The American Spectator : Thinking About Bombing Iran

Text Size

Thinking About Bombing Iran

By George H. Wittman on 3.19.10 @ 6:07AM

Not as unthinkable as the Washington establishment would have it.

According to an article in the Financial Times, "Do Not Even Think About Bombing Iran" by Michael O'Hanlon and Bruce Riedel, both of the Brookings Institution, "the strike option" on Iranian nuclear facilities "lacks credibility." The authors believe that this is so because of "Iran's ability to retaliate against the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan…" This logic, like much else in this anti-war polemic posing as analysis, just doesn't withstand scrutiny.

It would have been far better if O'Hanlon/Riedel admitted from the beginning that they, like the Obama Administration, have no stomach for an attack on a murderous, ambition-crazed, self-perpetuating and self-justifying theocracy in the Middle East that seeks to dominate the region. Instead the authors prefer to present unsupported arguments such as, "… even a massive strike would not slow Iran's progress toward a bomb for long."

What militarily and technically inaccurate pap! For some reason O'Hanlon/Riedel seem to believe that operational nuclear weapon and development sites are actually capable of being hidden from counteraction. They present as evidence the fact that the media discovered a new nuclear development site in Qom last year. Digging in the middle of a major city can't be seen on the ground or by satellite, eh?

Obviously these authors -- and other liberal Washington pundits -- are thinking only in conventional weapon terms in relation to any attack on Iranian nuclear weapon facilities. There is no reason for such a limitation. There are a panoply of classified exotic systems currently available to disrupt and destroy any and all Iranian attack modes, nuclear or not. The claim that O'Hanlon/Riedel make that "Iran can rebuild fairly fast…" is again based on a perception that only conventional weapons would be available for use in the current international political context.

The FT column argues that President Obama would not militarily attack Iran because he is bound by "his effort to recast the U.S. as a country playing by international legal norms." Here is where O'Hanlon/Riedel may be completely correct. Obama has shown very little stomach for directly countering military threats. He certainly will stretch out as long as possible the program of sanctions along with diplomatic threats.

A key point in the O'Hanlon/Riedel argument is that Iran has already supported terrorist attacks and proxy wars on Israel and the United States. They contend that the danger of Iranian nuclear weapon buildup is lessened by the fact that Tehran has done quite well in its efforts at conventional and irregular warfare. Suggesting that Iran shouldn't waste time pursuing nuclear weapons when it's already doing so well with terrorists and surrogate forces doesn't seem to hold much potential.

The O'Hanlon/Riedel commentary neglects to consider Israel's unilateral capability to defend itself whenever it perceives imminent danger from Iran. The article offers the suggestion: "We should also pledge to provide a nuclear umbrella over Israel and other threatened states." The authors ignore this protection has been implicit in the Middle East, and elsewhere, for decades.

It is also possible, however, to consider the use of the currently highly classified weapons mentioned earlier. Certain of these weapons are already available and could be utilized at a point when Iran is seen to have created its first nuclear-armed missile or just before. These capabilities should be emphasized more. The perspective would be improved.

Among the best known would be the electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) weapon that might be detonated at an altitude up to 400km in salvos above a central Iranian target set. This action effectively would disable all electricity-dependent instruments from automobiles to home appliances and on to missile batteries and even deep underground facilities (as discovered by the Russians years ago in their own test firings).

Ultimately all power grids throughout the targeted areas in Iran would be shorted out for hundreds of miles. There would be no need for selective targeting other than to avoid "spill-over" into non-Iranian border regions. The details of such range and target control mechanisms remain some of the most highly sensitive and thus of the strictest classification.

To compliment and supplement the EMP barrage there would be a massive computer hacking effort before and during the attack. This cyber offensive pulverizing Tehran's tactical command and control systems reportedly has been gamed successfully on several occasions -- again highly classified. The combination of the two attacks is believed to be able effectively to bring Iran to a standstill.

Defense consultant Chet Nagle, U.S. Naval Academy graduate and author of the acclaimed work, Iran Covenant, characterized the overall effect: "In fact, if the strike [EMP] was at noon on a sunny day, the people below would not know it happened except their lights would go out, cars would stop, fridges die, power line transformers short out, oil refineries shut down, and those uranium enrichment centrifuges in caverns would stop spinning."

