(original opinion, hypothetical - NOT A NEWS ITEM.)
The most important Cold War axiom was the avoidance of nuclear war. Though both sides continually maneuvered with, and were intensely aware of these weapons, everyone was convinced beyond any doubt that they must not be used. This even evolved into a philosophy of war, that of Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD.
Over time, grand diplomatic structures and international protocols were created surrounding the concepts of use, safety & surety, and the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. But these always had in mind, as an axiom, that no one who had nuclear weapons wanted to use them.
However, all of this grand strategy is for nought if even a single country procures or builds one or more nuclear weapons and wants to use them. A country that does not grasp the implications and the power of such weapons, and is neither afraid of their use, nor fears devastating retaliation.
Is Iran such a country?
Iran is ambitious, and clear about where its ambitions lie. It sees itself as a regional, or even world power, which is not an unreasonable goal; but they also have the far less realistic dream of being the center of a "Shiite cresecent." It looks to its history and sees an idealized version of the past greatness that was Persia. And it sees one, and only one, major obstacle to it achieving many of its goals.
The presence of the United States in the Middle East.
So if we imagine a belligerent Iran, and one with nuclear weapons, their strategy is clear. To drive the US out of the Middle East, and optimally, to evade retaliation from the US while doing so. For while they might not fear retaliation, they would want to avoid it if at all possible.
(At this point I would like to say that there are gaping flaws in this strategy, so please do not assume I in any way agree with or support this concept of operations. I mearly point out that it would be an obvious strategy from their point of view.)
If you look at the above map, you will see how very narrow are the navigable shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz. A shallow water chokepoint if there ever was one.
This leads to one conclusion: a nuclear attack on a US carrier group passing through the Strait. Most likely not a missile, but instead a naval mine or a fire ship disguised as ordinary shipping. Specifically done in the Strait for several reasons:
1) Ease of attack. It is the only place where a nuclear weapon could be placed with greatest chance of success.
2) A major blow to the United States. The Iranians intensely studied Gulf War I, and have concluded that US naval air power is the greatest threat to their regime.
3) Deniability. Pre-arranged denials in all the worlds' capitols, hoping to get world leaders demanding that the US not retaliate until "it is proven who attacked you."
4) To close the Persian Gulf to shipping. This would result in an instant oil embargo from Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, which would create a major economic crisis around the world. It would also have the tandem effect of keeping any other US carrier fleets out of the Persian Gulf, significantly increasing the degree of difficulty in attacking Iran.
They calculate that the immediate response from the US would be to launch air attacks from Iraq and Afghanistan. Anticipating this, they would have prepared a massive conventional missile barrage against the US airbases in those two countries, also diplomatically described as "defensive, since the US attacked them first." The US planes would be forced to land in another country, which would be unlikely to let them take off again to attack Iran.
Much of their diplomatic effort would be to demand an immediate meeting of the UNSC, in the hope that one of the other major powers would be so swinish as to stand in the way of the US retaliation.
And there would be no guarantee that any other US carrier group could enter the region without meeting another nuke, almost certainly a sea-bottom mine, difficult to detect. If nothing else, it would slow their arrival into the region by some time.
Iranian commercial shipping could also be scuttled in the Strait, and other commercial ships could be attacked by Iranian submarines, already massed to attack any US submarines entering the area. By sacrificing a submarine, the US sub would reveal its position and be set upon by several enemy subs.
US ground forces in Iraq would either be prevented from entering Iran by two Iranian Corps in defensive positions on the border; or the Iranians would defend the northern border, and invade southern Iraq to tie down US forces in Iraq.
From that point on, Iran figures that by having a large number of missiles, many capable of hitting European capitols, along with continual diplomatic efforts, it could force the US to back down. Again, all with that one major concept in mind, to get the US to leave the Middle East.
#1
I think they misunderestimate George Bush. A nuclear attack on US forces would be followed by two waves of retaliation. The second wave would involve Windex.
#2
Made in America and tested in Japan, We know the weapon works, lets use it on Iran!
Interesting opinion, good thing we still hold on to first strike policy and capability as well as having a Pres and SecDef with balls. I still believe Iran started this war against the US back in 79. It will eventually end where it started, Iran.
