Welcome to Thursday, October 3, 2024. It is the 124th birthday of writer Thomas Wolfe, born on this day in 1900 and who died of tuberculosis at only 37. He is an underrated writer because he sometimes overwrote, but he captured the colors of America better than any writer I know of—even if that opinion subjects me to ridicule from my English Studies friends.
It’s also the first full day of Rosh Hashanah, which ends tomorrow evening, Global Smoothie Day, National Boyfriend Day, National Butterfly and Hummingbird Day, National Soft Taco Day, and National Caramel Custard Day.
There will be no readers’ wildlife photos today as I’m conserving the handful I have. If you wish to see this feature often, please contribute.
Here’s a short documentary on Wolfe. I hope his childhood home, shown below, survived the hurricane that devastated Asheville, NC:
Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this day by consulting the September 29 Wikipedia page.
Da Nooz:
*I didn’t listen to the Vice-Presidential debate, having grown tired of politics, but the NYT didn’t cover it much except in the op-ed section, where most of the writers concluded that Vance won, as this figure shows. But even those on the right side of the graph qualified their answers. A few takes:
Katherine Mangu-Ward, editor of Reason Vance won. Compared with the candidates in the presidential debates, both vice-presidential candidates performed admirably. But if you watch enough “Love Is Blind,” you can forget that Jane Austen exists. Vance was facile and light on his feet, but this debate will not go down in the annals of great political rhetoric.
Daniel McCarthy, editor of the periodical Modern Age Vance won with a stronger start, then Walz lost with a closing statement boasting of a Harris coalition “from Bernie Sanders to Dick Cheney to Taylor Swift.” Socialism, endless war and manufactured teen feelings are the last things voters want or need in November.
Peter Wehner, contributing Opinion writer Vance. He was sharp and in command and proved he’s an excellent debater. At times he tried too hard to appear likable; I came away more convinced that he’s a hollow man, radioactive and incendiary one day, conciliatory and agreeable the next. But the “good Vance” did a lot to repair his tattered image.
Ross Douthat, Times columnist For Vance, it was a commanding performance. For Walz, it was a nervous ramble. For the audience, it was the most civil and substantive debate of the Trump era.
Jamelle Bouie, Times columnist It’s a pretty straightforward verdict: Vance won this debate. It’s not hard to see why. He has spent most of his adult life selling himself to the wealthy, the powerful and the influential. He is as smooth and practiced as they come. He has no regard for the truth. He lies as easily as he breathes. We saw this throughout the debate. He told Americans that there are 20 million to 25 million “illegal aliens” — a lie. He told Americans that Mexico is responsible for the nation’s illegal gun problem — a lie. He told Americans that Trump actually tried to save the Affordable Care Act — a lie. If Vance had to sell the benefits of asbestos to win office, he would do it well and do it with a smile.
The Washington Post surveyed 22 voters from swing states, with nearly 2/3 of them saying Vance did better.
And the take of Oliver Wiseman from The Free Press:
Like the previous two debates, this one had a clear winner: J.D. Vance. The 40-year-old Ohio senator arrived at the CBS studio with a clear plan: to tie Kamala Harris to the status quo and contrast the Biden-Harris years with the Trump years, especially on the economy and foreign policy. That has always been Trump’s best pitch to voters, albeit one the former president has been unable to stick to. Last night, Vance showed the discipline and clarity his boss lacks—and he reminded those watching of the political talent that got him to that stage.
As for Walz, he and his party had managed expectations ahead of the debate by admitting that the Minnesota governor was “nervous.” And that wasn’t spin. Walz seemed unsure both of himself and the message he wanted to communicate to voters. But if Walz seemed muddled, then so does the Harris campaign. Does she want to capitalize on the purported success of the Biden administration, or be the change candidate? She doesn’t seem to know, so it’s no surprise Walz doesn’t either.
Walz’s worst moment came when he was asked about a lie he was recently caught in over his trips to China and Hong Kong. (Walz said he was in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square massacre. He was actually in Nebraska.) “I’m a knucklehead at times,” he said during a long, rambling answer.
When Harris interviewed Walz for the spot on the ticket, he reportedly warned her that he was a “bad debater.” Based on last night’s performance, that was not false modesty.
This is the point in the analysis where I am duty-bound to inform you that VP debates don’t matter very much. They’re the equivalent of the bonus material on the second DVD that only superfans watch. And most of those superfans have probably made up their minds by now.
But in an abbreviated and close contest, Harris’s one big decision was her running mate. Watching Walz on the debate stage last night, it was hard to see how, exactly, Harris’s choice has boosted her chances of victory in November. And if anyone in the Pennsylvania governor’s residence was watching, they were probably wondering the same thing.
Here’s a video of the full debate, and I’ll listen to it later as much as I can. But Wiseman is right: Vice-Presidential debates don’t have much influence on the final election.
