Suicide by Stupidity: How John Kerry Would Destroy Western Civilization
Topic: Nuclear Terrorism
[Important Notice: The Political Devotions Weblog has moved to TenMinuteLobbyist.com.]

(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

In a recent editorial, The Wall Street Journal analyzed the Kerry-Edwards nuclear arms control policies. The policy as to North Korea is laughably naive. The policy as to Iran is flat- out insane:

Mr. Edwards recently said that a Kerry Administration would allow Tehran to fire up its Russian-built nuclear reactors, and even provide them with fuel, so long as the mullahs agreed to let the international community repossess the weapons- usable byproducts.

This too is the triumph of hope over experience. Just yesterday the member countries of the International Atomic Energy Agency were meeting in Vienna to discuss the next steps in response to nearly 20 years of Iranian deception. Two years ago an Iranian resistance group alerted the world to Iran's previously undeclared nuclear sites, and subsequent inspections have provoked a familiar pattern of bluster and lies that practically screams "bomb program."

Henry Sokolski of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center points out that the fresh nuclear fuel that Messrs. Kerry and Edwards want to give the mullahs is already halfway along the enrichment process toward being weapons-usable. With sophisticated and hidden enrichment capabilities of the type we know Iran already has, the country could be within days of having a bomb core were it to seize and divert the reactor fuel. In any case, the mullahs are currently ruling out the possibility of a Kerry-Edwards type deal, demanding to be recognized as a normal nuclear nation with a right to control all stages of its nuclear fuel cycle.

IAEA member states are increasingly frustrated by the mullahs' deceptions and may be ready to refer them to the U.N. Security Council for sanctions by next time the IAEA meets in November. We wish we could be more confident that the Bush Administration was working on pre-emptive military options should they become necessary. But at least it has refused to accept the inevitability of a Persian nuke. "We're determined that they're not going to achieve a nuclear-weapons capability," says Undersecretary of State John Bolton.

The essence of the Kerry-Edwards proposals, by contrast, is that if Iran and North Korea have a history of dealing in bad faith it's because we Americans aren't being cooperative enough. "The idea that there's a big bargain out there that the Iranians will live up to is nutty in light of the last six months," says the Nonproliferation Center's Mr. Sokolski.

So Americans really are getting a proliferation policy choice presented to them this November. If voters think that arms-control agreements like those in the 1970s and during the Clinton years are the best way to rein in rogue states with nuclear ambitions, they should vote for the Kerry-Edwards ticket.

The Blood-Chilling Facts
Topic: Nuclear Terrorism
[Important Notice: The Political Devotions Weblog has moved to TenMinuteLobbyist.com.]

(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

I have a lot of admiration for the work of Graham Allison, author of the new book Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe, so I was pained to learn he has become an advisor to John Kerry, whose record betrays a consistent aversion to the use of force to protect the US.

Nevertheless, the book contains some crucial facts Americans must begin to face, and in his most recent column, George Will gives them a showcase:

The next four years will be the most dangerous in the nation's history because the 9/11 attacks were pinpricks compared to a clear and almost present menace. This year's pre-eminent question, beside which all others pale, is: Which candidate can best cope with the threat of nuclear terror?

. . .

The only serious impediment to creating a nuclear weapon is acquisition of fissionable material - - highly enriched uranium (HEU) or plutonium. In 1993, U.S. officials used ordinary bolt cutters to snip off the padlock that was the only security at an abandoned Soviet-era facility containing enough HEU for 20 nuclear weapons. In 2002, enough fissile material for three weapons was recovered from a laboratory in a Belgrade suburb. Often an underpaid guard and a chain-link fence are the only security at the more than 130 nuclear reactors and other facilities using HEU in 40 countries.

Allison says that at least four times between 1992 and 1999 weapons-useable materials were stolen from Russian research institutes but recovered. How many thefts have not been reported? The U.S. Cold War arsenal included Special Atomic Demolition Munitions that could be carried in a backpack. The Soviet arsenal often mimicked America's. Russia denies that ``suitcase" nuclear weapons exist, so it denies reports that at least 80 are missing. Soviet military forces deployed 22,000 tactical nuclear warheads -- without individual identification numbers. Who thinks all have been accounted for? Russia probably has 2 million pounds of weapons-useable material -- enough for 80,000 weapons.

In December 1994, Czech police seized more than eight pounds of HEU in a parked car on a side street. A senior al Qaeda aide's proclaimed goal of killing 4 million Americans would require 1,400 9/11s, or one 10-kiloton nuclear explosion -- from a softball-sized lump of fissionable material -- in four large American cities.

Of the 7 million seaborne cargo containers that arrive at U.S. ports each year, fewer than 5 percent are inspected. Fewer than 10 percent of arriving noncommercial private vessels are inspected. Given that 21,000 pounds of cocaine and marijuana are smuggled into the country each day, how hard would it be to smuggle a softball-sized lump of HEU on one of the 30,000 trucks, 6,500 rail cars or 50,000 cargo containers that arrive every day?

Intelligent people can differ about all that Allison says. But campaign time is becoming scarce for intelligent differing about how to prevent some American Ground Zero from becoming so poisoned by radiation that no one will be able to come within four miles of it.

An American Hiroshima
Topic: Nuclear Terrorism
[Important Notice: The PoliticalDevotions.com site has been redesigned and moved to TenMinuteLobbyist.com. The Political Devotions weblog will still be updated and archived, but for the most up-to-date version of site, please visit and bookmark TenMinuteLobbyist.com.]

(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

I hate to serve as the Prophet of Nuclear Doom again this week, but a Nicholas Kristof piece in today's New York Times brings up some crucial issues:

If a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon, a midget even smaller than the one that destroyed Hiroshima, exploded in Times Square, the fireball would reach tens of millions of degrees Fahrenheit.