Such an action would immobilize Iran and allow conventional U.S. sea and air forces time to attack the already degraded Iranian coastal defense, thus preventing the closing of the Straits of Hormuz. Such a scenario supports the fact that the issue is not whether Iran can be shut down, but whether the Obama Administration would have the will to do so.

The Iranians and O'Hanlon/Riedel are betting against American will. The Israelis may agree with them, but such a view only further insures an Israeli preemptive strike. So perhaps it might be better if we did talk about -- "bombing" Iran!

topics:
Iran, Nuclear Weapons

About the Author

George H. Wittman writes a weekly column on international affairs for The American Spectator online. He was the founding chairman of the National Institute for Public Policy.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (61) | Leave a comment

Kajumbula| 3.19.10 @ 6:37AM

You call Iran an 'ambition-crazed, self-perpetuating and self-justifying theocracy'. What is wrong with being ambitious and trying to perpetuate one's self? Honestly, I think the greatest threat to the western world is any country that tries to attain scientific development without their help. I really doubt the issue here is the danger posed by any Iranian nulcear weapon. The 'real danger' to the west is an Iran that has science independent of America, France or Britain. Talk EMP, we heard of lots of weapons systems theorised before the Iraq debacle. Many times, these fail to count.

Brian Mc| 3.19.10 @ 7:02AM

Kajumbula,

This just in...the 'powers-that-be in Iran wish you were dead and are striving to achieve that end whether you care to placate them, or not.

Brian B| 3.19.10 @ 11:44AM

Brian Mc,

What makes you think Kajumbula isn't one of the 'powers that be in Iran'?

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.19.10 @ 12:11PM

Both Brians, heh.
Good points guys.

If he is, I hope he enjoys walking to work in a job he won't have.

Alan Brooks| 3.19.10 @ 9:53PM

The sooner Israel (America wont do it)
bombs Iran, the better-- it will only be worse later.

Strap Toddard to the first missile; like Slim Pickens he can whoop and holler on the way down.

willihudso| 3.20.10 @ 9:08AM

You are mad
Iran has never threatened Israel or the US an yet they have been threatened by both thousands of times. There is no evidence of any threat. There is no evidence of any WMD. Let us know if you find any or reveal your sources.

Chuck| 3.20.10 @ 3:32PM

Iran has never threatened the US or Israel? Tell that to the US soldiers killed by Iranian-financed IEDs in Iraq, to the Israeli civilians killed and threatened by Iranian surrogate Hezbollah.

Alan Brooks| 3.20.10 @ 9:36PM

"There is no evidence of any WMD."

So let's keep it that way-- bomb Iran. And BTW, Heil Hitler to you. I'm sick of you people; thank GOD the Russians tortured and mutilated your sort in '45; Stalin did one good thing in his entire life.
I don't want to kill anyone-- would merely like to castrate every National Socialist in the world.

William R| 3.20.10 @ 11:09AM

We won't let Israel bomb Iran. They need to flyover Iraq and we'll shoot them down if they try.

Alan Brooks| 3.20.10 @ 10:02PM

I try to control my anger on this, but it is turning to hatred. Blacks don't have to forgive slaveholder's descendents, but Jews are expected to forgive the Germans, the comatose-cozy blockheads who fought the two largest wars ever; who invaded the Low Country region and France twice; who invaded Norway and Denmark; who bombed England causing how many killed and wounded 1940- '44?
100,000- 150,000? Do Germans forgive the Russians for what they did 1945- '46? if Germany had won they would still control Europe. The Arabs-- and in this case, Shiites, wont forgive Israel for 1948- '49?

Everybody must be forgiven except Jews? They must be the universal scapegoats forever? Jews must be crucified for all eternity?

basur| 10.27.10 @ 5:59AM

The sooner Israel (America wont do it)
bombs Iran, the better-- it will only be worse later.

Tom| 3.19.10 @ 8:35AM

Talking about the capabilities of highly classified weapons is great. But do we really want to lightly demonstrate the power of EMP weapons? The US is as vulnerable to such a weapon, if not more so considering relative technological sosphistication, as Iran is. And it totally disregards whether the targets themselves are hardened against EMP. Painting any attack on Iran as simple, easy, or without great risk is foolish. I still think that we SHOULD attack Iran to cripple its nuclear weapon program but the risk of any such attack must be properly calculated.