*Israel is pondering its response to the Iranian attack on Tuesday. There’s absolutely no doubt, at least in my mind, that it will respond, but there are several options.
Israel may respond to Iran’s major Tuesday ballistic missile attack by striking strategic infrastructure, such as gas or oil rigs, or by directly targeting Iran’s nuclear sites, media reports said on Wednesday, citing Israeli officials.
Targeted assassinations and attacks on Iran’s air defense systems are also possible responses, Axios reported.
An attack on Iranian oil facilities could devastate the country’s economy, and any of the considered responses could mark another escalation, almost one year into the ongoing war that began when the Hamas terror group attacked Israel in October 2023.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu convened a meeting with Israel’s security chiefs at the IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv Wednesday, his office said in a statement.
The meeting — held hours before the Rosh Hashanah holiday, marking the Jewish New Year — was expected to discuss potential responses to the attack, which consisted of some 181 ballistic missiles fired directly at Israel from Iran, almost all of which were intercepted as Israelis nationwide gathered in bomb shelters.
Netanyahu declared after the attack that “Iran made a big mistake tonight, and it will pay for it,” vowing, “whoever attacks us — we will attack them.”
In April, the Islamic Republic fired some 300 missiles and drones at Israel, after an airstrike killed several Iranian generals in Damascus. Though Israel’s alleged response to that attack was restrained, analysts told media outlets Wednesday that Israel is likely to be more aggressive this time around.
That’s in part because the attack on Tuesday came some two weeks into a new Israeli offensive against the Hezbollah terror group in Lebanon, which has devastated the Iranian proxy, lessening its power as a deterrent against strong Israeli action.
There remains, however, the possibility that Iran itself could escalate, including into a full-scale war, if Israel deals it a serious blow.
Nobody knows what Israel will do—either an attack on fuel rigs or on nuclear sites would be appropriate, but I think that if Israel doesn’t stop Iran’s nuclear program very soon, the tiny Jewish state, which could be wiped out by just a handful of nuclear missiles, will be a goner. Bret Stephens in his new column on Iran (archived here) agrees that we shuld hit them in the nukes.
Iran currently produces many of its missiles at the Isfahan missile complex. At a minimum, Biden should order it destroyed, as a direct and proportionate response to its aggressions. There is a uranium enrichment site near Isfahan, too.
Elsewhere, Iran’s economy relies overwhelmingly on a vast and vulnerable network of pipelines, refineries and oil terminals, particularly on Kharg Island in the Persian Gulf. The administration can put the regime on notice that the only way it will save this infrastructure from immediate destruction is by ordering Hezbollah and the Houthis to stand down and to pressure Hamas to release its Israeli hostages. We can’t simply go on trying to thwart Iran by defensive means only — fighting not to win but merely not to lose.
Critics of a hard-line approach will reply that it invites escalation. Yet for nearly four years, the administration’s diplomatic outreach to Tehran, along with its finely calibrated responses to Iranian aggression, has done nothing to deter it from striking us and our allies. Notice that the Iranians began asking for the nuclear negotiations they spurned for the past three years only once they started to fear that Trump might return to office. Bully regimes respond to the stick.
*As you probably know, Harvard has an interim President who replaced Claudine Gay, although Alan Garber was given the gig for at least three more years. The WSJ reports the increasing trend of universities to have interim Presidents, due almost entirely to the turmoil of the last year, but also to the fact that being a college President exposes you to flak from all sides:
A slew of college president jobs are held by temporary leaders this fall. It is partly by design.
The leaders of Columbia University, Cornell University, the University of Pennsylvania and more than three dozen other schools around the country currently have the “interim” qualifier attached to their titles.
It is a sign of the tumultuous state of American higher education, where student protests, donor discontent, political scrutiny and distrust from the general public have left presidents with a thankless—and very insecure—job. These interim presidents are being tasked with calming stormy campuses and priming the school to attract top-notch candidates for the official role down the line.
They have popped up in the corporate realm, too, including recently at craft chain Joann, BP and Petco Health and Wellness.
School trustees say they are leery about committing too quickly to long-term leaders, particularly in light of the political upheaval of last school year. Interim presidents also hold appeal because they aren’t necessarily gunning for the job on a permanent basis, say search-firm executives and trustees. That frees them up to make difficult or unpopular decisions, like cutting budgets.
For interim presidents, the temporary job can lead to a permanent leadership position—at that school, or elsewhere. Others simply go back to their old job after the temporary position.
College presidents, under mounting pressure from numerous constituents, don’t last as long as they used to. Claudine Gay led Harvard University for six months. Minouche Shafik was president of Columbia for 13 months before abruptly resigning in August. Liz Magill lasted about 18 months at Penn.
