Would Iran use a nuke?

Would Iran attack the West or Israel with a nuclear weapon if it had one?

I think eventually it would try to carry out a nuclear attack. The question would be, when?

Because of Iran's limited industrial and technical capacity, it would not have an inventory of bombs and missles to deliver them right away. It would start with one bomb, then two, then a few more, etc. over time. Would it attack Israel or Europe or the United States as soon as it had one bomb or two?

It is a safe assumption that Iran's first nuclear attack would be its last. Once they have the bomb, the longer they wait, the more they will have, and the greater the attack will be when it comes. Hitler did not go to war the moment he had the power to go to war. He waited and built up Germany's military strength first. So I do not think they will attack immediately if they develop the bomb. They will leverage their negotiating power while they build more bombs, using the few they have as a deterent.

But I think eventually they would try to attack Israel, the United States, and Europe. They can also use their increasing power to choke Persian Gulf oil traffic and bring the Western economy to its knees, or threaten to do so if their demands (whatever they would be) are not met. They could do that with convential military forces by announcing an oil blockade in the Gulf and threatening to attack oil tankers with their missles. This would close traffic. They could then use their nuclear ability as a deterent to prevent the United States from opening the Gulf with its naval power.

Iran war timetable

Dick Chaney recently said that the United States will never allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said Monday that Iran would need 3 - 8 years to develop a nuke. He said this in the context of advocating against military measures against Iran, saying in effect, "we have plenty of time."

I wonder, how can Dick Chaney be sure that the United States will not allow Iran to go nuclear unless an attack is being planned before Bush and Cheney leave office? I don't think he has the confidence that Hillary or any Democrat would definitely go to war to stop Iran if the present administration doesn't do it. And three years is not a long time. Coming at the time it does, I think this indicates the high probability of some kind of attack against Iran.

Also, there have been reports that Syria has started a program to develop nukes and that Israel has already bombed one of their facilities.

Falling Dollar

I have recently read news that the dollar is falling more quickly in relation to other currencies, particularly the Euro, and this because Japan and China are dumping dollars.

Certainly this country's balance of payment and budget deficits contribute to the dollar's fall, and there can be dangers in a rapidly falling dollar. But the dollar has strengths too, strengths that perhaps up till now have kept the dollar from falling even more rapidly.

Foreign investors do not just look for a currency that appreciates in value, or does not fall in value. They also want a currency that is backed by a strong, stable government, which reduces the risk that those investors will be stuck holding a currency that has become worthless because the government that backed it has fallen to revolution or war.

The dollar is backed by a constitutional government that has been in existance for about 200 years, and we have never had a revolution against that government during that time. It is also backed by a government in command of the strongest military power in the world. As a nation, we have never lost a war on our own soil.

Compare that with the Euro. It is backed not by a single powerful nation, but by a loose confederation of nations that just a few decades ago warred against each other in the greatest war the world has ever seen. The Euro itself has existed less than a decade. And the Euro is not backed by a strong military power, except the power of the United States itself as the ally of Europe. So while the Euro wins on the issue of balance of trade, the dollar wins on the strength of the government and nation that backs it. Foreign investors have to keep both of these factors in mind in their decisions, and they do.

I am also not sure that the falling dollar is bad for the United States. Our industrial base has been heavily damaged by foreign competition, and now with the Internet our white collar base is facing competion from lower-paid foreign workers. But a lower dollar helps alleviate that problem by making U.S. manufactured goods cheaper and therefore easier to sell and makes it harder for foreign manufacturers to sell their goods in this country. And it helps level the competition between American white collar workers with foreign workers (computer programmers come to mind).

I think on balance a falling dollar is good for the United States economy and helps employment, provided it falls gradually in a controlled way. What we do not want, and most foreign nations do not want, is a dollar that falls so rapidly that it disrupts worldwide commerce. That could trigger a world recession or worse.

Political issues of the campaign may change

The political issues that are getting attention today in the presidential campaign may not be the hot issues by the time of the actual election. Things can change, perhaps enormously.

If war breaks out in the Persian Gulf with some kind of attack against Iran, the political consequences can be complex but great. Bush's authority to go to war without the approval of the Senate is questionable, and if he does, this can become a huge issue with many Democrats trying to impeach him. This can be true even if the attack succeeds, but if it fails, it will become an even greater issue. The consequences of such an attack, including skyrocketing gas prices, terrorists attacks in this country, and a damaged economy would also become issues.

Then there is the possibility that the recent conservative appointments to the Supreme Court could result in Roe vs. Wade being overturned before the 2008 elections. If this happens, the whole issue of abortion will be removed from the court and landed in the congress. Congress can pass legislation either banning abortion or guarenteeing that women can have abortions. A pro-abortion congress and president can pass laws to replace Roe vs. Wade, and abortions will continue. An anti-abortion congress and president can pass laws banning abortion. And the American electorate will decide the issue by their votes in November 2008.

