Stratfor hypothesis error, N.Korea and Iran threat.

STRATFOR, is using old paradigms, developes inaccurate assessment of threat.

By Gerald; Internet Anthropologist Think Tank

05.26.09

The North Korean Nuclear Test and Geopolitical RealityThe Challenges of a Nuclear Weapons ProgramPursuing a nuclear weapons program is not without its risks. Another important distinction is that between a crude nuclear device and an actual weapon. The former requires only that a country demonstrate the capability to initiate an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction, creating a rather large hole in the ground. That device may be crude, fragile or otherwise temperamental. But this does not automatically imply the capability to mount a rugged and reliable nuclear warhead on a delivery vehicle and send it flying to the other side of the earth. In other words, it does not immediately translate into a meaningful deterrent.For that, a ruggedized, reliable nuclear weapon must be mated with some manner of reliable delivery vehicle to have real military meaning..THIS IS HYPOTHESIS IN ERROR. G.

SOURCE:

While throw weight and penetration, even delivery 

were the main concerns of the old paradigm.

The new paradigm is more concerned with

a single nuke.

By a non-state terror group of a rogue state.

Delivery can be accomplished with a fishing 

trawler or in a cargo vessels.

The inability of Iran or N. Korea to miniaturize

the components for a missile delivery system

is of little comfort.

MAD or mutually assured destruction is no

deterrent with a non-state terrorist group,

or a supreme leader that may have dementia,

or a religious desire to press the button,

Iran and the 13 Imam.

The risk of the new paradigm is even graver

and more serious than than the old paradigm.

And a higher probability of a Pearl Harbor type

nuclear attack.

N. KOREA, IRAN and TERRORIST pose a bigger threat of

a nuclear strike than Russia ever has.

STRATFOR MISSED THE new PARADIGM.

Gerald 

Internet Anthropologist