College presidents had been in their positions for an average of 5.9 years in 2022, according to a survey conducted by the American Council on Education, a higher education industry group. That is down from 6.5 years in 2016 and 8.5 years in 2006.
Unlike companies, university boards generally can’t unilaterally tap a successor ahead of time, or right after a hasty departure. A shared governance model means faculty, staff and students expect to provide input, a process that often takes months.
This is a shame, for it takes time for a President with a vision to stamp to mold the University to their liking. At the University of Chicago, for example, our free-speech reputation was created by several Presidents, including Robert Maynard Hutchins (1929-1951: 22 years!) and Robert Zimmer (2006-2021, 15 years). I think we’ve seen the end of fifteen-year Presidents, though I hope Daniel Diermeier, our former Provost, will last a long time at Vanderbilt, where he’s carrying on the Chicago tradition.
*Pete Rose, aka “Charlie Hustle” died at 83, after a career marked by great achievements but marred by a huge misstep.
Pete Rose, baseball’s career hits leader and fallen idol who undermined his historic achievements and Hall of Fame dreams by gambling on the game he loved and once embodied, has died. He was 83.
Stephanie Wheatley, a spokesperson for Clark County in Nevada, confirmed on behalf of the medical examiner that Rose died Monday. Rose was found by a family member. The coroner will investigate to determine the cause and manner of death, but there are no signs of foul play, according to ABC News. Over the weekend, Rose had appeared at an autograph show in Nashville with former teammates Tony Perez, George Foster and Dave Concepcion.
For fans who came of age in the 1960s and 1970s, no player was more exciting than the Cincinnati Reds‘ No. 14, “Charlie Hustle,” the brash superstar with the shaggy hair, puggish nose and muscular forearms. At the dawn of artificial surfaces, divisional play and free agency, Rose was old school, a conscious throwback to baseball’s early days. Millions could never forget him crouched and scowling at the plate, running full speed to first even after drawing a walk or sprinting for the next base and diving headfirst into the bag.
Major League Baseball, which banished him in 1989, issued a brief statement expressing condolences and noting his “greatness, grit and determination on the field of play.” Reds principal owner and managing partner Bob Castellini said in a statement that Rose was “one of the fiercest competitors the game has ever seen” and added: “We must never forget what he accomplished.”
Rose was banished (and will likely never get into the Baseball Hall of Fame) because he bet on baseball, and, when he was manager, probably bet against his own team, the Reds. That’s unforgivable because it’s a conflict of interest: it was theoretically possible that he arranged things to make it more likely that the Reds would lose. This led to his permanent ban from the game and his permanent ineligibility for the Hall of Fame, which he surely would have entered had he not made those bets.
A 17-time All-Star, the switch-hitting Rose played on three World Series winners. He was the National League MVP in 1973 and World Series MVP two years later. He holds the major league record for games played (3,562) and plate appearances (15,890) and the NL record for the longest hitting streak (44). He was the leadoff man for one of baseball’s most formidable lineups with the Reds’ championship teams of 1975 and 1976, with teammates that included Hall of Famers Johnny Bench, Tony Perez and Joe Morgan.
“My heart is sad,” Bench said in a statement. “I loved you Peter Edward. You made all of us better. No matter the life we led. No one can replace you.”
. . . But no milestone approached his 4,256 hits, breaking his hero Ty Cobb’s 4,191 and signifying his excellence no matter the notoriety which followed. It was a total so extraordinary that you could average 200 hits for 20 years and still come up short. Rose’s secret was consistency and longevity. Over 24 seasons, all but six played entirely with the Reds, Rose had 200 hits or more 10 times, and more than 180 four other times. He batted .303 overall, even while switching from second base to outfield to third to first, and he led the league in hits seven times.
Here’s a summary of the good bits of Rose’s career: 14 highlights.
*Yearly I report on Alaska’s Fat Bear Contest, and it started yesterday! But a pall of sadness hangs over this year’s contest:
Voting starts Wednesday in the annual Fat Bear Week contest at Alaska’s Katmai National Park and Preserve, with viewers picking their favorite among a dozen brown bears fattened up to survive the winter.
The contest, which is in its 10th year, celebrates the resiliency of the 2,200 brown bears that live in the preserve on the Alaska Peninsula, which extends from the state’s southwest corner toward the Aleutian Islands. The animals gorge on the abundant sockeye salmon that return to the Brooks River, sometimes chomping the fish in midair as they try to hurdle a small waterfall and make their way upstream to spawn.
Organizers introduced this year’s contestants on Tuesday — a day late — because one anticipated participant, a female known as Bear 402, was killed by a male bear during a fight on Monday. Cameras set up in the park to livestream footage of the bears all summer captured the killing, as they also captured a male bear killing a cub that slipped over the waterfall in late July.
“National parks like Katmai protect not only the wonders of nature, but also the harsh realities,” park spokesperson Matt Johnson said in a statement. “Each bear seen on the webcams is competing with others to survive.”