Posted by: 49 pan ||
12/10/2005 11:54 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"This leads to one conclusion: a nuclear attack on a US carrier group passing through the Strait."
I'm no expert on military matters, and maybe you are; but my gut sense is that you're overestimating Iran's capabilities, and underestimating our own, by a VERY wide margin.
A nuclear attack by Iran on a U.S. carrier group would be national suicide, the geopolitical equivalent of "suicide by cop."
Retaliation would be prompt-- probably starting within minutes-- and savage, involving at a minimum the nuclear obliteration of every identifiable Iranian military asset, most of their vital infrastructure, and maybe even one or two of their cities to drive home one vital, urgent message to the world: "Don't ever, EVER do that."
For us to do any less would not only be tantamount to surrender, but would give a green light to every nation in the world that America is easy prey that can be attacked with impunity.
Forget any "deniability" for the Iranians; an attack in the Strait of Hormuz has only one plausible source, and that's them. I doubt anyone would even stop to ask if it could have been someone else.
As for their attack closing off access to the Gulf and effectively imposing an oil embargo, note that the U.S. is not the only nation that would be extremely upset at such a result; we'd have plenty of company demanding that the Iranian menace be removed immediately, completely and permanently.
And as for the Iranians demanding an emergency UNSC meeting, I think you can forget that, too: the minute an Iranian nuke destroys an American carrier group, the UN will effectively cease to exist.
(All of the above predicated on a Republican being President, of course...)
Posted by: Dave D. ||
12/10/2005 12:03 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Big attacks by Iran don't make any sense. We can cream 'em by a wide margin, and they know it.* The smartest thing they can do is to continue doing the kind of ankle-biting (via limited, but relentless terrorist attacks) they've been doing in hopes that we finally throw up our hands and give up on what is after all, a distant region on the other side of the world.
* When Pearl Harbor took place, the Japanese had a far bigger and better military than we did. In fact, we were perhaps the weakest big power around when it happened. It was only when we geared up industrially for war and introduced a universal mandatory draft for only the second time in our history that our military potential was realized. It made sense for the Japanese to attack us. It makes none for the Iranians to do so.
#5
Geopolitically, an Iranian nuclear attack on a CVBG would be the best thing that happened to us since Spain blew up the Maine, triggering the Spanish-American War. We'd have a free hand among the American public to to rearrange the Iran and Middle East any which way we wanted. It would be great for us, but horrible for the existing Iranian regime. Which is why this regime will not carry out this kind of attack.
#6
Do keep in mind that things change, all. The entire scenario is predicated on one thing: getting the US out of the Middle East. If that can be done without there being a shot fired, the Iranians would vie for this solution.
However, there are some unmentioned variables.
First of all, the Iranian President is not only a follower of a cult leader, whose vision of a return of the 12th Mahdi is based in a world "bathed in fire" and all that. He has also taken control of nuclear weapons out of the hands of civilians and put all of it under the military.
Second, to my knowledge there is no chain of command for the use of nukes in Iran. It may literally be a phone call from the President to a military commander that authorizes "release".
Third, the departure from Iraq of two out of three divisions, would make an invasion of southern Iraq tempting to the Iranian army.
Another important factor is the Iranian assumption that they can "put the brakes on", if the situation turns against them. How reasonable is it to assume duplicity on the part of France, Russia or China, in helping to block the US, as long as no personal risk was involved?
Other factors might include the willingness of North Korea to open a second front at the same time as Iran, a democrat US President, Chinese willingness to take out a US carrier group if it looked like Iran would get the blame. Russian willingness to provide significant arms against US aircraft.
I would also suggest that the US, even with a republican President, would think long and hard about retaliation to a single nuclear weapon at sea.
A tactical nuclear analysis of Iran including how many nuclear weapons would be needed for retaliation, would also have to take into account that Iran could launch at Israel, and the nuclear war could spread over the entire Middle East to horrific consequences.
Too damn many variables!
So, beyond the initial attack in the Strait, I would have to fall back and suggest, by comparison, guessing what the Japanese would do next, right after Pearl Harbor. Remember that many people assumed it would be an attack against California.
However, as with the Japanese attack, it seems that a nuke in the Strait against a carrier group would give them the most bang for the buck, when starting an aggressive war.
