Here We Go Again
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives

Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2019-09-23 14:11 by Karl Denninger
in International , 156 references Ignore this thread
Here We Go Again
[Comments enabled]

Sigh....

 

Joe, really, I know you follow me on Twatter, but let's be real here, ok?

Yes, Iran will have a nuke.  Or lots of nukes.  If they don't already.

Can we cut the crap about that, by the way?  There is only one gateway to nuclear weapons: Enriched fissionable material.

That's it.  You give me enough for a prompt critical mass and I can make a crude nuclear bomb in my garage.

So can anyone else.

It won't be a spectacularly good one, it will be large, it will be heavy, but it can be made in a garage by anyone with a modest knowledge of physics, chemistry and intelligence.

You can't stop that.

We need to ask a far more fundamental question: Why should we be involved in the Middle East in any way, shape or form?  Let them fight their own wars, if they think it's worth it.

Do I think it's worth it?  Nope.

If we took a quarter of what we spend on defense a year and used it instead to fund the engineering challenges for mass-deployment of LFTR + Fischer-Tropsch energy within a decade we could be entirely free of any foreign requirement for liquid hydrocarbons for over 100 years.

We could literally put up our middle finger toward the entire global "oil cartel" game along with all the political instability that it brings.  We could instead choose to tell the world that they can fight their own battles, their own wars, and as long as nobody attacks us -- not our people, not our embassies, not our military ships and aircraft and not our soil it's not our problem.  We can also make it clear that the minute they step over that line we'll vaporize them.

Yes, that's a direct threat to nuke anyone who tries to shoot our people, blow up our **** or invade our land.  Otherwise, we don't care.  You do what you want -- but you leave US territory and citizens alone.  No exceptions, no ifs, no ands and no buts.

Under this rubric we would have nuked Mecca to ash in response to 9/11.  Had that been policy on 9/10 I'm willing to bet 9/11 would have never happened as KSA would not have been willing to fund their bull**** at the cost of one of their holy sites and cities.

The problem with the "let's blow up Iran" is simple.

We won't mean it -- just as we didn't in Iraq twice and in fact in every armed conflict we've gotten involved in since WWII.  We've never meant it.  We didn't mean it in Korea or Vietnam.  In both cases we could have said you're done but didn't.  We weren't willing to do it.  We let the Iraqi army retreat after trapping them on the road to Kuwait instead of slaughtering every single one of them that had invaded a sovereign foreign nation.  In short we didn't mean it.

If you're not willing to mean it then don't do it at all.

Absent our territory being invaded I don't believe we, as Americans, have the stomach for war -- nor should we.  The entire premise of "limited" war is bull****; you go to war to win, period, you throw everything you have at it, you annihilate the other side and you keep at it on a relentless, non-stop basis until the other side sues for peace without conditions or terms including but not limited to their territory not being theirs any more.

If that means you have to kill them all then that's what it means.  But it will always mean that a lot of your guys (and now gals) are going to come home in a box if you can find the pieces to bring home, and in a world where the nuclear genie is out of the bottle and cannot be put back in it also means that at any time as soon as you start that crap one or more of your cities may be reduced to ash.

Therefore I argue the only defensible position when it comes to war is to only engage in it if you are willing to do that to the other side, and risk it being done to you.  If you've interconnected your economy and nation with others to the point that you must have what they possess or consume then you must have a political union with them as well; there must be one nation, not two or more.  If not then disengagement of any such "needs" back to at most the level of "trade would be nice, but not essential" is the only rational, sane course of action.  Period.

There is almost-literally nothing that America needs at the scale of "need."  We can make it literally nothing within a decade.  We damn well should, we damn well ought to bring our "making things" home -- right here, right now.  **** China, **** India, **** Vietnam, **** Mexico, **** Canada and **** OPEC.

Like people and nations all you want -- and engage in trade on a fair basis -- but never need any other nation.

If those other nations want to fight, no matter who it is, let them.

It's not our war and it's not on us.

And I don't give a rat's ass who wants to kill who over in the Middle East.  They've been trying to murder each other over there pretty much since recorded history, almost without exception.

We have no dog in this fight and frankly, we can't stop Iran, Saudi Arabia or anyone else from getting nukes.  We claimed we could stop North Korea, a nation with a jackbooted dictator, nearly zero in economic progress and near-zero light signature from space in the middle of the night, from obtaining not just atom bombs but thermonuclear weapons.

We were wrong then and we're wrong now.  It's just not that hard.

Like it or not nuclear weapons exist and anyone who wants them badly enough is going to get them.

All we can do is make clear that the price of attacking United States territory, people or property is that you'll get flattened instantly.  Not proportionally, not "with due consideration to all the women and children", nothing of the sort.

If you attack us we will send all of you straight to Hell.  No exceptions, no apologies, no second chances.

If you don't we won't.

Period.

View with responses (opens new window)