“We love to celebrate the success of bears with full stomachs and ample body fat, but the ferocity of bears is real,” said Mike Fitz, explore.org’s resident naturalist. “The risks that they face are real. Their lives can be hard, and their deaths can be painful.”
The bracket this year features 12 bears, with eight facing off against each other in the first round and four receiving byes to the second round. They’ve all been packing on the pounds all summer.
You can vote today; just go here, and you can also Meet the Bears here. The first vote was Wednesday, and you can vote again today starting at noon Eastern time.
I’m voting for #32, Chunk. Look at all the pounds he packed on over the year (they’re laying on the fat for winter hibernation). That’s quite a salmon belly!
Below is the live BearCam from Brooks Falls at Katmai National Park, where the ursids line up to catch migrating salmon. You can scroll back to see amazing scenes:
Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili knows that Baby Kulka, whom she hates, is behind her, but she pretends not to know:
Hili: Is she still here?A: Yes.Hili: Tell her we are not at home.
Hili: Czy ona jeszcze jest?Ja: Jest.Hili: Powiedz jej, że nas nie ma w domu.
*******************
From Cat Memes:
From Jesus of the Day:
From Strange, Stupid, or Silly Signs:
From Masih, showing one of the six deaths associated with the Iranian missile attack on Israel: this one poor Palestinian guy and five Iranians whose missile misfired. TRIGGER WARNING FOR VIDEO BELOW: death by rocket fragment strike.
“If you’re still alive, it’s because we haven’t wanted you to die yet”
Tweeted by the Islamic Republic’s Revolutionary Guards to Israeli leaders after 200 failed missile strikes that took the life of a Palestinian worker.
This is the Islamic Republic’s ‘victory’ ; death,… pic.twitter.com/D1vzbSvzgr— Masih Alinejad 🏳️ (@AlinejadMasih) October 2, 2024
From Luana: a tweet from Greg Lukianoff, the President of FIRE, about a free-speech exchange during Tuesday’s VP debate:
Convincing people that there is an exception to freedom of speech called “hate speech” has been one of the greatest marketing successes of the anti-free speech movement. I’ve been fighting it on campuses for almost 24 years now and it’s a justification used all the time to target… https://t.co/ioHUdDng6Z
— Greg Lukianoff (@glukianoff) October 2, 2024
. . . more of the exchange. Walz is dead wrong in analogizing offensive speech to “yelling ‘fire!’ in a crowded theater”:
Why do free speech advocates eye roll whenever they hear “shouting fire in a crowded theater”?
A bit of history … The story of the phrase began on August 17, 1917, when the executive committee of the Socialist Party of Philadelphia resolved to distribute 15,000 leaflets… https://t.co/GNpQgyLyWX
— Nico Perrino (@NicoPerrino) October 2, 2024
From The Atlantic, a depressing fact. (When I taught evolution, I found that my own students didn’t want to read On the Origin of Species, even in the abridged version.)
At elite colleges like Columbia, many students are showing up unprepared to read full books. It’s not that they don’t want to, @rosehorowitch writes. Middle and high schools have stopped teaching them how: https://t.co/mC5JpaC15M
— The Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) October 1, 2024
The ultimate Pecksniffery (read the “added context”):
Thank heavens for community notes pic.twitter.com/LzAaLD9iKq
— Stephen Hopkins (@phil_lol_ogist) October 1, 2024
From the Auschwitz Memorial, one that I reposted:
He lived but a week in the camp before he died–most likely gassed or shot. https://t.co/E6dXMkiKwJ
— Jerry Coyne (@Evolutionistrue) October 3, 2024
A tweet from Professor Emeritus Cobb who commented, “What did the Romans ever do for us?”
Ohhhh Molto bello
The main roads in #Pompeii were constructed with slabs of larva that had pieces of white marble interspersed – the latter reflecting the moonlight to help nocturnal travellers #PavementGeology @pavementgeology pic.twitter.com/8M7BijPMrd
— Dr Erica McAlister (@flygirlNHM) October 1, 2024
One reporter who was a good friend of Pete Rose for years said that he never thought that Pete would ever slow down enough to die. My brother-in-law, a lifelong Cincinnati resident and Reds fan said when Baseball Commissioner Bart Giamatti died the week after banning Pete from baseball that that was evidence that there is a god; but had Giamatti died a week before banning Rose, it would have been evidence that he was a just god.
Given that these days it appears that the focus of U.S. professional sports is fast becoming just the basis for an ever growing legal gambling enterprise, Pete’s punishment seems pretty silly. And for a number of fans, given Pete’s record and incredible presence during his playing years, he is in everyone’s conscious hall of fame even if not in the official one. One sportswriter said that you cannot visit Cooperstown, see the players honored there and not think of Pete.
