Should we again be getting ready to deal with a nuclear bomb?
The other night, we had a neighborhood-wide power outage. The national electric company is very good about telling you about it after you have no lights on in your home. They periodically send out SMS updates to tell of progress and when they think that your router and refrigerator will work once again. Sitting in the dark, I had a good reason to play hooky from writing a patent. But then I began to think. I still remember the nuclear drills we did as children. I don’t know how hiding under a desk would help (“duck and cover”) when we would be welded to the desk at 10,000 degrees of heat. But at least people believed that nuclear war was possible during the Cold War and tried to prepare for it and maybe even survive it. Can a society survive a nuclear war? Should it plan to?
Just as every war teaches lessons that the smarter combatants learn, the Iran fighting in 2025 and 2026 taught Israel a great deal. And while the second round went longer and led to more physical damage, there were fewer killed in the longer 2026 battle. Israel refined its interception tactics, and Israelis made more effort to get to bomb shelters or protected rooms. Obviously, a nuclear-tipped ballistic missile would ostensibly still be subject to interception and destruction. On the descending side, running to a bomb shelter or locking oneself in a reinforced room would mean nothing if the same was vaporized by a reasonably strong nuclear blast.
To use a nuclear bomb, a country or rogue actor needs three things:
- A working weapon.
- A means of delivery—possibly a missile, but could be a suitcase as well.
- The will to use it and expect whatever payback may come.
It is somewhat of a miracle that no nuclear device has been used in anger since August 1945. Even with the expansion of the “nuclear club”, countries like North Korea and Pakistan have not used their devices on others. Let’s assume that they have overcome the first two points above. They still weigh the third issue enough so as not to use their weapons in anger. Pakistan knows that India can return nuclear bombs, and even North Korea realizes that there will be nothing left if a hydrogen bomb falls on Hawaii. But what happens when a lunatic state like Iran or its psychotic dependents like Hezbollah actually like the idea or are somewhat unfazed by the idea of retaliation? Their threshold moves from number three back up to the top two. Iran would buy a nuclear device if available. As far as the mullahs are concerned, they don’t care if they build one or buy one; they just have to have one.
Can a society survive a nuclear bomb? How long would it take to return to some level of normalcy? How many would die? How many would suffer from radiation poisoning? How much can a country protect itself from the effects of a nuclear blast? These are horrible questions, ones that should never have to be asked. The problem is that while both President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu swear that Iran “will never have a nuclear bomb” on their watch, the Iranians are not nodding in agreement. This issue has less to do with the fate of the buried 60 percent enriched U-235 but more to do with a will to destroy the West and Israel ASAP. We have little control over the nuclear stocks of other states, and we have seen Pakistan’s cavalier attitude toward Israel and America as anything but an honest broker between Iran and the US. While most people think that Iran would attack Israel first, they may be wrong. The US has much easier borders to breach, and troubles in the US could paralyze Israel, something that would not happen in the other direction if the first bomb went off in Tel Aviv.
If, God forbid, a nuclear weapon is used against Israel or a Western country, you will finally see the missing spine in dealing with Muslims in the West. Just as immediately after 9/11, American officials arrested anyone (including a couple of Israelis by the way) who had just a tad too much melanin, the Westerners who don’t care for the Jews will start to worry about their own hides. Finally, a big enough event will drive a complete end to uncontrolled arrivals, and exit flights will be expedited. For decades, the West has seen an endless stream of illegal aliens arriving with no interest in changing their ways or in joining their new home’s culture. The sin is on the home team that never stopped the boats or demanded fealty from the newcomers. A woman who won her primary race in New York last week and is primed to join Congress ran an organization at Columbia University whose purpose was “to put an end to Western civilization”. She tweeted that when there were no towels, she simply wiped her hands on an American flag. The US did not have to go this way, but it chose to do so—just as in Europe. Patriotism was considered icky, and demanding that people be good citizens was considered 1950s claptrap.
Mark Steyn wrote "America Alone" more than 20 years ago. He said that after its publication, various prime ministers, presidents, and kings sought out his views on immigration and “demography is destiny”. He named no names, but he made it clear that not one of those whom he met made any meaningful effort to stop the flow, eject, and reform the remainder. As I have written before, tired cultures that loathe their past and future do not fight back against an alien culture — because they don’t have a strong argument as to why to do so. Imagine two old men in a hospital ward, both facing death. One is told that his first grandchild is to be born in two weeks, while the other has never had any kids. The latter may just give up and die, while the first will do his best to hold on and see a continuation of his family. Britain and her European mates never stopped the boats because they couldn’t come up with a reason why to do so.
The West would do well to learn from the Palestinians. If Russia or China attacked the US with nuclear weapons, it would do so to weaken an enemy and grab as much as it could — like the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor that bought six months. The Palestinians, on the other hand, rejoice in the murder of Jews without gaining any material or strategic benefit. Iran would detonate a bomb in the West, even knowing that a response would be forthcoming. They might lose half of their population, but if they killed a lot of Jews or Americans, they would be satisfied. They don’t have the cold calculation that the Soviets once had — and pulled their missiles out of Cuba when they realized that their plan was too risky. The mullahs and the IRGC would call the death of thousands or more infidels a victory, even if there is no material benefit for Iran but rather massive destruction. That’s the reason that #3 above is the weak link with them if they can buy a device on the black market. Sure, Donald Trump ended their home-grown program, but the tens of billions they stand to receive could go a long way in getting a device from an unscrupulous dictator. The problem isn’t so much an Iranian nuclear bomb; the problem is their leadership’s desire to use it, come what may.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Townhall’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical Left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member