at the expense of the people. He is very popular in rural areas because he is promising to 'resist globalization,' if that sounds familiar.

Israel isn't just standing by. Last week they sent a submarine and a few Sa'ar-5 class patrol boats (about 1200 tons displacement, 280 feet long, they aren't very big. A Burke-class US destroyer pushes 9,000 tons, 500 feet long for comparison.) down the Suez Canal and into the Red Sea within cruise missile attacking distance of Iran. Though some people insist this was symbolic, others say the Israelis endured way too much risk in that move for it to be only symbolic. It was a 'proof of concept' move to show they could attack Iran from somewhere other than Israel itself. Intelligence analysts have gone from saying 'No way' will there be a conflict to 'maybe' there will be. Undoubtedly that explains the timing of the report.

The CSIS study serves as a reminder to both sides of what could happen. Rhetoric aside, If Iran does manage to get a bomb and decides to launch it at Israel, they can be assured that Iran would cease to exist as a country. They know this already as Ahmadinejad has alluded to the Israelis having 200 weapons. Probably a bigger danger is a pre-emptive strike by Israel. They've done it before on an Iraqi nuclear installation and also recently on one in Syria. Plus, they don't give a shit what the US thinks. With Obama's election and sentiments, relations with the US have become frosty. Given the figures cited in the report, Israel could easily lose 10% of its population. Iran could lose 50% or more.

Michael Ledeen, mentioned in the quote as a neocon (which is a fair assessment), is, for the record, against any military action against Iran by either the US or Israel.

 

[bobheck]

I don't see this so much as a 'plan' but an assessment of what could happen and how bad it would be. It's a version of MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction which, hopefully, both sides in that dispute will pay attention to. 29 million people killed won't do a thing for 'over' population. That's less than half of 1%. You'd need a virulent plague that killed billions for that, a Black Death on steroids.

The issue here is the escalation of tension between Israel and Iran, fueled mostly by the Iranian protests against their government. Ratcheting up the anti-Israel rhetoric is an attempt to change the focus of the population to an external enemy rather than on internal repression. Recall that President Ahmadinejad of Iran has threatened to 'wipe Israel off the face of the map.'

The conflict within Iran is not all about 'freedom,' but is between the old guard clerics who were leaders in the revolution and the younger generation represented by Ahmadinejad who were in the streets during the revolution. Ahmadinejad accuses the clerics of getting rich at the expense of the people. He is very popular in rural areas because he is promising to 'resist globalization,' if that sounds familiar.

Israel isn't just standing by. Last week they sent a submarine and a few Sa'ar-5 class patrol boats (about 1200 tons displacement, 280 feet long, they aren't very big. A Burke-class US destroyer pushes 9,000 tons, 500 feet long for comparison.) down the Suez Canal and into the Red Sea within cruise missile attacking distance of Iran. Though some people insist this was symbolic, others say the Israelis endured way too much risk in that move for it to be only symbolic. It was a 'proof of concept' move to show they could attack Iran from somewhere other than Israel itself. Intelligence analysts have gone from saying 'No way' will there be a conflict to 'maybe' there will be. Undoubtedly that explains the timing of the report.

The CSIS study serves as a reminder to both sides of what could happen. Rhetoric aside, If Iran does manage to get a bomb and decides to launch it at Israel, they can be assured that Iran would cease to exist as a country. They know this already as Ahmadinejad has alluded to the Israelis having 200 weapons. Probably a bigger danger is a pre-emptive strike by Israel. They've done it before on an Iraqi nuclear installation and also recently on one in Syria. Plus, they don't give a shit what the US thinks. With Obama's election and sentiments, relations with the US have become frosty. Given the figures cited in the report, Israel could easily lose 10% of its population. Iran could lose 50% or more.

Michael Ledeen, mentioned in the quote as a neocon (which is a fair assessment), is, for the record, against any military action against Iran by either the US or Israel.