Indeed, you can visit Cooperstown and see photos of Rose. Just no plaque.
I am not aware of any evidence that Pete ever bet against his own team. He agreed to a “lifetime ban” so now that he’s dead perhaps he can be posthumously inducted.
I used to enjoy watching him play quite a bit, even though as a Mets/Pirates fan I always hated his Reds.
All that said, somebody should mention Mickey Mantle’s quip to the effect that “if I hit that many singles I’d have to wear a skirt”.
Rose never bet against his own team and there is no evidence that he did.
He only bet on his team to win.
From everything I’ve read, when Rose bet on the Reds, it was always to win, never to lose. In fact, Rose himself claimed he’d rather die first. Rose wasn’t always honest on his gambling addiction, but I think in this case, it’s true — Pete wanted to win.
That said, however, no manager should bet to win, either. Say his team was behind 10-0 — Does he bring in his best pitchers in hopes that his team will catch up, or does he save his best pitchers for another day? His wager could cloud his thinking.
I really hate the fact that we express these debates in terms of who won and who lost. This isn’t a sports contest or a game of checkers, it’s supposed to be an exchange and expression of ideas–ideally with the possibility of persuading others (maybe even one’s “opponent”) or being persuaded oneself. What points were made? How good were the arguments (preferably divorced from clever and/or manipulative rhetoric)? What is the evidence? How reliable do the participants seem, and why? And, of course, just what is even supposed to be learned or revealed by this exercise that has any bearing on which of the individuals would be better suited to hold their sought-after office?
+1. Pitiful, ain’t it, Robert.
Jerry wrote “…the tiny Jewish state, which could be wiped out by just a handful of nuclear missiles, will be a goner.
NO! Iran simply will not nuke Israel. Iranians are evil, not insane. Look at a map. The geography simply doesn’t work. You can’t nuke a country as small as Israel without commiting a terrible radiation attack on all surrounding countries. Gaza and the West Bank would be devastated. Egypt and Jordan and Lebanon and Syria would have rather strong objections to suffering so much radiation. The holy Al Asqa mosque and the Dome of the Roc would be closed for years, unless Muslims wished to attend the mosques wearing radiation suits. Iran simply won’t and can’t do that.
Unfortunately, I don’t think this is a valid argument. Countries surrounding Israel are Sunni Muslims, hated and despised by Shiites. Al-Aqsa is not a specially holy place for Shiites. Moreover, as one Egyptian writer said many years ago: “The destruction of Israel is worth the life of 10 million Egyptians”. Iran’s mullahs said something similar about their own landsmen.
It is true that there is considerable animosity between Shia and Sunni. But I think you are wrong to say that Jerusalem is not sacred to Shia. The Dome of the Roc is the site from which Muhammad took off for his magical mystery tour of Heaven on the back of a magic horse. Jesus, of course, even more impressively, ascended to heaven without the aid of a horse, magic or otherwise.
There is a huge debate among the Shiites about the importance of Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa mosque (for example: https://d1.islamhouse.com/data/en/ih_books/single/en_sheia_aqsa.pdf). BTW Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa were of minor importance to both Sunnites and Shiites until the Jews started to return to Eretz Israel and the power of the Ottoman Empire began to crumble. And even today among Sunnites there are voices that Al-Aqsa is NOT “The Farthest Mosque” mentioned in Koran. Even this idea started to gain importance after the return of Jews. Jerusalem is not mentioned even once in the Koran.
That’s true M.K., but there’s a lot of Islam that is different to the pure and original recipe.
I don’t think it matters to the masses, or to their government, that their love of Al Quds is on shaky theological ground. What matters – is what the street and masses, the proles believe. And Jerusalem is central to this.
best from NYC!
D.A.
NYC
Yes, but it’s not street and masses who decide about throwing a nuke on Israel. It’s in the hands of highly theologicaly educated mullahs. And they can easily sacrifice Jerusalem, Al-Aqsa, millions of Sunni Muslims and even hundreds of thousands Shiia for the pleasure of destroying Israel. And the masses will applaud.
While Iran is firmly Shiite, surely they wouldn’t kill or endanger Sunnis?
They’re already unpopular with certain Arab countries as it is.
Mind you, the Ayatollahs are religious fanatics so their calculations may not be political.
There are of course tactical nuclear weapons. And for sure Israel doesn’t share your view. If you were absolutely correct, Israel would be paying NO attention to Iran’s nukes, yet it’s been going after them for years. Perhaps you are underestimating the degree of “collateral damage” that a delusional theocratic regime, sworn to destroy Jews, will accept.