It would vaporize or destroy the theater district, Madison Square Garden, the Empire State Building, Grand Central Terminal and Carnegie Hall (along with me and my building). The blast would partly destroy a much larger area, including the United Nations. On a weekday some 500,000 people would be killed.

Could this happen?

Unfortunately, it could - and many experts believe that such an attack, somewhere, is likely. The Aspen Strategy Group, a bipartisan assortment of policy mavens, focused on nuclear risks at its annual meeting here last week, and the consensus was twofold: the danger of nuclear terrorism is much greater than the public believes, and our government hasn't done nearly enough to reduce it.

Graham Allison, a Harvard professor whose terrifying new book, "Nuclear Terrorism," offers the example cited above, notes that he did not pluck it from thin air. He writes that on Oct. 11, 2001, exactly a month after 9/11, aides told President Bush that a C.I.A. source code-named Dragonfire had reported that Al Qaeda had obtained a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon and smuggled it into New York City.

The C.I.A. found the report plausible. The weapon had supposedly been stolen from Russia, which indeed has many 10-kiloton weapons. Russia is reported to have lost some of its nuclear materials, and Al Qaeda has mounted a determined effort to get or make such a weapon. [Soon they'll have no problem getting one from Iran -- Ed.] And the C.I.A. had picked up Al Qaeda chatter about an "American Hiroshima."

President Bush dispatched nuclear experts to New York to search for the weapon and sent Dick Cheney and other officials out of town to ensure the continuity of government in case a weapon exploded in Washington instead. But to avoid panic, the White House told no one in New York City, not even Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Dragonfire's report was wrong, but similar reports - that Al Qaeda has its hands on a nuclear weapon from the former Soviet Union - have regularly surfaced in the intelligence community, even though such a report has never been confirmed. We do know several troubling things: Al Qaeda negotiated for a $1.5 million purchase of uranium (apparently of South African origin) from a retired Sudanese cabinet minister; its envoys traveled repeatedly to Central Asia to buy weapons-grade nuclear materials; and Osama bin Laden's top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, boasted, "We sent our people to Moscow, to Tashkent, to other Central Asian states, and they negotiated, and we purchased some suitcase [nuclear] bombs."

Professor Allison offers a standing bet at 51-to-49 odds that, barring radical new antiproliferation steps, a terrorist nuclear strike will occur somewhere in the world in the next 10 years. So I took his bet. If there is no such nuclear attack by August 2014, he owes me $5.10. If there is an attack, I owe him $4.90.

I took the bet because I don't think the odds of nuclear terror are quite as great as he does. If I were guessing wildly, I would say a 20 percent risk over 10 years. In any case, if I lose the bet, then I'll probably be vaporized and won't have much use for money.

Unfortunately, plenty of smart people think I've made a bad bet. William Perry, the former secretary of defense, says there is an even chance of a nuclear terror strike within this decade - that is, in the next six years.

"We're racing toward unprecedented catastrophe," Mr. Perry warns. "This is preventable, but we're not doing the things that could prevent it."

In his closing paragraph, Kristof drags out the tired "Iraq is a distraction" argument and blames the Bush administration for ignoring the nuclear proliferation threat. The accusation is unfair. The nature of nuclear threats is such that we would not necessarily know of all steps taken to thwart them. It is obvious more should be done, but it is Democrat leaders who are preventing that.

Imagine the political hay Democrat strategists would make over a pre-election preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear installations. President Bush probably is aware he should mount such a strike now, but he knows it is too politically dangerous. His actions could leave the country in the hands of a President Kerry, who would spend his days in sackcloth and ashes apologizing to Iran, France, Germany and the rest of the "international community" for this dreadful US "war crime." And the nuclear terror attack would come.

Nevertheless, Kristof's threat assessment quotes and data are correct. In fact, he understates the threat by focusing on an American Hiroshima, involving a weapon of only 10 kilotons. During the Cold War, the Soviets fabricated 20,000 nuclear warheads, many in the multi-megaton class, capable of destroying entire regions of the US. Do we know where all of those are?

We conservatives would do well to keep up our ten minute lobbying against the threat of barbarians with nuclear weapons. And hope that God still has some use for our country.

For more information, see "Nuclear Terrorism" under "Entries by Topic" at at the left of this page.

North Korea: Preemption or Destruction?
Topic: Nuclear Terrorism
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

U.S.: North Korea Works on New Missiles

Thursday August 5, 2004 11:46 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States has determined that North Korea is working on new ballistic missile systems designed to deliver nuclear warheads and that it is testing the technology by proxy in Iran, a Bush administration official said Thursday.

Having agreed to a self-imposed test ban, North Korea is sharing technology information with Iran, which carries out missile tests on North Korea's behalf, the administration official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The missile program is based on Russian technology and has been conducted with help from Russian scientists - help the United States thinks may be continuing, the official said.

A leading military publication, Jane's Defense Week, reported recently that North Korea was developing two new ballistic missile systems that ``appreciably expand the ballistic-missile threat.''

A version of the missile capable of being launched from a submarine or a ship is potentially the most threatening, the weekly said.

Victor Davis Hanson has noted that in war a nation is generally faced with a choice between a bad option and a worse option. North Korea is the paradigm for this aphorism.

In a brilliant October 2003 essay, Gabriel Schoenfeld observed that "If Pakistan is a stick of dynamite, North Korea is a stick of dynamite with a lit fuse."

Today the instant question is: does the US have the political will to extinguish that fuse?

The CIA estimates Kim Jong Il now has enough plutonium for one or two nuclear weapons. If his nuclear ambitions remain unchecked, North Korea will soon produce dozens of nukes annually. It currently boasts a missile capable of hitting the US West Coast and is developing missiles capable of reaching any US city. Yet, even if its psychopath dictator in fear of massive retaliation refrains from attacking the US, he likely will open a clandestine Nukes "R" Us outlet and sell to any rogue state or terrorist group.