I really like that summary, Schuyler. However, I do believe that it is highly probable the movement of the Sa'ar ships was a little bit of "we can saber rattle too", or at least an attempt of misdirection, on the part of Israel toward Iran. You can rest assured that the Dolphin class subs that Israel has are alone capable of neutralizing the nuclear installations with either sub launched cruise or the newer (mysterious) Popeye Turbo nukes.

And, Iran has really no way to detect or protect themselves from the subs. They could, however, damage the surface ships.

 

[cottonzway]

Michael Ledeen, mentioned in the quote as a neocon (which is a fair assessment), is, for the record, against any military action against Iran by either the US or Israel.

While you posted a lot of good info above, I almost fell off my chair with what I just quoted.

I am sure you are speaking about some of his comment over the last few years in regards to Iran. I find those comment disingenious with his prior actions.

Let's not forget, this was the founder of JINSA, a member of CDI, AIPAC, PNAC, and AEI just to name a few. A few comments saying otherwise do not suggest the majority of of the company he keeps.

 

[Schuyler]

While you posted a lot of good info above, I almost fell off my chair with what I just quoted.

I really have little interest on what company he keeps or the politics of this matter, to wit:

"Ledeen is currently against both an invasion of Iran or air-strikes within the country.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-Brit_22-1>[23]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-policy_23-0>[24]</SUP> He has argued that the latter may eventually become necessary if negotiations with the Iranian government fail, but it would only be the least bad option of many options and it would lead to many negative unforeseen consequences.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-policy_23-1>[24]</SUP> The New York Times has called Ledeen's skepticism towards military action against Iran surprising given his opposition to the regime.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-books_21-2>[22]</SUP> In October 2007, Ledeen argued that:

<DL><DD>"Those who believe that I am part of some “hawkish gang” just haven’t noticed that I am opposed to invasion or bombing the nuclear facilities. My fear is that, by failing to promote a non-violent democratization of Iran, we make large-scale violence much more likely." <DD> <DD>"In any event, time will tell, and I share the fear of most commenters [sic] that we will indeed arrive at a horrible choice between Iran with the bomb, or bomb Iran, as Sarkozy and Kouchner have put it. And if that happens, it will demonstrate a terrible failure on the part of the West, including the United States, to craft a serious Iran policy lo [sic] these many years."<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-Brit_22-2>[23]</SUP> </DD></DL>

 

[cottonzway]

I do as it holds a lot more merrit then some empty rhetoric. That's like a gang banger who hangs out with gang bangers, yet claims he is not a gang banger himself.

You are represented by the company you keep, in particular if you career is made of being a member of think-tanks that help set policy. That means more then a Wiki page copy and paste.

 

[cottonzway]

Outside of the talk about Michael Ledeen....

I don't see a physical war breaking out between Israel and Iran anytime soon. Besides the destruction that would come to both countries (mostly Iran) it causes a lot of other problems.

It extends MAD to the whole world IMO. Iran is protected by Russia and China under the SCO and as a partner in trade. They will not allow Israel to drop nukes on Iran. It's a front door into WW III.

The other issue would be what a conflict would do to oil costs around the world. Iran has already started if they are attacked their first counter is to the Strait of Hormuz. 2/3 of the world's oil is coming through that area, it would destroy the global economy if there was a war there.

I see it as pandering and chest pounding. If there is an attack, it's going to be a serious problem for the entire world. I think it is highly unlikely for that very reason.

 

[Schuyler]

My original point was that he did not favor an attack on Iran. Since THAT was the subject of my post, I felt the point was relevant. That's all. I've proven that conclusively. It may have been from wiki, but that is no vice, imo, and it is also in his own words. I was NOT trying to enter into a political debate about neconservatives, so-called 'war criminals,' or the like.

The original quote is a highly-charged political statement suggesting this think tank had a PLAN to wipe out millions of people--as if they suggested implementing it. This is patently absurd and ridiculous. It misrepresents both the position and the intent of CSIS and its report. I thought I could add to the discussion by showing the context of what is happening with that crisis right now without indulging in accusatory rhetoric. My statement about Ledeen was and is factually correct.