A couple points Jerry. First, unless somebody simply gives Iran tactical nukes, Iran will not have them for a long time. Given their struggles to refine U235 to weapon grade purity, they must be trying to make a crude uranium bomb similar to the “Little Boy” we dropped on Hiroshima. It takes MUCH more skill and finesse to make a plutonium fission bomb such as the original Trinity device or the one we dropped on Nagasaki and, of course, it requires plutonium. Tactical nukes must use plutonium. The advantage of uranium bombs is that they are easy to make if you can get sufficiently pure U235. The advantages of plutonium bombs are that they are much smaller and lighter, hence easier to deliver, they can be designed for big or small yields, and they are safe from accidental detonation.
Perhaps you are correct that I underestimate Iran’s tolerance for collateral damage. But I think you underestimate just how extraordinary the collateral damage would be.
As for Israelis not agreeing with me, well, I’m not sure about. Obviously they must worry about Iran and consider all possible scenarios, including the less likely ones. I suppose that if an outright lunatic gets fingers on a nuclear trigger, anything is possible. But there are reasons short of outright nuclear attack that we don’t want Iran to have nukes.
Look at what catastrophe Hamas willingly incurred for their own people and still get applause all over the Arab and Muslim world, or Hezbollah in Lebanon. The collateral damage in the neighboring countries would not be that extraordinary, the fallout can be avoided. What would deter Iran is the fear of their own destruction. Iranians tend to be somewhat less batshit crazy than Hamas type Arabs. On social Media here in Germany, they congratulate H. Nasrallah for his martyrdom and his wonderful place in heaven
Israel’s risk of suffering nuclear attack keeps me awake. This comment is therefore a kind of antidote to my own catastrophizing.
Implosion weapons can use (highly-enriched) uranium. Some early post-war American bombs used left-over HEU (aka “oralloy”) to make the limited stocks of fissile material go further until abundant plutonium became available (for boosted fission weapons, then the H-bomb, and then for missile warheads and physically small battlefield weapons.) Pu-239 is a more efficient fuel than HEU but the latter is certainly implodable. The converse is not true: Pu-239 can’t be used in a simple gun weapon because it will pre-detonate and “fizzle”.
You are correct that implosion weapons require technological capacity and access to still-secret construction details, which Iran may or may not have. Miniaturizing them seems to require extensive experience with basic implosion. Any implosion ambition seems to require that the builder test it — consuming precious fissile fuel — to make sure he got it right, and then fire and brimstone will rain on Iran. A gun weapon (using the HEU Iran is known to have been making) doesn’t need to be tested. It can be built clandestinely and then used without warning, knowing that it has to work (as Little Boy was, and did.)
As a first, easy, secret step to nuclear competence, Iran could be imagined to be planning to build a gun weapon. But here’s the rub for Iran: Little Boy, with the minimum critical mass for a gun of 60 kg of HEU, weighed nearly 5 tons, much of it dictated by the great weight of the steel and lead needed to “tamp” neutrons and to hold the bomb together long enough to fission enough of the uranium to make it work. It also had to be long enough that the two hunks of uranium couldn’t interact with each other until fired together. Iran has no missiles or combat aircraft capable of carrying a single bomb of that size and weight to Israel. (The United States already had the B-29 in regular service to Japan by the time the bombs were ready.) If Iran assembled one inside a transport plane and flew it on a one-way suicide mission, the Israeli air defences would guess what it was and make short work of it, and that would be the end of decades of work to enrich enough uranium for that one bomb.
In sum, I don’t see how Iran can build a deliverable nuclear bomb to threaten Israel even if it could, in any two-week period, finish the job of making 60 kg of HEU, enough for one gun bomb. So many unknowns in all of this, and one assumes that many of the knowns are closely guarded secrets.
Iran will simply declare that any Muslims who die in such a strike or in the aftermath to be ‘Martyr’s’…
Yeah. Perhaps I’m too optimistic and you more pessimistic people are right. But nuking Israel would be an insane thing to do. If Israel was even slightly bigger I could see it, but tiny Israel is TINY. Jerry spoke of tactical nukes. But in addition to my objection that Iran could not have the technical sophistication to make them, I can’t see Iran doing a small scale nuclear attack anyways. Given the devastating retaliation Iran would suffer, surely Iran would only use nukes as a large scale attack intended to mostly destroy Israel. That would require many nukes in the kiloton range, perhaps as many as a dozen. That would cause enormous radiation casualties in Israel’s neighbors, especially the Palestinians. I mean death in real time, not just waiting a decade and seeing higher rates of cancer. Nuclear weapons are bad weapons to use in a situation in which friend and foe are situated practically within walking distance of each other.
Well, of course, if Walz had won, then Wiseman would probably be saying VP debates do matter, and they do, to some extent. People will look at Walz and say they don’t think he should be one heart-beat away from the Presidency. People will question why Harris chose him. People on the fence will chose to sit this one out. A negative showing has consequences.