Attempts at diplomacy and appeasement (most notably the Jimmy Carter-brokered Yongbyon Agreed Framework) have proved predictably disastrous. In October Schoenfeld observed that it would be "something of a miracle" if the six-nation negotiations succeeded, and recent developments confirm his prescience.

So, what to do? It is clear preemption, or at a minimum pervasive inspections under the credible threat of preemption, are the only reasonable strategies. Yet a preemptive strike against North Korean nuclear facilities would not be pretty.

In 1981 the Israelis destroyed Iraq's Osirak reactor before it "went critical," killing only one person and creating no radioactive contamination. North Korean facilities, however, contain radioactive elements that would create some level of contamination when attacked. Moreover, some facilities are concealed deep inside mountains, making them difficult to destroy from the air with conventional munitions. And any attack would of course encompass only known facilities.

The US would certainly prevail in any resulting hostilities, but the price of extinguishing the "lit fuse" on North Korea would be extremely high. The price of allowing the fuse to burn to detonation would, however, be inestimably higher. As President Bush noted in a June 2002 address at West Point, the US

. . . can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today's threats, and the magnitude of the potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries' choice of weapons, do not permit that option. We cannot let our enemies strike first.

In Romans 14, the Apostle Paul reminds Christians that we will one day "give an account" of our lives before God's judgment seat. I expect believers alive today will be asked the following question:

In the early 21st Century, when communists and Islamists joined forces in a [successful?] attempt to destroy Western civilization with nuclear weapons, what did you do to stop them?

Personally, I'd like to be able to give a good answer.

Our leaders will take bold action only if they are sure the electorate supports it. Use the Ten Minute Lobbyist's Basic Contact Links to inform President Bush, your Representative and Senators of your support for a preemptive strike against North Korean nuclear facilities, should the regime continue to reject demands for complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantling of its nuclear weapons programs.

Barbarians With Nuclear Weapons, Part 12
Topic: Nuclear Terrorism
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

The Mad Mullahs' Manhattan project marches on. There were two pieces of not-so-great news this weekend. From Friday:

Iran Said Insisting on Enriching Uranium

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iran, intensifying a standoff over its nuclear programs, has told European officials it will not back down on its right to proceed with uranium enrichment, a senior U.S. official said on Friday.

"The British and the French tell us Iran insists it will not back down on its right to proceed with enrichment," the official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters.

During a meeting in Paris on Thursday that included Germany, the three European delegations responded that halting uranium enrichment was fundamental to a deal negotiated with Tehran last October, the U.S. official said.

The Europeans added that "nothing else was coming if Iran didn't get back on the road to suspension, leading to cessation of enrichment and reprocessing," the American said.

And from Saturday:

Iran Says it Resumes Building Nuclear Centrifuges

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran said Saturday it had resumed building nuclear centrifuges, which Washington says are intended to enrich uranium to weapons-grade for use in bombs.

Iran's decision backtracks from a pledge in October to the European Union's "big three" members -- Britain, France and Germany -- to suspend all uranium enrichment-related activities.

"We have started building centrifuges," Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi told a news conference.

However he insisted Iran had not resumed enriching uranium, the key part of the process which can either produce fuel for power stations or bomb material.

Iran had previously said it would restart making centrifuges to retaliate against a resolution from the U.N. nuclear watchdog last month deploring Tehran's failure to co-operate fully with inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Diplomats say Iran has also restarted work at a uranium conversion facility near the central city of Isfahan. The plant turns processed ore, or yellowcake, into uranium hexafluoride gas which is pumped into centrifuges to form enriched uranium.

On Sunday Islamist murderbots attacked churches in Iraq and killed 11 Christians. They would like to kill 111 million Christians in the US, of course. They just lack the means to do so. For now.

And what would John Kerry do about this? Well, according to his convention speech: "Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response." After we're nuked, he will certainly do . . . uh . . . something.

As concerned citizens, our two major short-term objectives should be as follows: 1) George W. Bush's re-election. 2) Assuring President Bush that there is popular support for an attack on Iran's nuclear installations, by either the US or Israel, even prior to the election if necessary.

How do we create this popular support? By publicizing the danger, and the solution. On July 12th prominent Evangelicals staged "Marriage Protection Sunday." This was an important effort, but let's get our priorities straight. What we really need is a "Protection From Iranian Nuclear Attack Sunday," lest our same-sex marriages occur amongst the nuclear rubble of a dozen US cities.

Once again: Anyone, including a rogue state or a terrorist network, can win a war if they possess nuclear weapons and are willing to strike first. If we fail in our efforts to prevent such a strike, there will be no second chance.

Certainly such a grave threat warrants at least one communication to your elected officials each week. You can express your support for the attack to president Bush at the White House Contact Page, and use our Take Action page to copy your Representative and Senators.

Israel Ready to Save Western Civilization, Again
Topic: Nuclear Terrorism
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

Heartening news from WorldNetDaily:

Israel Ready to Strike Iran

Israel has conducted military exercises for a pre-emptive strike against several of Iran's nuclear power facilities and is ready to attack if Russia supplies Iran with rods for enriching uranium, Israeli officials told reporters.

An Israeli defense source in Tel Aviv told the London Sunday Times, which first published the story, that "Israel will on no account permit Iranian reactors - especially the one being built in Bushehr with Russian help - to go critical."

The source was also quoted as saying that any strike on Iran's reactors would probably be carried out by long-range F-15I jets, flying over Turkey, with simultaneous operations by commandos on the ground.

Russia is expected to deliver the enriching rods, currently being stored at a Russian port, late next year after a dispute over financial terms is resolved.

"If the worst comes to the worst and international efforts fail," the source said, "we are very confident we'll be able to demolish the ayatollah's nuclear aspirations in one go."

The source explained that any strike could be accompanied by an attack on other Iranian targets, including a facility at Natanz, where the Iranians have attempted to enrich uranium, and a plant at Arak, which International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors suspect of nuclear activity.

