Caution on Military Involvement in Iran or Syria

On the radar: Not blundering into war; Limited capability, unbelievable expense; B61 boondoggle; Positioning on global strike; and the Ideology under the EMP tinfoil hat.

May 24, 2013 | Edited by Benjamin Loehrke and Alyssa Demus

On Memorial Day - Politicians today glibly push for US military intervention in Syria or starting a war with Iran. Yet, as Barry Blechman notes, “Every U.S. military intervention takes surprising turns and is beset by unexpected problems. Victory looks a lot easier in the planning stages than it does once the bullets and bombs are flying.”

--If the U.S. gets involved in Syria, the unforeseen consequences would be many and grave. With Iran, “no one can predict with certainty how effective [military strikes against its nuclear program] would be or how [the conflict] might evolve,” writes Blechman.

--”As I look back at U.S. military involvements in my lifetime, I see many wars in which America accomplished great things -- defending vital U.S. interests or sacrificing in defense of international law. There may be such necessary cases in the future, such as honoring the U.S. commitment to defend South Korea. But I also see wars in which the United States blundered into complicated situations with disastrous results for the country and for others. America's leaders should learn from the country's previous military involvements. They should not casually initiate conflict with only limited understanding of complex situations. It's past time for greater caution in commitments of U.S. military forces, particularly in the Middle East.” http://bit.ly/18bQcZu

Costs - “War with Iran? Revisiting the Potentially Staggering Costs to the Global Economy” by Charles Blair on the Federation of American Scientists’ “Strategic Security Blog.” http://bit.ly/Z5dX0a

Welcome to Early Warning - Subscribe to our morning email or follow us on twitter.

--Have a tip or feedback for the editor? Email earlywarning@ploughshares.org earlywarning@ploughshares.org. Want to support this work? Click here.

Small return on investment - Earlier this month Lieutenant General Richard Formica, commander of US Army space and missile defense command, told lawmakers the Missile Defense Agency has “confidence in the ability of the ballistic missile defense system to defend the United States against a limited attack from both North Korea and Iran today and in the near future.” Experts in the field disagree with the military’s claims of the system’s success.

--”The Pentagon's tests only offer ‘the appearances of success,’ as the trajectory, the timing of the launch and the type of missile being fired are all known in advance.” Despite the $158 billion spent on the system since its inception, recent testing reports “acknowledge the ground based interceptors so far have ‘demonstrated a limited capability against a simple threat,’” writes Dan De Luce at AFP. Full story here. http://owl.li/lmAUV

Tweet - @armscontrolnow: North Korea Envoy Agrees to Dialogue, China Says, in Possible Sign for Nuclear Talks. nyti.ms/14CBjLQ

Podcast - “Options for Reducing Nuclear Arms,” Bruce Blair, Steven Pifer, and Keith Payne. Moderated by Michael O’Hanlon.” Arms Control Initiative at Brookings event. http://owl.li/lmDB1

Unreal cost for unreal mission - The NNSA is spending “a whopping $10.4 billion” to upgrade a bomb originally deployed in Europe to prevent the Soviets from invading. “Half a century later, approximately 180 of these weapons are still stored in Europe, fending off an attack that will never come,” because the threat no longer exists. European officials, who recognize the B-61’s “military utility has disappeared along with the Soviet Union,” may not even want the bomb.

--”The B61 is a classic example of the culture of wasteful spending that has seeped into the federal government...Such short-sighted planning and ballooning costs would never be acceptable to the executives of a private corporation. Congress shouldn’t accept them either,” writes Usha Sahay in The Daily Record. http://owl.li/lmyyC

Moscow’s positioning - Future negotiations on nuclear reductions should include limitations on non-nuclear precision-guided weapons, said Gen. Valery Gerasimov Russia’s top military officer, in remarks at Moscow’s international security conference. The US development of conventional prompt global strike weapons concerns the Kremlin because it says these weapons “could tilt the balance of power.” The Washington Post has the story. http://owl.li/lmuKA

Tweet - @NobelWomen: Today is Int'l Women’s Day for Peace & Disarmament! It began in Europe in the 1980s when women organized vs. nuclear weapons & the arms race.

Tweet - @frankmunger: In budget parlance, UPF is now UCRP. http://t.co/dFMECppCyr

Events:

--Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and NATO officials meet with Russian officials to discuss missile defense. Moscow. May 23-24.

--"Nuclear Terrorism: What’s at Stake?" Jay Cohen, David Waller, Stephen Flynn, Stanton Sloane. May 29 8:00-9:30 am. American Security Project. 1100 New York Ave, NW, Seventh Floor, West Tower. Details here. http://owl.li/lcEuT

--”The Kaleidoscope Turns Again in a Crisis-Challenged Iran,” Yasmin Alem and Suzanne Maloney, moderated by Barbara Slavin. May 30, 12:00-1:30 pm @ The Atlantic Council. Details here. http://owl.li/l8cYq

--”Ballistic Missile Defense- Technical, Strategic and Arms Control Challenges.” Discussion with Phil Coyle, George Lewis and Bruce MacDonald, Pierce Corden and Charles Ferguson to moderate. June 6th from 4:45-7:00pm at AAAS, reception to follow. Details here. http://bit.ly/188gZ90

Dessert:

Tweet - @scottcarson1957: Detailed map of [the National Test Site] - http://bit.ly/18nPE0d

Lights out on EMP hype - In one of the weirder corners of nuclear politics, there’s a bunch of people in Washington that hype the threat of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) - a phenomenon from nuclear explosions that can hassle electrical circuits and technology. The hype claims that a smaller nuclear explosion in the sky could break your electronics and collapse modern civilization. Actually, when the US detonated an enormous weapon in the skies near Hawaii in 1962, tourists briefly marveled at it from Waikiki and a couple street lights experienced failures.

--“The bottom line is that there simply isn't enough evidence to support the wild claim that a single nuclear weapon, or even a few, detonated at high altitudes would pose an ‘existential threat’ to ‘modern civilization,’...It would be a nuisance, but preferable to having the bomb detonate in a major city,” writes Jeffrey Lewis in Foreign Policy.

--Lewis discusses the claims about EMPs and the strange politics and hapless isolationist ideologies of the people that hype the threat. http://atfp.co/19a7gxH