I for one would strongly prefer Walz to be the one who was “one heartbeat away from the presidency”. And considering that Trump surely has a lot fewer heartbeats left than Harris, the VP choices on offer would be enough to decide my vote if I were at all ambivalent at this point.
Agreed.
Also, and maybe I missed it in the commentary, but the most telling part of the debate was when Walz asked Vance point blank if Trump lost in 2020. Vance declined to answer. What else do we need to know about this election?
“What else do we need to know about this election?”
I dunno, maybe just spit-balling here, but how ’bout the candidates’ stances on Russia, China, Ukraine, Israel, tariffs, the longshoremen’s strike, the Jones Act, immigration, inflation, freedom of speech, court-packing, infrastructure, nuclear power — sorry, lots more, but my typing finger is cramping up.
I think it is important to note that bombing Iranian oil facilities means an almost certain Trump victory. Oil prices would surge with a serious oil disruption and that would translate into gas prices quickly, and Harris would be toast in a close election.
Less clear what an attack on nuclear facilities would to, but oil prices would probably increase in that case as well, due to fear of further unrest.
Given that Iran and Trump are existential threats it would be best if Israel waited till after the election to strike. But I doubt Israel thinks of it that way.
You are so afraid of Donald Trump that you think Israel should indulge you and miss the moment to eliminate a threat to its existence, merely to keep him out of office in a foreign country and elect a candidate not friendly to Israel? No, I’m sure Israel doesn’t see it that way.
I don’t think that waiting till November to strike means Israel misses the chance to strike. Israel could focus on Hezbollah for a month.
I do not think Israel thinks of it this way, but that does not vitiate the analysis.
And, of course, Trump is an existential threat. Two things can be true.
No, Barry. I traded oil futures before I moved to equities/options.
The market adapts. It is more powerful than Middle east and Islamic rage.
A strike on Iranian oil places won’t effect the world price b/c most places don’t even buy Iranian oil. Only China. They’ll be pissed but I nor my puppers will loose sleep over that.
Puppers not losing sleep:
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2020/06/10/photos-of-readers-93/
🙂
Plus, the oil market is huge, Iranian oil is a small part of it. A bump in the road.
The rest of the world will be fine, oil will barely move, but Iran will be effed.
respectfully Barry,
D.A.
NYC
That would be a strange reason to vote for Trump. Don’t people realize that a Trump presidency would be behind Israel even more, and support such strikes?
You missed a key finding of the debate: The Internet[tm] thinks Vance has beautiful eyes.
This morning an NPR “Morning Edition” host made it a point to ask a guest to the effect whether it was necessary for Israel to retaliate against Iran since most of the missiles were successfully intercepted. What kind of reasoning is that? If another such attack occurs with the same results, shall such mindsets continue to expect Israel not to retaliate? A significant number of missiles were intercepted by the U.S. Navy. Shall the Navy stay on station indefinitely? (“Whether ’tis nobler to the mind to endure the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them?”)
The defence is always at a disadvantage in a long conflict. It has to play with 100% effectiveness even against attempts by the offence to degrade it or overwhelm it. The offence needs to get lucky just once. You could regard these missile attacks as progressive testing as to what it takes to saturate the anti-missile defences. Israel wants to shut down the offence before Iran figures that out.
This reduces to, “The best defence is a good offence.” This is especially so when Iran’s ability to defend its own airspace seems to be limited to shooting down commercial airliners. Smite them.
Re the debate: Rachel Maddow and some of her colleagues think Walz “won” the debate, but they base their opinion of different criteria. They called Vance “slick,” with which I would agree, then compared the number of lies and the amount of basic information conveyed–ignoring the presentation style. While there were lies and/or inability to explain certain things and not answering questions on both sides, Vance certainly “won” in that negative category, which led them to believe Walz “won.” In a sense, I agree, but think it is stupid to have to declare “winners” in these debates. They should not be considered a sporting contest, but rather a glance into what our fate as a country may be for the next four years.
I doubt that any Harris voters will switch to Trump on account of the debate.
But it may cause some on the fence to pick Trump. I saw at least one comment to that effect.
Yesterday, after President Biden said that he doesn’t support an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites, I did a cursory check to see when Biden last said that he will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. Biden said this himself at least as recently as August 2022, and Secretary Blinken said it on July 19, 2024 (https://www.timesofisrael.com/blinken-iran-one-two-weeks-away-from-producing-enough-material-for-nuclear-weapon/). So I will assume that Blinken was stating Biden’s current position.
If Iran is just weeks away from having a nuclear weapon—once they start assembling it for real—when will Biden act? Will he wait for the assembly process to start? Will he wait until it’s almost completed two weeks later? Biden doesn’t want Israel to go after Iran’s nuclear facilities, as he made clear yesterday. Does that mean that the U.S. and its allies are about to do the job? Does it mean that the U.S. and its allies are planning to prevent Iran from obtaining a bomb though other means? Will Biden threaten Iran with destruction of its oil facilities if it doesn’t call off its Hamas and Hezbollah dogs and release the hostages? Does he think diplomacy will prevent Iran from getting a bomb? Or does it mean that the U.S. is a paper tiger, and won’t prevent Iran from obtaining a bomb?