The Sunday Times also quoted a senior U.S. official warning of a pre-emptive Israeli strike if Russia continues cooperating with the Iranians. He said Washington was unlikely to block Israeli attacks against Iran.

Let's hope "unlikely to block" means the US also will not take the shameful position it took in 1981, joining the fictitious "international community" in condemning Israel's civilization-saving attack on Saddam's Osirak nuclear reactor.

Recent reports on the Bush administration strategy look promising. Sky News reports:

Bush Sets Sights on Iran

The American government has reportedly set it sights on toppling the regime in Iran if it wins a new term in office.

The US wants to trigger a revolt within Iran by stoking up dissent among the population, a White House official told The Times.

The claim came as an Iranian minister said intelligence services had dismantled all branches of
the country's al Qaeda network.

Iran is part of the "axis of evil" named by the US President along with Iraq and North Korea.

But unlike the toppling of Saddam Hussein, The Times said a change in Iran's rulers would not come about through military action.

However, the anonymous official, known to be a hawk, hinted at a possible strike against Iran's contentious nuclear programme.

Iran has agreed to defuse its nuclear threat but the US remains unconvinced.

"If George Bush is re-elected there will be much more intervention in the internal affairs of Iran," the official said.

Now ask yourself, would John "I'll-make-the-French-like-us-again" Kerry take such action?

If you would like to again express your support for regime change in Iran and a strike against Iranian nuclear targets before the reactors go critical, you can contact the White House here, and use our Take Action page to copy your Senators and Representative.

Mindless Complacency
Topic: Nuclear Terrorism
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

In today's column, one of his best, Charles Krauthammer dares to discuss the elephant in the livingroom:

There is no gradualness and there are no countermeasures to a dozen nuclear warheads detonating simultaneously in American cities. Think of what just two envelopes of anthrax did to paralyze the capital of the world's greatest superpower. A serious, coordinated attack on the United States using WMDs could so shatter the United States as a functioning advanced industrialized society that it would take generations to rebuild.

What is so dismaying is that such an obvious truth needs repeating. The passage of time, the propaganda of the anti-American left, and the setbacks in Iraq have changed nothing of that truth. This is the first time in history the knowledge of how to make society-destroying weapons has been democratized. Today, small radical groups allied with small radical states can do the kind of damage to the world that in the past only a great, strategically located industrialized power like Germany or Japan could do.

It is a new world and exceedingly dangerous. Everything is at stake. We are now deeply engaged in a breastbeating exercise for not having connected the dots before 9/11. And yet here we are three years after 9/11, the dots already connected themselves, and we are under a powerful urge to ignore them completely.

Read it all. Then send it to your elected officials and everyone you know. The first step in preventing nuclear destruction is to stop pretending it can't happen.

Atomic Ayatollahs
Topic: Nuclear Terrorism
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

In a recent piece in heritage.org's commentary section, the Heritage Foundation's Peter Brookes does a fine job of summarizing the Iranian Islamic Bomb crisis:

If the international community lets Iran go nuclear, the U.N.'s Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) would become a laughingstock, and no longer serve as a deterrent to nuclear proliferation. (Over the weekend, Tehran hinted, via a regime-friendly newspaper, at withdrawing from the NPT.)

A nuclear Iran would undermine stability in region, threatening the new Iraqi and Afghan governments and giving Syria and the Saudis strong incentive to go nuclear, too.

And Iran has long-range missiles on the drawing table -- so NATO, Israel and the United States will become at risk.

It seems obvious: The Iranians aren't interested in negotiations -- they're interested in having the bomb.

His conclusion is, unfortunately, not so perceptive:

. . .It's time for the U.N. Security Council to insist on broad, multilateral economic sanctions. . . .

We've tried to counter Iran's nuclear intentions through mommy-coddling diplomatic means for long enough: That approach has failed miserably.

It's time we all recognize this fact and agree to take the matter to the Security Council for more drastic action.

I'm no Heritage Foundation scholar, but something tells me UN sanctions will be, to put it kindly, less than effective. You'll recall Saddam managed to build a raft of palaces and remain quite fat and happy while under sanctions.

The ballistic sanctions the Israelis rained down on his Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 worked quite well, however.

How Many Warnings?
Topic: Nuclear Terrorism
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

[Ed. Note: For the benefit of new readers, I'm re-running, with some modifications, this May 27, 2004 entry. It gives a feel for what makes this site different from the bulk of Christian activism sites, most of which focus on cultural/sexual issues such as homosexuality, pornography and abortion. While those issues certainly are not ignored here, the threat of nuclear weapons in the hands of Islamist madmen is given priority. If the US's millions of conservative Christian citizens fail to urge their leaders to address this threat, the consequences to Western civilization, and Christian evangelism, will be devastating.]

Eventually, God is going to lose patience with us.

As the always-eloquent Charles Krauthammer put it last night on Fox, it appears Al Gore is off his lithium again. But for the fact that a few farmisht Florida seniors accidentally marked their ballots for Pat Buchanan, this barking lunatic would be president. For those who say there is no God, I point to the results of the 2000 presidential election. Let's call the narrowly averted catastrophe of a Gore presidency Big Warning A, and let's call 9-11 Big Warning B.

Will God in his grace give us another chance in the form of a Big Warning C, or will he allow us to reap that which our narcissism, laziness and cowardice have sown? How long before Al Qaeda's stated objective of slaughtering four million Americans is achieved?

And of course the dream doesn't end there. The Islamist's vision is a worldwide caliphate, what Krauthammer has called "Taliban Afghanistan, writ large."

Allow me to repeat my familiar refrain: Anyone, including a rogue state or a terrorist network, can win a war if they possess nuclear weapons and are willing to strike first.

The World War II generation, the Greatest Generation, never questioned the morality of annihilating America's enemies before they could annihilate the US. Can an America populated with the Baby Boom generation, the Worst Generation, find that resolve? The central question is: What are we prepared to do?