The bottom line is that the Cold War idea of just having nuclear weapons is no longer valid. We must assume that they want them, because they want to use them.
#7
You certainly gave us a lot to think about, anonymoose, with this article.
While we certainly have the power to do what Dave D. says, I think our Achilles heel is the International Communityâs collective power. âPre-arranged denials in all the worlds' capitols, hoping to get world leaders demanding that the US not retaliate until "it is proven who attacked you..." sounds eerily familiar. That is emblematic of the IC's majority view that waiting inactively, forever, is preferable to using force to stop another's aggression. Itâs like âLead-up to Iraq War, Part 2â. I have no doubt that our rightful counterattack would completely isolate us from the IC.
America has no idea how much it is hated, or how threatened it is and how vulnerable it is to this collective global public opinion.
Ahmedinejad reminds me of an early Hitler-blustering, aggressive, self-important, nuts.
#8
I agree that the "International Community" would do exactly as you say, but it seems to me that the most likely result would be that the Iranians would have opened the door to our using our nukes - which we have, up until this point refrained from doing.
It's easy to believe all the media hype. But once the nuclear option is on the table, it's a battle that we will easily win.
1- The Iranians wait until the end of W's term to do this. If a Dem is elected the chances of nuclear retaliation drop to near zero (although a Dem might attract more sympathy among our "allies.")
2- Whether as a result of coordination or not, the Chinese simultaneously attack Taiwan (which I think 'moose has written about previously.)
Posted by: Matt ||
12/10/2005 14:09 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I think it is very important to remember that we haven't really started fighting yet. At this point, we still don't feel our survival is truly threatened. We've been fighting, nice - like a parent who doesn't want to throw out an addicted child - we keep thinking if we can just find a way to reform them then we should give it our best shot. However, at the some point, when the parents realize that the addicted child not only hates them and wants them dead, but is actively planning to kill them, ....the rules of the game dramatically change.
Lots of the liberals just don't grasp the dangers of what they have enabled. Survival is a powerful instinct. Nukes will change things overnight.
#12
WHOAWHOAWHOA...
"(All of the above predicated on a Republican being President, of course...)"
WHAT?!!!
You ASSUME that, despite that SOME dems have backed down, they still have no guts, all? Hey. Remember something. I happen to be a (nameless) democrat who still believes nuking them in the first place BEFORE IRAQ STARTED was a good idea.
You can still blow stuff up and vote "donkey". It's been done before.
Oh, and another thing--Iran doesn't have a chance against US forces. You're really, really, really overestimating them. Irani corps against US armies? ARMIES? And it only takes one plane. Heck, a B-29 could do it, much less a B-2, F-117, B-1B, B-52, F/A-18, F-16, F-15, or any of our cruise missile variants (can't name enough of them, but Tomahawks come to mind very rapidly).
Course, this is all wishful thinking...because if some republicans are in office we'll go after someone totally unrelated, like Zimbabwe...
#14
JM: Zhang Fei:
I may be wrong, but I think that a coal bin fire caused the Maine to go up.
According to the teevee anyway :)
In March 1898, two independent commissions which investigated on-site evidence of the disaster came to opposite conclusions. The U.S. commission reported that the explosion was external (probably caused by an explosive device), while the Spanish commission concluded that it was internal (probably caused by an accident).
Should I trust Spain or Uncle Sam? Most historians trust Spain. But then again, most historians take the part of Uncle Sam's enemies, with one exception - Hitler, who sinned by attacking Communist Russia.
#15
How about a stealth delivery of a nuke into Tehran? Plausible deniability cuts both ways. "Why, golly, somebody done nuked a USCG! And it appears that they hit all the major cities of Iran too! Who would do such a thing?"
#17
Would it not be fair to say that the American military is keeping a pretty close underwater eye - and ear - in this area in order to prevent such a scenario? And I would think that if a carrier group is going to put itself in such a vulnerable position as passing through the strait, that there is a fair amount of advanced scouting....I defer to the group....
#18
I would ask what do people would happen in Iran did this and it failed - the missle was, in effect, shot down before hitting its target.
Also, I can already hear John Fkin Kerry and Ted Kennedy speaking against any retaliation "We must defer to the UNSC before making any rash response! A full investigation (by the UN of course) is in order!"