Ray| 4.19.10 @ 2:51PM

Tom, totally agree with you on that. Before attack, we must properly calculated the risk because once the attack happen surely there will be some damage done to our side too.

Mike| 3.19.10 @ 9:34AM

I see the neo crazies are frothing at the mouth again.

They have forgotten that air power alone will not stop Iran's nuclear ambitions. Only a full scale occupation will do that.

On top of an imminent national/global depression, Obama care, and trillions of other un-funded liabilities, the crazies want to impose this huge huge burden on us.

I was almost ready to come back to the Republican Party but the chicken hawk neo cons disgust me.

An attack on Iran by the US will not happen.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.19.10 @ 12:16PM

Mike,
please don't come back to the Republican party.
Thank you.
An attack on Iran certainly will happen, sadly perhaps in retaliation to their own stupidity of bombing first.

Alan Brooks| 3.19.10 @ 9:55PM

"An attack on Iran by the US will not happen."

For once you are right, Mike-- Israel will have to hit Iran, not America.

audax| 3.20.10 @ 1:49AM

Nah, just take out the mullahs and see what happens in the stew....while Israels at it they could turn the nuclear sites in Iran into glass...batteries not included, no occupation required. AND Mike, stay with the dhimmi Dems...don't know what a dhimmi is? look it up...sucker! Your probably against clitorectomies and hanging gays too aren't you HA! Idiot dhimmi!

emo| 3.21.10 @ 6:43PM

BS, you dont need a full occupation to stop Iran's nuclear program. But you might need a commando raid in addition to air strikes.

As for chickenhawks, the decision to bomb Iran stands or falls on its own merits and has nothing to do with whether or not anyone in the US govt served in the military.

Tim| 3.19.10 @ 9:52AM

Even an EMP attack would not be without casualties: ICU patients and premature babies would be the first to die. Personally if you want to attack target the mullahs and ministers and the Ayatollah himself. Fly a cruise missile into the Majlis. These are the swine that would give orders for retaliation and the Iranian people would not mourn them.

Alan Brooks| 3.19.10 @ 9:57PM

"Fly a cruise missile into the Majlis."

Sounds like a plan.

audax| 3.20.10 @ 1:53AM

"He who lives by the sword...dies..." heh dhimmi Timmy can you finish the rest of that quote? As If we care about the "babies" in Iran. We care about them as much as they "care" about the babies in Israel.

Thomas| 3.19.10 @ 11:04AM

There are any number of weapons available to the US which could be used to shut down Iranian nuclear production. The fact is, that absent an attack on a US ally, Israel or Europe, no such attack will be mounted.

The Israelis are the ones who will launch a preemptive strike against Iran, if anyone does. And they are perfectly capable of doing so. IN fact, they probably would have mounted such an attack two years ago, if they could have secured the tacit approval of the US.

The situation in Iran is complicated. There are several leadership factions and they disagree on many aspects of policy. The one thing that most agree upon, however, is that Iran will never become a major player on the world stage without a domestic nuclear weapons program. Therefor, they will do anything to buy the time needed to get a weapon operational. They expect that occurrence to catapult them into the protected status that members of the nuclear club seem to enjoy. And, to a certain extent, they are correct in that assessment. They look at North Korea as an example, though it is more the nuclear and economic might of China than of Korea that keeps them relatively safe.

Unfortunately, given the militancy and aggression of many of the ruling factions in Iran, allowing them to produce a functioning nuclear weapon, especially in conjunction with a decent delivery system, would eventually lead to armed conflict, only this time nuclear weapons would be involved.

You are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

NavyBrat| 3.19.10 @ 12:35PM

“You win battles by knowing the enemy's timing, and using a timing which the enemy does not expect.”...Miyamoto Musashi

While I'm sure that no one in this administration has probably never heard of Musashi, let alone read "A Book of Five Rings." I wouldn't expect them to know this method of warfighting. Mr. Wittman is correct in his assertion of how an EMP strike would cripple Iranian command & control. The disabling of the coastal defenses alone would enable our Navy to not only keep the Straits of Hormuz open, but would also enable them to conduct cruise missle operations.