The Iran and abortion issues in 2008 can dwarf anything that is a big issue now.

Pending Attack on Iran

I feel that events are approaching war between Israel and Iran with the United States backing Israel. A number of commentators have suggested that President Bush does not want to leave office with the problem of a nuclear-armed Iran unsolved, and will attack, or support an attack, designed to knock out Iran's facilities for developing nuclear weapons. Rush Limbaugh is just one example. He said something to the effect that he has a gut feeling Bush will deal with the situation before leaving office.

President Bush has repeatedly denied plans to attack Iran. But it stands to reason he would not alert Iran to his intentions by admitting them publicly. There may also have been delays during the summer until the weather in the region cools down in the fall, making war more feasible.

The United States may also be in the process of calming things down on the North Korean front with the intend of "clearing the deck" so it can concentrate on Iran exclusively.

It would also be important, if an attack took place, to do it before we withdraw most of our troops from Iraq. Those troops can be used to support a war against Iran while they are in the region. We are already stretched thin, but American forces are more effective in combat against large scale enemy forces than they are against guerilla forces, so this would be a conflict for which they are more suited.

If Bush plans to attack Iran, it seems it is likely in the next few months. He will not wait till close to next year's election.

Iran has warned that they would use their conventional weapons to close the Persian Gulf to all oil traffic, causing skyrocketting oil prices and a possible world-wide economic crisis. They can use their conventional missles to attack oil production facilities in other nations, shipping, and even United States naval forces. Oil producing nations in the region have warned the United States that if they attack Iran, they have to go all out, and completely knock-out Iran's conventional war capabilities and try to force a regime change. Just destroying Iran's nuclear facilities would not be enough.

What will be the effects of such a war?

I think it is also likely that Iran has "sleeper cells" of terrorists in this country that will retaliate if the United States or Israel attacks Iran. In fact, the preservation of these cells for the day when the West attacks Iran may be a reason terrorists have not been attacking American targets, in my opinion. They are being saved.

European public opinion may be against such an attack, and European leaders may voice disapproval, but I believe that many European leaders secretly want the United States to deal with the problem. A nuclear armed Iran is as much if not more of a threat to Europe as to the United States, and Europe is even more dependent on Persian Gulf oil than we are.

I figure the chance of an attack by Israel, the United States, or both against Iran is at least 50/50, if not more. If it occurs, it is likely to occur between between now and May 2008. And if it occurs, it will probably trigger rising oil prices, an economic disruption of some kind whether large or small, and terrorists attacks in the United States.

"Blog" by Hugh Hewitt, plus my own thoughts

I am reading a fascinating book by Hugh Hewitt, "Blog, Understanding the Information Reformation...". This book is not new, but I just discovered it myself. It documents how blogging is changing the world and the way information is shared. Blogging is breaking the monopoly on what is considered "news" by the mainstream news media, and the world of blogging has become a major source of current information, on par with TV news, newspapers and magazines, and talk radio. I say "breaking", but I should say, "has broken", and the influence of blogs is still growing rapidly.

I think the Internet has gone thru three stages. In the first stage it was used only by a few such as universities and researchers. It was not very commercialized. Then it spread to the public at large, became the World Wide Web, and became very commercialized. But even as it spread it was mostly a way for ordinary people to get information, and only a few created the information.
But that has changed and is continuing to change. More and more people are speaking on the Internet as well as listening and it has become a vehicle for two-way communication. Anyone can create a blog, or a full-blown website. Anyone can promote their site with search engine advertising. And we can do it anonymously if we want.

Even tho I am a computer programmer, computers and the Internet still fascinate me. Anyone can create a site or post to a blog or forum, and then receive emails and responses instantly from people anywhere in the world. That amazes me.

Things are also very unregulated, which means the Internet can be used for good or bad. We can use it to share useful ideas and information, but it can also be used maliciously, to hurt people's reputations. Copyright violations are common. Lies are even more common. And there are scams, identity thieves, viruses, spyware, email spam, and the like. There is little law enforcement. Sometimes I think www stands for the Wild Wild West.

Perhaps that will change. Just as law and order eventually came to the West, perhaps law enforcement will get serious about cracking down on those who use the Internet for illegal schemes (some day). But I hope that the freedom of speech that exists on the Internet is not diminished anytime soon. Even tho some abuse this freedom, I wouldn't want the United States government regulating what I can say or not say.

Introduction

I am Ray Schaefer and I have decided to join the millions of others who are blogging these days. I am a computer software developer by profession, having done mainframe programming at Allstate and CBSI, and I am currently doing Visual Basic programming as an independent consultant. My interests include science, the Internet, games, and the political scene, so you may see some observations on those topics.

This blog can serve as a point of contact for those who know me or have known me in the past.