I am not a fan of the bat shit crazy right any more than I am a fan of the bat shit crazy left. In my opinion they are both certifiably insane.

 

[bobheck]

cottonzway,

If Israel were to "unload" on Iran, how much of a capacity would Iran have left to do anything with the Straits of Hormuz? I believe 100% of Iran would be in emergency survival mode after such a tragedy. Iran would be in absolutely no shape to threaten anyone after that. The Red Cross, Red Crescent, U.N. Forces would own the country.

Of course, I am speaking of if a surgical strike is carried out by Israel on Iranian nuclear installations, and Iran responds with strategic bombardment of Israel. Israel would then target the population, military, and industrial centers of Iran. It would be horrible, to be sure. But, Iran would cease to exist. As Schuyler stated earlier "If Iran does manage to get a bomb and decides to launch it at Israel, they can be assured that Iran would cease to exist as a country".

So, while your argument that nothing would happen because of oil and the Straits of Hormuz is intriguing, it could be that eliminating Iran could ultimately make those Straits a tad more open.

100% my assessment, so subject to rampant flaws. But, something to think about.

 

[TClaeys]

This should satisfy some of the people that think there are too many people on the planet.

Just curious, and this has nothing to do with the story cited, but since you think there aren't too many people on the planet then how many people is too many?? What is our carrying capacity?? I'm not trying to incite any argument, just asking.

 

[cottonzway]

My original point was that he did not favor an attack on Iran. Since THAT was the subject of my post, I felt the point was relevant. That's all. I've proven that conclusively. It may have been from wiki, but that is no vice, imo, and it is also in his own words. I was NOT trying to enter into a political debate about neconservatives, so-called 'war criminals,' or the like.

The original quote is a highly-charged political statement suggesting this think tank had a PLAN to wipe out millions of people--as if they suggested implementing it. This is patently absurd and ridiculous. It misrepresents both the position and the intent of CSIS and its report. I thought I could add to the discussion by showing the context of what is happening with that crisis right now without indulging in accusatory rhetoric. My statement about Ledeen was and is factually correct.

I am not a fan of the bat shit crazy right any more than I am a fan of the bat shit crazy left. In my opinion they are both certifiably insane.

The only thing you proven is what he stated. I consider his statement to be empty rhetoric. I based that on whom he deals with as he is a member of every single hawkish, lunatic US foreign policy think-tank that supports such actions to some extent. This is the man who founded JINSA that is a supporter of the Likud party that want a pre-emptive attack. I judge him by the company he keeps.

We disgaree, no problem.

 

[pixelsmith]

Just curious, and this has nothing to do with the story cited, but since you think there aren't too many people on the planet then how many people is too many?? What is our carrying capacity?? I'm not trying to incite any argument, just asking.

i do not know. i have not seen the instruction manual for this planet. when there are too many people, we will die off in some way. kill each other, eat each other, viral attacks... take your pick.

people who feel there are too many humans on this planet should remove themselves from the food chain. it is very easy.

the earth will take care of itself. humans are insignificant. we are more of an irritant than anything else. we can be gone in an instant, geologically speaking.

a cuttlefish is more interesting than a human in my opinion. very intelligent too. as i recall cephalopods have endured about 9 near extinctions.

rambling now... sorry. back to work.

 

[cottonzway]

cottonzway,

If Israel were to "unload" on Iran, how much of a capacity would Iran have left to do anything with the Straits of Hormuz? I believe 100% of Iran would be in emergency survival mode after such a tragedy. Iran would be in absolutely no shape to threaten anyone after that. The Red Cross, Red Crescent, U.N. Forces would own the country.

Of course, I am speaking of if a surgical strike is carried out by Israel on Iranian nuclear installations, and Iran responds with strategic bombardment of Israel. Israel would then target the population, military, and industrial centers of Iran. It would be horrible, to be sure. But, Iran would cease to exist. As Schuyler stated earlier "If Iran does manage to get a bomb and decides to launch it at Israel, they can be assured that Iran would cease to exist as a country".