The crowning piece of this Naval operation, ideally, would be to take Missouri & Iowa out of mothballs. Then, provision them with a full load of Tomahawks, 5 & 16 inch shells & send them in along with the rest of the flotilla. Talk about shock & awe. This would never happen, but one can wish, can't they? Hell, I was only in middle school when they mothballed the battlewagons, & I thought it was a bad idea BACK THEN.

PS. Would anyone here more knowledgeable than me be able to tell me of the efficacy of "rail guns" in this type of situation? I know they are being developed in the highest secrecy, but have seen some test videos on YouTube. Does anyone know how that program is progressing & how that weapon could best be employed?

hass| 3.19.10 @ 12:51PM

An attack on Iran cannot be labelled "pre-emptive" by any means. It would be an act of naked aggression, in violation of the UN Charter, and a war crime. There is ZERO evidence of any nuclear weapons program in Iran nor is there any evidence that Iran "seeks" nuclear weapons (whatever that means) since they've even offered to place additional restrictions on their nuclear program well beyond their legal obligations and far beyond what other nuclear states such as Argentina and Brazil have accepted. For example, not only have the Iranians offered to permanently implement the Additional Protocol which allows snap inspections, they have offered to open their entire nuclear program to joint operation by the US and other countries, thus ensuring that it CANNOT be secretly used to make bombs. However the US has consistently ignored these and other Iranian compromise offers because, in fact, the entire nuclear issue is a pretext and a justification for regime-change in Iran in favor of Israel, just as "WMDs in IRaq" was pretextual and a big fat lie.

Tom| 3.19.10 @ 12:54PM

Zero evidence? Come on, zero? Not inconclusive, not debatable, but zero?

NavyBrat| 3.19.10 @ 1:01PM

Ahh, another whistler past the graveyard of maniacal regimes. I have an excellent soup recipe for the tripe you've posted. That's really the only thing you can do with such a distasteful substance. You strike me as the kind of person who'd hug a suicide bomber if he PROMISED you he would detonate his vest. Look up, dumbass. Gullable is written on the ceiling.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.19.10 @ 3:24PM

Hi hass.
Your English is pretty good for an Iranian mullah.
Welcome to the truth, idiot.

Come kiss and make love with my pet pig.

Thomas| 3.19.10 @ 8:06PM

I'm sorry, but even the IAEA, one of the most corrupt, incompetent agencies in the world, has chastised Iran for expanding uranium enrichment facilities in the country. Besides that, Iran has pursued fairy tale diplomacy for decades; promising one thing and doing another and then claiming everyone else is lying about their activities [very similar to North Korea].

How are things in Never-Never Land?

audax| 3.20.10 @ 1:43AM

hass must be short for Hassan.....so, would this be like the war crimes of Iran? killing their own citizenry in the streets? providing IED's in Iraq and Afghanistan to be used against US troops? providing rockets to Arabs living in Israel or it's former territories that are used to kill innocent children and Thai workers? THAT Iran??? If it's such a big fat lie, why does that nut job "president" keep saying what he will do to Israel (Little satan) and USA (Great Satan) once he gets the nuclear weapon? you idiot!

emo| 3.21.10 @ 6:46PM

""There is ZERO evidence of any nuclear weapons program in Iran nor is there any evidence that Iran "seeks" nuclear weapons (whatever that means) since they've even offered to place additional restrictions on their nuclear program well beyond their legal obligations and far beyond what other nuclear states such as Argentina and Brazil have accepted""

Dont be an idiot!!!
1. Everyone knws the yare working on nuclear weapons
2. Argentina and Brazil are democracies and not threats to anyone. No one is concerned about their programs if they exist

You suffer from a severe case of moral equivalency disease

Wesley Mouch| 3.19.10 @ 1:00PM

I think if China will lend us the money we will attack.

Doc| 3.19.10 @ 2:59PM

It's time to learn from history. For almost a hundred years after Rome's final defeat of Macedonia, Roman citizens did not have to pay a war tax because of what had been taken from Macedonia. Occupy Iran. Hang its president and every identified participant in the 1979-80 hostage crisis. Pay for the war by seizing Iran's oil as reparations, as we should have paid for the war with Iraq.

mase| 3.19.10 @ 3:35PM

Hmm.... iraq sounds nice

Dan| 3.19.10 @ 5:00PM

It doesn't matter what O'Hanlon and Riedel believe, that fact is the Muslim Obama would never attack Iran because neither he, nor most of the State department who have served in various Arab countries would care if Iran dropped a nuclear bomb on Israel. They would give the required lip service but care not at all.