Are we prepared to do whatever is necessary to win in Iraq, which President Bush properly characterizes as the major overseas front in the war on Islamic terror? Are we prepared to take the battle to other necessary fronts, such as Iran and North Korea?

And on the home front, are we prepared to deport, at least for the duration of the war, all non-US citizens from terrorist-sponsoring states? To place armed forces and an Israeli-style fence on our borders? To employ racial, ethnic and religious profiling in immigration, transportation security and law enforcement? To institute strict immigration controls to avoid a demographic shift that would gradually transform the US into just another Islamic hellhole, as is occurring in Europe as we speak?

Yes, these are drastic steps. But, in a world threatened by the Islamic Bomb, they are necessary.

Will Western historians one day recount the early 21st century as the era in which the US used all its powers to avert a new Dark Ages? Or will there be no future Western historians, only a glorious history of Allah's destruction of the Crusaders' empire, written by authorization of the world's ruling mullahs?

Our resolve, and our action, will decide these questions. God has warned us twice. We should not expect his indulgence forever.

Intolerable
Topic: Nuclear Terrorism
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

A recent Washington Times editorial does a great job of getting to the bottom line concerning the Iranian nuclear threat:

Iran's Mushrooming Threat

When it comes to displaying a calculated contempt for the United States, Europe and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over nuclear weapons development, the mullahcrats in Tehran are in a class with the Pyongyang Stalinists.

As the IAEA meets in Vienna to consider a European-drafted resolution pointing to Iran's continued refusal to come clean about its nuclear program, representatives of the Islamist regime continue to threaten the agency. The speaker of the Iranian parliament warned on June 15 that members may not ratify Iran's signature to an additional protocol to the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) -- something insisted on by the IAEA after it discovered that Tehran was attempting to develop atomic weapons in violation of its obligations as a signer of the NPT. The speaker, Gholam Ali Hadad-Adel, suggested that by pressing Iran to tell the truth, the Europeans were doing the bidding of nefarious "Zionists." Late last month, the head of Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guards warned that that the regime was prepared to launch suicide attacks or missile strikes against "29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West."

Iranian President Mohammed Khatami (who is usually depicted in the Western press as a moderate) has denounced three European Union countries (Britain, France and Germany, known as the "EU 3") who have tried to put together a compromise arrangement in which Iran verifiably ends its pursuit of atomic weapons -- much as Libya has. Indeed, Mr. Khatami has hinted that Iran will withdraw from the NPT if the international community tries to force it to tell the truth about its nuclear activities.

Unfortunately, there is little evidence thus far that either the United States or the EU 3 will move decisively to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. While Britain and France seem to be inching toward a somewhat tougher approach, they have shown little interest in putting any kind of a deadline on Tehran. While Washington has done a commendable job of articulating the problem that would be posed by nuclear weapons in the hands of rogue governments like the one in Iran, it has shown little stomach for confronting the regime anytime this year. While the West delays taking action, congressional investigators reported on June 15 that Beijing is sending nuclear technology to Iran in exchange for oil.

In short, while we pass resolutions at the IAEA, the situation grows more dangerous. It is looking more and more like 2005 will be the critical year when the West will decide whether it is prepared to live with an Iranian atomic bomb, or take decisive action to prevent one from being developed. We understand that the United States and Europe are exhausted by Iraq, but we don't have the luxury of being exhausted. The truth is that the world will become a much more dangerous place if Iran -- ruled by a violent, paranoid cabal that routinely employs terrorism as an instrument of state policy -- is allowed to acquire a nuclear capacity. That would be intolerable.

For more analysis, and links for taking action, check out our "Barbarians With Nuclear Weapons Series" by clicking on "Nuclear Terrorism" under "Entries by Topic" at the left of this page.

Five Questions on the Murder of Paul Johnson
Topic: Nuclear Terrorism
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

[Ed. Note: This entry is identical to one I posted shortly after Nick Berg's murder. Sadly, the only change necessary was to the victim's name. The issues raised remain the same.]

Does anyone believe that the scum who murdered Mr. Johnson will hesitate for one second to detonate nuclear weapons in the US, as soon as they get them?

Does anyone believe that if Mexican busboys and multi-ton shipments of cocaine can easily penetrate our borders, Islamic terrorists and nuclear weapons cannot?

Does anyone know why immigrants from terrorist-sponsoring states are here, and more are still allowed entry? How much immigration from Germany and Japan was allowed during World War II?

Does anyone know what will awaken our country, if 9-11 and the parade of Moslem atrocities following it have not?

And, on a related topic, how is the beheading of a fetus in the womb less barbaric than what happened to Mr. Berg?

Just asking.

Barbarians With Nuclear Weapons, Part 11
Topic: Nuclear Terrorism
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

A recent Wall Street Journal editorial noted the indifference with which the "international community," and possibly even the Bush administration, is treating the Iranian mullahs' nuclear weapons program:

We've heard a disturbing number of quiet remarks in Washington and other Western capitals recently to the effect that the world will just have to "get used to" the idea of the Iranians having nukes. Have these people thought through the consequences of such resignation? With the presumed American security umbrella suddenly jeopardized by the mullahs' bomb, the political calculations of every Mideast government would change. Many countries may conclude they themselves have no choice but to go nuclear, and the world could be off to another nuclear arms race.

Last year the U.S. deferred to the Europeans as they brokered an inspection agreement with Iran that the mullahs have since violated with impunity. In other words, the "multilateral" diplomatic path is failing. The question is whether anyone important is going to admit this reality. If not, we at least hope Washington is preparing covert and military options to sabotage the Iranian program, and to step up aid to those Iranians wishing a fundamental change in their terror-sponsoring regime. History will not look kindly on the leaders who let Iran get the bomb on their watch.