It seems to me that now is the time to act definitively. Hamas and Hezbollah have been degraded. The world largely accepts that the Iranian missile attack on Israel necessitates a response, the Iranian regime is weak, and Iranian ties to Russia, China, and North Korea are not yet all that strong. If not now—when conditions are arguably right to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities—when?
No.
Nuke targets, after Operation Opera in Iraq, and Syria, are DEEPLY buried and WIDELY distributed in Iran. Don’t you think they’ve hidden the really important bits, say, the cyclotrons, in and deep under civilian cities already? They’re not fools.
And trying to whack them even with bunkers busters will only delay things.
The weak point, like in Yemen (Hodedya Port) are what Osama B.L. called of ours “the joints of their economy.” Osama thought the WTC was our “joints” but he WAS a fool.
The joints of the Iranian economy are indeed Kargh Island, Abadan, etc. All are closer to Israel than Yemen’s Hodedya – which Israel attacked twice this year – so the Iranians and all of us know Israel can hit them.
They might.
They should.
That’d also reduce China’s lovely, necessary oil flow, and piss them off.
Send out the jets, I say, cripple Iran economically. The nuke sites are a counter productive waste of time.
Just my two cents.
D.A.
NYC
I accept your point about the important bits of the nuclear program being deeply hidden and armored. Are you saying that Israel and the other democratic powers should cripple Iran economically and then use that as leverage to get them to end their nuclear programs? Or do you think that a nuclear Iran is inevitable?
I’m in Asheville. The Wolfe home was almost surely not seriously damaged. It’s downtown, quite far from the two low-lying flooded areas near the rivers. I haven’t laid eyes on it personally, but I’ve been downtown a few times and very little there is damaged, except for trees and power lines. I’ve been seeing hundreds of photos of damage, including houses hit by falling trees, and I feel pretty confident that the Wolfe site would have featured prominently if it had been damaged.
Is your own house okay?
Yes, thanks. Living with no electricity and no water is damn inconvenient, but I have not been in danger at any time. Except from all the terrible drivers who don’t stop at intersections where the traffic lights are out. I swear they’re all trying to kill me.
Thank goodness! Having no water or electricity would be a drag, but glad your house survived. I have friends who relocated from Tucson to some tiny burb south of Raleigh less than one month ago and *that’s* where I would have expected a hurricane to hit, but Helene took an unexpected path. Hang in there! I’ve got an extension cord, but…
We are between Weaverville and Marshall. Those that are familiar with my posts might know that we spend most of our time on out Colorado ranch. but after the harvest and the last cow sent off, we wait for the start of the snow, then get scarce. Our winter place is a farm between Asheville and Tennessee.
We have been living in one of the RVs my Dad commissioned to stay in when visiting isolated parts of our western ranch. They are totally self contained for month’s long visits, and can keep a cowboy dry, fed, entertained, and comfortable in the harshest winters.
My family and close neighbors are doing fine, as they live on high ground. and have generators and lots of supplies. Farther out, and towards the river, the devastation ranges from catastrophic to biblical, a word an official used.
Slabs of larva, eh?
Great catch. Missed that…howcome AI did not correct it?
Thanks for the baby trebuchet posting, and the community notes. I needed the laugh!
In the debate, Vance certainly seemed smarter, better prepared, and to me more likable. Walz’s wide-eyed looks made it seem like he was not truthful. He looked like a kid caught in a lie with the Tiananmen Square knucklehead comment. His “can’t say fire in a crowded theater shocked me – I thought that by now we all knew the true background on this. His past comments on controlling speech also scare me. He was not impressive at all in the debate, and I didn’t find him likable, even though I’m closer in age to him than Vance. Obviously he was not prepped by the same folks who prepped Harris.
Vance’s almost nonstop media appearances in a wide variety of outlets certainly helped with his readiness. Walz could do with a few more media stops (especially unfriendly ones) to hone his skills.
Vance’s stated positions were not extremist (to me). Regarding whether we have 25 or 10 million illegals in the country to me is secondary to the fact that we’ve been letting them in, especially criminals. His J6 answer could have been better. I liked his climate change answer – bring more manufacturing to the US where we have cleaner energy.
I think Trump/Vance would be a much better friend to Israel than Harris/Walz, who seem to be too influenced by their SJP/Nazi base (I’d say leftist, but I’m pretty sure most common left-leaning normies favor Israel).
Agree (but I’m not an American).
Harris reminds of our PM Trudeau, who’s currently tanking in the polls.