Yves Bauer| 3.19.10 @ 5:05PM

You people are delusional. An attack on Iran would plunge the whole Middle East in Crisis. Iran would retaliate against the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran would launch an attack on Israel using its proxies - Hamas and Hezbollah. There is no military solution to the Iranian problem. Moreover, the US military is at the breaking point- and the United States as a country is broke. There can only be a diplomatic solution.

emo| 3.21.10 @ 6:47PM

Iran is more broke than the USA

Joe| 3.19.10 @ 5:19PM

Hot gas blowing from pro Israel/pro war clowns, next time you read bomb this and that articles in web, check authors name and you'll see all are Jewish and they're pretending to be talking for US or West for good of humanity while they see jailing and starving the entire population of Palestine as a just fact!

bob alou| 3.19.10 @ 5:49PM

While Good "Ol Joe", the non-Jewish guy is talking for common sense and the good of humanity!
(oh by the way my real name is Bob Alou Muhamad Hussein - Master of a Thousand Kingdoms, Scion of the line from the great prophet himself, defender of the weak, slayer of the cursed infidel -but don't tell anyone. I don't want those jewish guys knowing who I really am.

Northern Rebel| 3.19.10 @ 8:16PM

Lot of funny posts.

On a semi-related topic:

I have noticed that General Electric has ads on the radio. Yes this is the same company that has been illegally selling products to Iran, that enables them to go forward with their nuclear bomb (let's quit kidding ourselves, H..ass) campaign.

What bugs me, even though they probably have legal rights, is that the are aligning themselves with Ronald Reagan, in a shameless display of faux patriotism. If hypocrisy was flammable, they would all burst into flames!

I'd bring the bratwurst!

Yasmin| 3.20.10 @ 2:31AM

Yes, Iran is always unfriendly.

FLV to DVD Mac-specially designed for Mac OS X users, including snow leopard

Curtis| 3.20.10 @ 5:11AM

Attacking Iran will be an unthoughtful step as Iran do have the capability to retaliate. If this happens, then this world will see the third world war. And this time it may be the end of this world.
http://topgradeacaiextreme.net/

emo| 3.21.10 @ 6:48PM

hyperbole...the end of the world....sheesh

Thorvald| 3.20.10 @ 10:32AM

Sounds like it would work. Let's do it.
The only drawback as I see it is you haven't decapitated the beast. These are Twelvers running that country, and they're not pacified until they're dead. Before the EMP and cyber-attack launches, run some cruise missiles, drones, and SpecWarOps into them. If possible, come back with their heads on platters to stop Tora Bora-like speculation.

Lowry Hill| 3.20.10 @ 10:51AM

Exactly! Do you want some Twelver remnant cropping up in Azerbaijan or the Shiite pockets of Lebanon, Yemen, or Iraq?
Who would we offend? The boneheads at the Brookings Institution? Those people think they can perfect human nature through the tax code. Some legal academics in The Hague? How many divisions have they (to paraphrase Stalin)? Ditto for the eggheads in New England and the pansies in the Bay Area and LA-la Land.

Michele San Pietro| 3.21.10 @ 10:59AM

No, neither America nor any other country should bomb Iran. It's up to the Iranian people to finally get rid of a murderous regime.

Ralph Novy| 3.21.10 @ 9:35PM

George:

Like all "big picture"/"strategic" thinkers of your ilk, you use phrases like "a murderous, ambition-crazed, self-perpetuating and self-justifying theocracy in the Middle East that seeks to dominate the region" as if there were no real people involved. It's just some demonic entity that needs killin'. Whatever "collateral damage" might result from an aggressive attack to kill the demonic thing is regrettable but necessary.

Patently arrogant and immoral.

Shame on you -- especially if you talk out of the other side of your mouth to aver your "Christianity."

Northern Rebel| 3.22.10 @ 3:35AM

Curtis:

The war which you describe started back in Idiot Carter's administration. wake up, grow up, or both!