Let's hope the Bush administration's retreat to the ropes is only a tactic -- a setup for a post-election knockout punch. If not, then the WSJ is correct in predicting a Mideast arms race. The race will be a short one, however, since the new weapons will be detonated soon after their manufacture. Mutual Assured Destruction worked because those on both sides of the Cold War wanted to live. But for the jihadis, a heavenly whorehouse full of virgins awaits "martyrs" who murder westerners in general, and Jews and Christians in particular.

Use the White House contact page to again remind President Bush that you will support prevention of the Iranian Islamic Bomb by all available means.

Barbarians With Nuclear Weapons, Part 10
Topic: Nuclear Terrorism
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

In a recent piece in National Review Online, Michael Ledeen analyzes a declaration of war made by a top Iranian official in a speech to regime loyalists at the Technical College of Tehran. Ledeen notes Iran is sabotaging the US economy, organizing terror attacks on our soil, and is speeding toward acquisition of nuclear weapons. And he offers a fair challenge to President Bush:

You'd have thought this president, who has spoken so often and so well about his support for freedom in Iran, would have long since insisted that his administration develop a coherent policy to support the Iranian people's desire to rid themselves of these murderous mullahs. It hasn't happened. Moreover, President Bush eloquently and spontaneously condemns the mullahs in private conversations as well as in public speeches, yet he seems oddly detached from his State Department's slow mating dance with the black widows in Tehran.

Sooner or later we will be forced to fight back against the mullahs, because their war against us is driven by fanatical hatred of everything we stand for and the knowledge that their regime is doomed if we succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no escape from this war, whatever the appeasers in Foggy Bottom may think. We can win or lose, but we can't get out of it.

Faster, please.

If you would like to ask that President Bush order his administration to develop and articulate a policy on Iranian regime change, you can do so at this page at Whitehouse.gov.

Five Questions on the Murder of Nick Berg
Topic: Nuclear Terrorism
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

Does anyone believe that the scum who murdered Mr. Berg will hesitate for one second to detonate nuclear weapons in the US, as soon as they get them?

Does anyone believe that if Mexican busboys and multi-ton shipments of cocaine can easily penetrate our borders, Islamic terrorists and nuclear weapons cannot?

Does anyone know why immigrants from terrorist-sponsoring states are here, and more are still allowed entry? How much immigration from Germany and Japan was allowed during World War II?

Does anyone know what will awaken our country, if 9-11 and the parade of Moslem atrocities following it have not?

And, on a related topic, how is the beheading of a fetus in the womb less barbaric than what happened to Mr. Berg?

Just asking.

Barbarians With Nuclear Weapons, Part 9
Topic: Nuclear Terrorism
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

From Army Radio, via the Jerusalem Post, comes news that Israel, whose 1981 attack on Saddam's Osirak nuclear reactor saved Western civilization from nuclear terror, may be rehearsing for a repeat performance:

US: Israel may strike Iranian nuclear plants

Israel may be preparing to attack Iranian nuclear facilities within the year, according to US administration assessments reported on Army Radio Saturday morning.

Officials say that the attempt to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons has been discussed at various levels, as well as the effects such an attack would have on US military and political efforts in Iraq and in the Persian Gulf.

The UPI news service says President George Bush and Prime Minster Ariel Sharon recently discussed the subject at their most recent meeting. Following the meeting, Bush said it was inconceivable for the Middle East for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

When the attack occurs, the "international community" will howl, of course. But hopefully the US will not make the same mistake it made in 1981 by condemning what would be a key move in winning the war on Islamic terror.

Use our Take Action page to urge President Bush to, upon news of the Israeli strike, send Ariel Sharon a nice fruit basket and a thank you note.

(For more on nuclear terrorism, click the "Nuclear Terrorism" link on the topics list at the upper left of this page.)

New Nukes
Topic: Nuclear Terrorism

(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

The Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal.com reports on canny analysis by the Defense Science Board:

Rethinking Armageddon - The Case for Low-Yield Nukes

No one likes to consider the possibility of nuclear war. But somebody's got to do it, and that sober duty fell recently to a special task force of the Defense Science Board, which has just recommended useful changes to the U.S. strategic arsenal to fit our post-September 11 world.

First we should note what the task force does not want to change--the high threshold for use of nuclear weapons. "It is, and will likely remain, American policy to keep the nuclear threshold high and to pursue non-nuclear attack options whenever possible. Nothing in our assessment or recommendations seeks to change that goal," the panel writes. "Nevertheless, in extreme circumstances, the president may have no choice but to turn to nuclear options."

The scenarios the task force envisions aren't, regrettably, all that extreme. High on the list would be eliminating an enemy's weapons of mass destruction before it has a chance to use them on us. (Think rogue states and assorted terrorist groups.) Or removing an adversary's regime while saving a country (North Korea). Or ending a WMD war quickly (India-Pakistan).

The task force argues that we need a better nuclear doctrine than the mutually assured destruction, or MAD, of the Cold War. Current plans to refurbish the nation's stockpile of nuclear weapons from the 1970s and '80s "will not meet the country's future needs," the report says. Large, high-fallout nuclear weapons designed to obliterate cities won't deter terrorists who might doubt that a President would use them in response to an attack.

Rather, the task force wants to see the U.S. nuclear arsenal expanded to include more precise, lower-yield weapons--especially those that could penetrate targets buried deep underground where conventional weapons can't reach. The idea is to give a President the option of incinerating enemy weapons, leaders and command-and-control systems with as little damage as possible to civilians. Having the option of highly precise nuclear weapons with greatly reduced radioactivity would also make the threat of their use more believable to terrorists contemplating attacks on the U.S. or allies.

WSJ notes there are critics in Congress who deem any proposed change in nuclear policy provocative, and who are already on record as opposing the Bush Administration's push for development of new, low-yield nuclear weapons. That these new weapons are designed to save innocent lives doesn't seem to impress them. Use our Take Action page to ask your elected representatives for their position on the Board's recommendations.