#19
Has anyone Gamed the Martian Intervention? This screws up the timing loop of the Mad Mullahs and forces a reappraisal of their strategy at D+11teen. If this happens at D+24 the US 3rd Flying Monkey Corp comes into play, grabs the board and flings it to the ground while screeching and demand treats.
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/10/2005 18:20 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Once again, it would pretty certainly *not* be a missile attack, as that would both be far easier to intercept and would provide a trajectory from its point of origin, fingering Iran as the culprit.
Second most difficult would be a fire ship, most likely a legitimate commercial vessel such as an oil tanker, most likely with Liberian registry, which is common for merchant shipping.
The US carrier group probably passes through the Strait only when no commercial ship is scheduled, to cut down on this possibility. So, by far, the most likely attack would be with a nuclear naval mine.
Such a pre-positioned device would be surrounded by a thick lead and concrete casing, perhaps several feet thick, to radically lower its gamma radiation signature, also to be invisible to magnetic detection. It might even be connected to the shore by a cable, for last minute instructions, which would be detached and reeled in just prior to the arrival of the fleet.
Even if the lead ships in the carrier group did detect it, they couldn't stop it, and it might be close enough to take out half a dozen ships and severely damage the carrier. Much would depend on the spacing between ships. Additional damage would be caused by the resulting tidal waves in either direction, EMP damage to their electronics, and radiation effects.
Any ships sunk in the Strait, plus changes in floor depth, would be hazards few ships would be willing to traverse, and additional Iranian ships could be scuttled to make the Strait impassable for perhaps a year. This would guarantee an oil embargo and put severe strain on western economies.
The whiny excuses coming from the Iranians would be numerous: the Israelis did it; the Iranians wouldn't have, because it cut off their oil revenues as well; the Americans did it themselves as an excuse to invade Iran; the UNSC has to investigate it; the UNSC has to vote on whether America can retaliate; Iran is a peace-loving country that doesn't have nuclear weapons; Iran is willing to allow *some* inspections of its nuclear facilities; Iran will temporarily discontinue refinement of uranium; etc., ad nauseum.
Previously unmentioned, if it were to happen soon, I ask my fellow Rantburgers what they think the response of the anti-war crowd and the democrat party would be? Let us say that I would doubt they would suddenly become pro-war with Iran.
BTW why the hell would Iran f*ck up one of their own shipping lifelines?
But even if they did, why would they use a nuke?
Oatmeal would be a better choice.
Posted by: Red Dog ||
12/10/2005 18:37 Comments ||
Top||
#23
In the event of a nuke attack, or ANY attack, by Iranians on our troops or ships would result in the sudden ability to take a codepink bullhorn and do a colonoscopy with it. I promise you
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/10/2005 18:46 Comments ||
Top||
#24
CrazyFool-
HA! AL Gore would take credit for creating SDI, and J. Kerry would say he voted for the bill which funded SDI, but voted against the exepensive add ons which, on the other hand, blah blah blah....
Posted by: Mark E. ||
12/10/2005 19:04 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Iran is only planting the seeds right now. If they try anything against the US it will be long into the future, using some lone jihadi with a suitcase. Same with Israel (easier said and done once they get the tech). In both [suit]cases you get plausible deniability with the Muslim street. Sane and rational Muslims would not believe that Muslims would commit such an act, just ask any Muslim about 9/11 and the London bombings.
Hitler, who sinned by attacking Communist Russia.
Are you being sarcastic or what?
Posted by: Rafael ||
12/10/2005 19:07 Comments ||
Top||
#26
What if the United States decided not to play into the Persians suit and instead launched a go-for-broke Mini-sub assault on the Oil Terminal at Karauk Island? We'd have them by the nano-hairs and could bend them to our will just by thinking up scenarios! We'd win in a walk-over! We'd have the oil and the nano-tech, opening up a huge vista for Americam dawg-ex-machina. I can see it! It will all hinge on detecting the nuclear cement mines the Persians are laying.... can we stop them? Hard to tell, might need flying monkeys with sooper infrared capabilities.... Have faith Georgia Tech is on our side!
#27
I ask my fellow Rantburgers what they think the response of the anti-war crowd and the democrat party would be?