US Expat in Europe| 3.22.10 @ 5:33AM

When you say "...have no stomach for an attack on a murderous, ambition-crazed, self-perpetuating and self-justifying theocracy in the Middle East that seeks to dominate the region. ", who are you describing? It sounds like a very accurate description of Israel as well. It just amazes me the amount of misinformation flowing to justify an attack on Iran. I fully expect another Mossad sponsored-US covered-up, "terrorist attack" that is quickly linked to Iran, to justify their destruction. Are we, as Americans, nuts? Nearly 9 years of combat operations have failed to "pacify" the rag-tag Afghan militias. What makes us believe we can "pacify" a trained armed force (Navy, Air Force and Army) that's the 4th or 5th largest in the world? If they have purchased the S-300 SAM's and they are operational, we will see air casualties not seen since WWII. A ground campaign would be comparable to Tarawa, Iwo Jima and Okinawa combined in terms of casualities and brutal combat and it still may not be enough to win. When we talk about a nuclear Iran people must remember a couple things. First, I ran is a signatory to the nuclear treaties; Israel is not. Iran does not have any nuclear weapons; Israel has at least 200 devices and the means of accurately delivering them to targets through the Mid-East and coincidently (by their own bragging admissions) targtets in Europe.

George | 3.22.10 @ 4:24PM

I highly doubt Obama would make a play against Iran. Right now they already want to get out of the war with Iraq, I don't think they want to get involved in another war instead.
Sincerely,
George
CEO of
http://www.topgradeacaiextreme.org

Michele San Pietro| 3.25.10 @ 6:53AM

To my mind, there's no question that Jimmy Carter greatly contributed to the establishment of the Ayatollahs' dictatorhip in Iran.

kellyohs| 3.30.10 @ 7:23PM

bombing iran would be very dumb, whats the point of starting more chaos in the middle east. Even though we only see a fraction of it, it still goes on.
http://www.topgradeacaiextreme.org

www.sunglass-mall.com| 4.5.10 @ 9:46PM

You won't have to worry about having your sunglass merchandise to gather dust on its display racks waiting for the summer season to commence www.sunglass-mall.com

nortn face jackets| 4.18.10 @ 10:54AM

online seller provides all kinds of hair straighteners,pink ghd,purple ghd,babyliss.
what the "common man" is thinking. TAS can get as airless as inside Washington if they don't listen to the people

Ronitdeep| 9.2.10 @ 1:54PM

One other factor has brought the military option to a low boil: Iran's Sunni neighbors really want the U.S. to do it...It is also possible that this low-key saber-rattling is simply a message the U.S. is trying to send the Iranians: it's time to deal. There have been rumblings from Tehran about resuming negotiations, although the regime has very little credibility right now.
how to guide

jim| 11.8.10 @ 4:52AM

That's too funny, I need to watch some more basketball.access Facebook from China

jim| 11.8.10 @ 11:57PM

Graham wrapped up the day by saying he was worried that there was "a compulsion to get this rig completed in that April 19-April 20 timetable."bajar de peso rapidamente

mkv to ipad| 11.15.10 @ 8:35AM

MKV to iPad is the best solution to sharing MKV files on iPad. As we know, the newly developed iPad can only surport MP4 format, so if you want to play MKV video on iPad, you have to convert MKV to iPad with an additional software.My personal recommendation is to use this MKV to iPad Converter. The biggest difference between this all-in-one MKV to iPad and other similar ones is that it can not onvert general video format to iPad, but can also convert HD video to iPad for sharing high-defination video everywhere mobile movie theater.

Seb| 11.22.10 @ 8:21AM

Bombing Iran would be a terrible mistake.There is enough towards the Us, don't need to add more.Keep the world in peace,please.
Seb, the perfect golf swing man

buy generic| 12.21.10 @ 12:01PM

Yes it is ok

lampy sufitowe| 9.1.11 @ 11:15AM

RN to BSN Online Programs| 1.17.12 @ 11:27AM

I can't believe that after two years this topic is still on the tongues of the masses. Now so more than ever. Personally I cannot believe the Iran-bashing that is going on here.
Most of the negative comments (pointed at Iran) are from those that have ZERO knowledge of the place and it only underscores the effectiveness of American propaganda. The pro-war, anti-Iran commenters are regurgitating what they have been carefully lead to believe.
Our staff at RN to BSN Online Programs were discussing this at an informal roundtable last week. It is clear that "building a nuke" is currently the excuse for us to prevent modern development of anything in a third world country.
I urge your readers to inform themselves from other means than mainstream media. PLEASE !