Should We Be Encouraging Israel to Attack Iran?

I was surprised to find both of my senators, Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, cosponsoring Senator Lindsey Graham’s Senate Resolution 65, which “urges that, if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action [against Iran] in self-defense, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel.” The problem isn’t if Israel attacks Iran in actual self-defense. But many nations, my own included, have sometimes attacked in the belief they were acting in self-defense, but were later found to be mistaken. Given its birth soon after the Holocaust and the history of Arab enmity, Israel is more likely than most to make such a mistake, and it concerned me that one of my senators was emboldening Israel in ways to make that even more likely.

The Wisdom of Foolishness

Recently I was named as one of Stanford University’s Engineering Heroes. With only 23 people inducted thus far, it was an honor to be includied with Hewlett, Packard and others of similar stature. As part of the induction process, I gave a talk on “The Wisdom of Foolishness” and, while it is more general than this blog, it provides a subtler way to introduce new people to the issue. If you’d like to watch it or suggest it to friends, it’s on Stanford’s YouTube channel.

US Unwittingly Encouraging North Korea’s Nuclear Program

While encouraging nuclear proliferation is one of the last things we want to do, we couldn’t be doing a better job if we tried. Every time we engage in regime change, we give would-be proliferators one more reason to seek nuclear weapons of their own. What other way do they have of deterring our much more powerful military from toppling them at some future date?

Risky Business, Part II

My last post highlighted a little-known nuclear risk during the 9/11 terrorist attacks, involving the mistaken belief of an American F-16 pilot that the Pentagon had been attacked by the Russians instead of terrorists. Nuclear risk also was enhanced on 9/11 by positive feedback in Russian and American nuclear alerts. Unsure of who had perpetrated the attacks, the U.S. increased its alert status to DEFCON 3, almost leading the Russians to take similar action, possibly setting in motion an escalation loop leading to higher and higher levels of alert — and danger.

Risky Business

Even though the Cold War is supposed to have ended, the US and Russia still test each other’s air defenses. How much risk is there in such actions? More than one might think. 

Russia Hit by 400 Kiloton Blast

A meteor hit Russia with a 300 to 500 kiloton blast yesterday morning, injuring at least 950 people. Since the blast was comparable to that of a strategic nuclear warhead, how much risk there is of a similar event being mistaken for a nuclear attack and igniting an accidental, but horrific war. 

A More Effecitive Approach to North Korea’s Nuclear Program

North Korea appears to have conducted its third nuclear test today, with a New York Times article stating, “a magnitude 3.9 magnitude earthquake and a magnitude 4.5 earthquake were detected in the North’s 2006 and 2009 nuclear tests. South Korean, U.S. and Japanese seismic monitoring agencies put the magnitude of Tuesday’s quake between 4.9 and 5.2.”

Since each increase of 1.0 corresponds to 31.6 times as much yield and estimates of the 2009 test ranged from 2.4 kton to 20 kton, today’s test seems to have yielded between 15 and 100 kton. While a dangerous and highly regrettable event, this third North Korean nuclear test was an accident waiting to happen – and one which might well have been averted if the US had adopted a more effective approach to the North’s nuclear program.