I'm guessing there's a hard core 20-25% of the population that wouldn't support war even in this case - half of them are actively rooting against us. Among the pols, Kerry, Edwards, even Dean and Pelosi wouldn't be in that group, although I'm not so sure about Maxine Waters or Cynthia McKinney.
But we'll be able to operate just fine with 75-80% support, thanks. I doubt even WWII hit 100%
#28
Ummm, I take it you find the scenarios here a tad too breathless Shipman?
All sorts of things may be possible and I agree with Anonymoose that the MMs aren't entirely stable. And also that MAD doesn't work well in the asymmetrical confrontation between them and us.
But what I suspect will happen - frustrating and dangerous tho it is - is that they'll get nukes and won't use them any time soon. And if they do I suspect it will be an attempt at Israel or at us at home via something smuggled in rather than at the fleet in the Strait.
#29
the 20-25% would be afraid to speak up except in SF, Berkeley, NYC, Seattle and Portland
oh, and the Democratic Caucus...yep, 20-25% sounds right
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/10/2005 19:17 Comments ||
Top||
#30
I doubt even WWII hit 100%
It didn't, right Z.F.? :-)
Posted by: Rafael ||
12/10/2005 19:18 Comments ||
Top||
#31
If Iran were to pull off a nuclear ambush on a US CVG, and the USA did not immediately reduce all recognizeable man-made targets in Iran to cinders, how many nano-seconds do you think it would take for Israel to conclude that their nation would immediately become the target for Iranian nuclear strike #2? How fast would Isreal obliterate any target left standing?
Iran would not face a "diplomatically enraged" US. We're not merely talking "suicide by cop". It would be like standing at the corner of the "L" between two armed SWAT teams, wearing a bulls eye, and lobbing Molotov cocktails at them.
It didn't - there were anti-draft riots in a few places, instigated by the socialists and other hard leftists, and a small conscientious objector group.
#33
Frank, trailing daughter #1 translates your colourful statement as "We will screw them up the butt." Is she correct? (I'm still struggling with unfamiliar American idioms, I'm afraid -- the result of being the child of foreign-born academics.)
#34
Hard corps commies who were drafted were sent up to the Aleutians. However, a much more interesting event happened in Phoenix. A negro anti-draft riot was met with National Guardsmen, who sprayed the asphalt in front of them with 30 cal MG, blowing chunks at them at high speed.
A reporter for the now defunct Phoenix Gazette reported on the riot, which was only published years after the war, in a retrospective.
#37
Thank you, Frank. When Mama was hired as a therapist by the VA hospital during the Korean War, she learnt soldiers' vocabulary as a list of terms equivalent to her customary medical latin terminology. And as none of us children went into medicine, I s'pose she never thought we would need to know that particular language cluster. (And now td#1 is being smug about her cleverness... but then some days ago td#2 condescendingly explained why I shouldn't say "pussycat." They've reached the age where they think I couldn't possibly survive this wicked world without their protection, and I really wonder how they think I made it until now, and what they think I'll do after they've gone off to school. ;-) I somehow think your boys don't conceive similar notions about you!)
1) The Strait of Hormuz, given its importance to the world economy, is one of the most heavily surveilled waterways in the entire world-- from the ocean surface, from the air, and from space. It's very unlikely that Iran could plant a nuclear ocean mine in the Strait without being detected, either by the U.S. or Britain or any one of a number of other countries whose economic lifeblood flows through the Strait.
2) A surprise nuclear attack on a U.S. carrier battle group would be a provocation unprecedented in our history, an act of war a thousand times more compelling than 9/11 or Pearl Harbor. No U.S. President, Democrat or Republican, could do anything but answer that provocation with an instantaneous and brutal retaliatory counterattack.
3) As for the leaders of the so-called "international community" doing something like "demanding" we not retaliate, forget it. Those leaders will do PRECISELY what they did on 9/11: those who do not promptly sit down, politely fold their hands in their laps, and speak with little indoor voices, will be tripping over one another in a mad rush to reassure us of their friendship. NO ONE is going to be demanding ANYTHING of us, in part because we would be making it crystal-clear to everybody in earshot that we're in no mood to listen to anybody's "demands"-- Russia's, China's, France's, or anyone else.