So, while your argument that nothing would happen because of oil and the Straits of Hormuz is intriguing, it could be that eliminating Iran could ultimately make those Straits a tad more open.

100% my assessment, so subject to rampant flaws. But, something to think about.

Excellent stuff!

I think Iran is too big and too vast for Israel to be able to handle them without there being a response to their own land and the Strait of Hormuz. It's a matter of logistics no matter how big the "Shock and Awe" would be. Iran has said all along their first target would be the SoH as they know it would causes economic chaos.

I honestly wish for the rest of the world they would be able to go to war without everyone else involved. It's tribal warfare over many years that will never go away. The problem is on both sides there is too much intervention. That is the primary reason why I don't think they will have a war.

If this does ever happen though and Israel uses nukes, they are just as gone from the earth as Iran is IMO when Russia replies to their actions. I think Russia would reply in a military order and then we are off to the races. I think Russia in particular is holding Israel back more then the US or even themselves.

 

[DamnDirtyApe]

No no no.. you guys have it all wrong.. there will be no nuclear war of any kind.

I have it on good authority from Greer that the space brothers would never let anything like that happen. So relax and don't worry.

 

[truthseeker]

Excellent stuff!

I think Iran is too big and too vast for Israel to be able to handle them without there being a response to their own land and the Strait of Hormuz. It's a matter of logistics no matter how big the "Shock and Awe" would be. Iran has said all along their first target would be the SoH as they know it would causes economic chaos.

I honestly wish for the rest of the world they would be able to go to war without everyone else involved. It's tribal warfare over many years that will never go away. The problem is on both sides there is too much intervention. That is the primary reason why I don't think they will have a war.

If this does ever happen though and Israel uses nukes, they are just as gone from the earth as Iran is IMO when Russia replies to their actions. I think Russia would reply in a military order and then we are off to the races. I think Russia in particular is holding Israel back more then the US or even themselves.

Russia is too weak to do anything right now. Their economy suffered a great deal - which wasn't great to begin with - and they would barely have any finances let alone manpower to conduct any major military operation. Sure, they have nukes, but from the assessments I've read their military is in a decrepit state - using outdated 30-40 year old technology. We don't even know if that shit works. They love to beat their chest and act all powerful and influential, but basically it's a paper tiger. I highly doubt that they would want to get themselves involved in any major military conflict. Besides, the majority of russian elite keep their money in the West and they are very very much used to the lavish western lifestyle that you or I can only dream of, so I don't think that they would play with the idea that one day they wouldn't be able to access their precious little gold coins or dine at the worlds' most exclusive restaurants whenever they feel like it. Putin or Medvedev can beat their chest and act all tough, but they are just pawns.

China on the other hand....

 

[CapnG]

people who feel there are too many humans on this planet should remove themselves from the food chain. it is very easy.

Hmmm... but by that logic, if you really think that:

a cuttlefish is more interesting than a human in my opinion. very intelligent too.

Then shouldn't you remove YOURSELF from the food chain also? Or maybe go on a mass killing spree first and then off yourself (we're all worthless in your reckoning, right)? Not that I want you to die pixel (or me for that matter) I'm just saying: goose, gander, etc.

Also just so no one gets confused, CSIS is also the acronym for Canada's version of the CIA, so if you do some google searches and they come up wonky that's probably why.

 

[Schuyler]

From what I have read (and I don't have a citation for you) the planet ought to be able to sustain 10 billion humans without any undue strain. The capability to grow enough food is there. It's a distribution issue.

 

[pixelsmith]

Hmmm... but by that logic, if you really think that:


Then shouldn't you remove YOURSELF from the food chain also? Or maybe go on a mass killing spree first and then off yourself (we're all worthless in your reckoning, right)? Not that I want you to die pixel (or me for that matter) I'm just saying: goose, gander, etc.

Also just so no one gets confused, CSIS is also the acronym for Canada's version of the CIA, so if you do some google searches and they come up wonky that's probably why.

i am part of the food chain, i will someday feed many organisms with my body. just because i think a cuttlefish is more interesting than a human doesnt mean i think humans should be killed.