Barbarians With Nuclear Weapons, Part 8
Topic: Nuclear Terrorism

More not-so-great news on the Mad Mullahs' Manhattan Project:

More Bomb-Grade Uranium Found in Iran

VIENNA (Reuters) - The U.N. atomic watchdog has found traces of bomb-grade uranium in Iran at sites other than the two already named, but diplomats say it is unclear if this boosts U.S. claims that Tehran wants an atom bomb.

"They found highly-enriched uranium at more sites than Kalaye and Natanz," a Western diplomat told Reuters on Friday on condition of anonymity. The diplomat did not specify how many sites, where they were or when the traces were found.

Last year, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported finding traces of uranium that had been enriched to a point where it contained about 90 percent of the fissile uranium atom U-235 at the Natanz enrichment plant and a workshop at the Kalaye Electric Company.

Uranium with such a high concentration of U-235 has few civilian uses but is the ideal purity level for a nuclear bomb. . . .

Iran says its atomic ambitions are limited to the generation of electricity.

I suppose that with this "Barbarians" series I'm starting to sound like The Prophet of Nuclear Doom -- an alarmist. But so be it. Shouldn't someone trip the alarm when there actually is a fire?

The Islamic Bomb today ranks as the gravest threat to Western civilization, with the Barking Lunatic North Korean Dictator Bomb running a very close second.

The issue is not complicated. Anyone, including a rogue state or a terrorist network, can win a war if they possess nuclear weapons and are willing to strike first.

Somewhere between 40- and 50 million Americans have seen Mel Gibson's The Passion since its Ash Wednesday opening. Suppose today each of those good folks decided to send a message to their elected officials, letting them know that they too consider barbarians with nuclear weapons to be the public affairs issue that trumps all others, and that should military action to remove the threat become necessary, they will support President Bush in doing whatever is required.

A hundred years from now, perceptive historians would remember it as the beginning of religious conservatism's successful campaign to save Western civilization in the early 21st century.

Use our Take Action page to send that message to your elected officials, then urge everyone you know who has seen The Passion to put their faith to work and do the same.

(If you find this site useful and would like to help make political devotions a mass movement, please tell others about PoliticalDevotions.com or place a link to it on your website. Then when you've done so, be sure to e-mail me so I can thank you personally! - Tim.)

Barbarians With Nuclear Weapons, Part 7
Topic: Nuclear Terrorism

From the LA Daily News:

North Korea rejects U.S. nuke demand

Saturday, March 27, 2004 - SEOUL, South Korea -- North Korea on Saturday rejected a U.S. demand for a "complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantling" of its nuclear weapons programs, calling it a plot to start a war and overthrow the government.

. . . North Korea's state-run Radio Pyongyang, monitored by South Korea's Yonhap news agency, said Saturday that it would never accept the U.S. demand that it first dismantle its nuclear facilities.

"Complete nuclear dismantling is a plot to overthrow the North's socialist system after stripping it of its nuclear deterrent at no cost at all. 'Verifiable nuclear dismantling' reflects a U.S. intention to spy on our military capabilities before starting a war," it said.

"'Irreversible nuclear dismantling' is nothing other than a noose to stifle us after eradicating our peaceful nuclear-energy industry," it added.

North Korea says it will allow nuclear inspections and dismantle its atomic facilities only if the United States provides economic aid and written guarantees that U.S. forces will not invade.

The country also insists that it will keep a nuclear program for power generation.

Washington demands that North Korea first dismantle all its nuclear facilities, saying it has previously broken international agreements not to develop nuclear weapons in return for oil and other economic aid.

In a brilliant October 2003 essay, Gabriel Schoenfeld observed that "If Pakistan is a stick of dynamite, North Korea is a stick of dynamite with a lit fuse."

Today the instant question is: does the US have the political will to extinguish that fuse?

The CIA estimates Kim Jong Il now has enough plutonium for one or two nuclear weapons. If his nuclear ambitions remain unchecked, North Korea will soon produce dozens of nukes annually. It currently boasts a missile capable of hitting the US West Coast and is developing one able to reach any US city. Yet, even if its psychopath dictator in fear of massive retaliation elects to refrain from attacking the US, he likely will open a clandestine Nukes "R" Us outlet and sell to any rogue state or terrorist group.

Attempts at diplomacy and appeasement (most notably the Jimmy Carter-brokered Yongbyon Agreed Framework) have proved predictably disastrous. In October Schoenfeld observed that it would be "something of a miracle" if the six-nation negotiations succeeded, and recent developments confirm his prescience.

So, what to do? It is clear preemption, or at a minimum pervasive inspections under the credible threat of preemption, are the only reasonable strategies. Yet a preemptive strike against North Korean nuclear facilities would not be pretty.

In 1981 the Israelis destroyed Iraq's Osirak reactor before it "went critical," killing only one person and creating no radioactive contamination. North Korean facilities, however, contain radioactive elements that would create some level of contamination when attacked. Moreover, some facilities are concealed deep inside mountains, making them difficult to destroy from the air with conventional munitions. And any attack would of course encompass only known facilities.

The US would certainly prevail in any resulting hostilities, but the price of extinguishing the "lit fuse" on North Korea would be extremely high. The price of allowing the fuse to burn to detonation would, however, be inestimably higher. As President Bush noted in a June 2002 address at West Point, the US

. . . can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today's threats, and the magnitude of the potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries' choice of weapons, do not permit that option. We cannot let our enemies strike first.

In Romans 14, the Apostle Paul reminds all of us that we will one day "give an account" of our lives before God's judgment seat. I expect believers alive today will be asked the following question:

In the early 21st Century, when communists and Islamists joined forces in a [successful?] attempt to destroy Western civilization with nuclear weapons, what did you do to stop them?

Personally, I'd like to be able to give a good answer.

Our leaders will take bold action only if they are sure the electorate supports it. Use our Take Action page to inform President Bush and your representatives of your support for a preemptive strike against North Korean nuclear facilities, should the regime continue to reject demands for complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantling of its nuclear weapons programs.