".. I somehow think your boys don't conceive similar notions about you!)"
I won't presume to answer for Frank, but you can be damned sure that MY boys not only concieved of those notions, but, acted upon them!
When they were little I was really smart, as they got to their pre-teen years I started to get stupid. Now that the "baby" has reached 20, I'm starting to get smart again.
#41
lol - my boyz - Jr and Sr in High School, with a sister age 21 going on 30 (she thinks) - assume I've done a lot (I have) and that I know nothing (contradictory, but when is that a new thing in adolescents?). They are constantly amazed by stories about my "exploits" from my Mom and younger sister....like "How are you still alive?"
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/10/2005 21:32 Comments ||
Top||
#42
The current government of Iran may be insane but, religious posturing for the consumption by their fellow Kool-Aide drinkers aside, they probably do want to live long enough to enjoy and exercise the power they're currently consolidating. Excellent target of opportunity or not, lighting off a nuke a mile or two from their own shores is not an action likely to bring about the quick reconstitution of the caliphate.
If I were going to attack the US with a nuclear weapon Iâd do it at home either via an extremely circuitous route or by proxy. The oft-discussed smuggling of a nuclear weapon into a US port via normal shipping channels is a better option. Or if the Mullahs are feeling a bit more creative they might hide one aboard a US-flagged pleasure vessel that might stand a good chance of returning to port after a "fishing" trip without attracting a great deal of attention. Flying one into San Diego, LA, or Phoenix on a small plane would seem do-able as well. Once they acquire the weapons and miniaturize them to a degree they'll have plenty of good options to soften up and distract the US without being so obvious. If they could keep their mouths shut during the run-up, the best bet would be to launch a dozen or so attacks simultaneously thereby guaranteeing that several would succeed.
One nuke or many, here or overseas, a nuclear attack on the US would incite the American public to a degree the third worldâs thugocracies just donât seem to comprehend. There might be 10% whoâd dissent but the support among the American public for vaporizing a few of those places would be off the charts.
Perhaps the bigger danger is that there are many festering and/or low-level conflicts that would probably erupt into open warfare across much of the globe if the US and the international community were sufficiently distracted. This brings into question whether China, rather than or in addition to, Iran might sponsor such an attack as cover for retaking Taiwan.
#43
Oddly enough, the girls think I'm smart, just dangerously naive and innocent, and vocabularily impaired. But congratulations to you both, upon achieving renewed intelligence -- perhaps one day I'll be allowed out on my own, too. ;-)
#44
just as I, grew, old enough to appreciate that my parents may have actually known what they were talking about...yours will too.
I've done a lot more "questionable" activities than my kids ever did..which makes the "naive" thing a question: should I let them bask in their temporary "worldliness (LOL)" or tell them the truth....
;-)~
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/10/2005 21:43 Comments ||
Top||
#45
"As for the leaders of the so-called "international community" doing something like "demanding" we not retaliate, forget it. Those leaders will do PRECISELY what they did on 9/11: those who do not promptly sit down, politely fold their hands in their laps, and speak with little indoor voices, will be tripping over one another in a mad rush to reassure us of their friendship."
And if you're wrong? What if you underestimate the consequences of American retaliation (in terms of the stupid, crazy and dangerous directions that mob opinion can take the world)? If America, by using its immense, unstoppable power, becomes in their eyes the new Third Reich (basically, an assertion that some lefty politicians in Europe have made already)? Sure, we can turn countries into glass. We should do what we must to survive. But let's not emulate the Romans in deafness and indifference.
We should consider all possible scenarios. What would it mean to be on one side, while on the other side are a new alliance against "imperialist America": Russia (nukes), China (nukes), France (nukes), Iran (nukes by then), Pakistan (nukes by then), and all the countries who want to hop on board because they have a chip on their shoulder about America: basically the entire Muslim world, all of South America, all of western Europe except Britain and maybe Italy, all of Africa, all of Asia except Australia and maybe Japan and the Phillippines? Just asking...
Aren't a lot of British naval officers either seconded or hired on contract by the Omanis? That was pretty much the scenario for the Dhofar War in the late 70's. If that's still the case, we've got some very good people keeping an eye on that area.
Posted by: mac ||
12/10/2005 22:20 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