(If you find this site useful and would like to help make political devotions a mass movement, please tell others about PoliticalDevotions.com or place a link to it on your website. Then when you've done so, be sure to e-mail me so I can thank you personally! - Tim.)

Barbarians With Nuclear Weapons, Part 6
Topic: Nuclear Terrorism

On Tuesday Peter Brookes, a senior fellow for National Security Affairs at the Heritage Foundation wrote of Iran's nuclear weapons cat-and-mouse game with the International Atomic Energy Agency:

The question is: What to do?

The administration clearly has its hands full with Iraq, North Korea, Afghanistan and terrorism. Dealing with Iran would be serious business as well. And there is a reasonable argument for letting the EU Three's position of gentle coercion play out a bit more.

Problem is, time is on Iran's side. The longer they can keep the program going, the more progress the mullahs can make toward the bomb.

The prospects for keeping the Iranian Pandora's box closed look pretty bleak. The EU's agreement appears doomed to failure. The Iranian case is particularly troubling because of the regime's sponsorship of international terrorism and its close alliance with Syria, another nuclear aspirant.

Iran has been threatened before about being dragged before the Security Council, but threats demonstrably didn't win compliance. So it's probably high time to actually involve the council.

Multilateral sanctions might do the trick. Economic sanctions can be painful and have worked in the past. Libya is (seemingly) turning over a new leaf because of them. North Korea is begging for aid because of sanctions. And sanctions clearly hurt Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs.

But continued threats, without genuine action, are as meaningless as Iran's promises have proven to be.

Keeping the bomb in the box is a tough job, but somebody's got to do it.

Yet Tuesday night the AP reported the US has acquiesced to European pressure and will attempt to strike cold fear into the mad mullahs with, brace yourself, a not-so-sternly-worded resolution:

Accepting painful compromises, the United States agreed with key European nations on Tuesday to tone down criticism of Iran for its continued nuclear secrecy.

Washington also accepted a draft resolution containing some praise of Tehran's willingness to open its nuclear programs to outside inspection.

Both sides signed off on the draft document prepared for a high-level conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency after days of grueling negotiations aimed at finding the proper mix of praise and criticism.

The United States insists Iran is interested in making nuclear weapons. Washington wanted the meeting to condemn Iran for not fully living up to pledges to reveal all past and present nuclear activities while keeping open options for future involvement by the U.N. Security Council.

France, Germany and Britain, however, wanted to focus on Iranian cooperation with the IAEA that began only after the discovery last year that Tehran had plans to enrich uranium and secretly conducted other tests with possible weapons applications over nearly two decades.

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei told reporters negotiations continued on final language. The text of the document still must be approved by all 35 nations of the IAEA board of governors.

Permit me to speak to the IAEA and European and US leadership in the words of the beleaguered history teacher Mr. Hand in Fast Times at Ridgemont High: "Are all you people on dope???"

Does anyone with two brain cells to rub together believe for one moment that Iran will be moved to compliance by anything less than sanctions and the open threat of military action? Does anyone believe that, once the ruling lunocrats have stalled long enough to complete their Manhattan project, they will hesitate for one second before using their shiny new nuclear Islamic bomb(s) on the US and/or Israel?

This problem will be solved only by pervasive, intrusive inspections throughout Iran, something the existing regime will never permit while it has the quite rational hope of achieving nuclear capability by exploiting the IAEA's seemingly infinite patience.

Use our Take Action page to advise President Bush and your representatives of your support for stern measures, including sanctions and military action, to enforce a no-nascent-nukes policy toward Iran.

(If you find this site useful and would like to help make political devotions a mass movement, please tell others about PoliticalDevotions.com or place a link to it on your website. Then when you've done so, be sure to e-mail me so I can thank you personally! - Tim.)

Barbarians With Nuclear Weapons, Part 5
Topic: Nuclear Terrorism

The CIA estimates North Korea now has enough plutonium for one or two nuclear weapons. If its nuclear ambitions remain unchecked, it will soon produce dozens annually and become a Nukes "R" Us, selling to any rogue state or terrorist group.

In addition to the eight declared nuclear nations, two dozen states have research reactors and enough highly enriched uranium to build at least one bomb on their own. The global nuclear inventory comprises more than 30,000 nuclear weapons, and enough highly enriched uranium and plutonium for 240,000 more. Hundreds of the existing weapons are vulnerable to theft.

A nuclear weapon can be created from an amount of uranium a little larger than a softball, and can be easily smuggled across porous US borders or in the 98% of cargo containers not opened for inspection at US ports.

Osama bin Laden's "press spokesman," Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, has announced al Qaeda aspires to "kill 4 million Americans, including 1 million children."

These are the hard facts that confront us in our war to save Western civilization. In a 4000-word essay in the January/February edition of Foreign Affairs, Harvard professor Graham Allison focuses on the Bush administration's need to develop a coherent strategy for combating the nuclear terror threat, and gives a sobering prediction that unless changes occur, a nuclear terror attack on the US within the next decade is "more likely than not."

Allison gives short shrift to the importance of the Iraq war, yet at the same time he offers a workable strategy centered around "Three No's" - no loose nukes, no new nascent nukes, and no new nuclear states. His is not a toothless UN-style appeasement protocol; it includes both the threat and use of military force when necessary. He observes that while enforcement of a doctrine based on the Three No's would be ambitious, it is no more ambitious than enforcement of the Bush Doctrine of regime change in terrorist-harboring states.

Use our Take Action page to advocate to your representatives the adoption of a formal Bush Doctrine of zero tolerance for barbarians with nuclear weapons, employing a strategy akin to Allison's "Three No's."

(If you find this site useful and would like to help make political devotions a mass movement, please tell others about PoliticalDevotions.com or place a link to it on your website. Then when you've done so, be sure to e-mail me so I can thank you personally! - Tim.)