Lt. General Robert G. Gard, Jr.


Lt. General Robert G. Gard, Jr., Chairman of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, discusses Israel’s ability to drag the US into a war with Iran, the difficulty of destroying Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility even with bunker-busting bombs, Pentagon war games that exposed serious US vulnerabilities to Iranian retaliation, the need to vastly reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the US and Russia and why the aircraft carrier-based US Navy is becoming obsolete.

MP3 here. (36:55)

Lt. General Robert G. Gard, Jr. is Chairman of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation where his policy work focuses on nuclear nonproliferation, missile defense, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, military policy, nuclear terrorism, and other national security issues.

19 thoughts on “Lt. General Robert G. Gard, Jr.”

  1. The Pentagon will deploy missiles on ships in the Black Sea in Bulgaria and on land in Romania and Poland with radar/command center in the Czech Republic by 2015. According to former Trident missile engineer Bob Aldridge- "Whether on ships or land, they are still a necessary component for an unanswerable first strike". Bob Aldridge has been right all along. The title of his main work says it all: Robert C. Aldridge: First Strike! The Pentagon´s Strategy For Nuclear War. He resigned because he realized that Trident wasn´t for MAD but rather for NUTS (nuclear use target selection). I´ll refer to his books The Counterforce Syndrome, Nuclear Empire and also America in Peril, too. One may speculate whether it´s "only" for blackmail or for actual use. The Russians can´t know that so they´ll implement semi-or actually automatic Launch On Warning and it may happen by mistake BECAUSE OF THE BLOODY FOOLS IN THE PENTAGON. But of course it doesn´t matter to the few survivors in the Andes whose fault it was.

  2. Look, the militaries of the US and Israel are not really designed for counterinsurgency, are they? They are designed to devastate. Surely we can all agree on this. So does it really make sense to assume that the US and Israel fear the wider war that would surely be sparked by an attack on Iran? Or is that what we WANT to believe, so we listen selectively to cautionary words from some US and Israeli higherups, sort of ignoring the wider push which seems to be unmistakeably towards a wider war?
    I think the US military, especially the Air Force, assumes that it is fighting with its hands tied and it is in that context that we can be said to be bogged down in two wars and not really eager for another. But what if a wider war allowed the US and Israel to shift from trying to somehow adapt their massive power posture to counterinsurgency and occupation tasks, to simply unleashing their destructive power with little restraint? Reasonable folks realize that to go there would be to open a pandora's box, plus it would be just wrong, but is our political/military establishment reasonable, is Israel's?
    By now I think we should realize that they are bent on domination and they damn well intend to have it.

    So let's not assume that the US and Israel 'leaderships' actually fear a wider war. It may be exactly what they want, and they may very well not be wise enough to be careful what they wish for. There doesn't seem to be much wisdom in either camp.

  3. It's obvious that Persia is an essential aspect of this grand strategy. So, if war against an Nth State is inevitable it is also logical that the Nth State adopt a deep strategy that attempts to control the attack in terms of timing and tactics and thus increase whatever advantages may exist. F.D.R. used this in the Pearl Harbor business. The Greeks used this at Salamis to defeat Persia. It is also the deep strategy presently used by Persia to defeat certain hegemonic policies. Caveat Caesar. Consider the possible secondary effects – losing 2 or 3 carriers, for example… Would this delight China, Russia?

  4. Iran has done nothing to America to deserve military action against this nation. Israel is such an enemy to America and the world in terms of having peace. I applaude Obama for not allowing Netanyahu to rule him. American presidents should not allow Israel to intimidate them. We need to get rid of all politicians that pander to Israel and we should all boycott the so called "conservative radio talk show hosts" who have been bought by corporations that serve Israel and whose function seems to be selling the wars to American people for the benefit of Israel. Warmongering costs us lives of our young soldiers and bankrupt America and make the world hate America.
    This is the thing that gives ammunition to others to hate the US. We cannot blame Arabs for hating America although American people have not done wrong. It is the US politician and friends of Israel in America that wage wars who deserve the hate.

    1. I think the USA is doing a good job getting everyone to hate us without any help out there by anyone. We don't have friends anymore, we have allies of necessity. Each having it own reasons to stay allied to the USA. We lost all our friends during the Carter administration. All we have is those that will use us for what they can get.

  5. Read the books "Spy Trade" by Grant Smith and "Guilt by Association" by Jeff Gates. Stop all aid to Israel and cut off all ties. Wehave nothing to gain from Israel but everything to lose.

    1. I've read Grant Smith's books. He's an expert on AIPAC, the nefarious Israeli lobby. I'll have to read "Guilt by Association" by Gates.

      Cut Israel off from American life support.

  6. Our political prostitutes,who are pantring to israel,would like eventually to get America to another war,while the Israelies are stealing more Palastanian land.


  8. Remember, while Iran/Persia is not in the Book of Revelation, it IS in the Book of Daniel! Ezekiel, too. (Where you will also find Gog and Magog!) So the Armeggedonites are eager for a war with Iran, in order to speed up the Rapture and the Second Coming. After that, they plan to rule all of us mockers with a rod of iron and get even for all the fun they are missing now. (My source: innumerable prophecy preachers but especially the Last Days Prophet [and profit] of God, Brother R. G. Stair!! . Like'em or no, the Fighting Fundie Armeggedonites are the real reason the USA is screwing around in the Middle East.

  9. Lieutenant General Gard, AUS (Ret.) is well qualified to discuss the issues in question, by virtue of his long experience in dealing with them.

    Prime Minister NuttyYahoo and his fellow Zionist criminals in Tel Aviv wouldn't mind attacking Iran, even if it dragged the U.S. into it. Israel looks at America the way a dog looks at a lamppost, as something to piss on. Obama and Hillary Clinton let Israel step all over 'em, so no problem there.

    The General's right. An attack on Iran would result in serious military and diplomatic ramifications for the U.S (not that Israel and our chickenhawk neocons would mind).

    If Israeli planes enter Iraqi airspace, they should be blown out of the sky.

  10. Israel's only hope in a war with Iran or the Arabs is the nuclear arsenals they have. They have forgotten that these arsenals are in the market and the Arabs are rich compared to the cup begging Israelis.__In any future war with the arabs or Iran if Israel employs nuclear weapons then the Jewish race is gone from the surface of the earth. Jews in the world are only roughly 10 million. __Being who they are, they have put America in a situation where Americans are kind of wearing diapers so they can not urinate Israel out in public. But when the diaper stinks due to age, I am sorry the diaper will have to be changed.______

  11. Thank you Scott and Lt. General Gard for the great interview.

    If I may I'd like to lay out a few more scenarios.

    The strait of Hormuz is narrow and shallow enough in parts that oil tankers have to go through single file. It's been said before that if an oil tanker was sunk in the right place, it could block oil shipments through the strait of Hormuz. The oil from Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE flows through the strait of Hormuz., as does much of the oil of Saudi Arabia.

    This is an image of a small burning oil slick:

    If an oil tanker were sunk in the strait of Hormuz in just the right way, it would sink to the bottom, possibly physically blocking some traffic, and the oil, being lighter than water, would slowly leak to the surface. It would be easy to light the resulting oil slick and difficult to extinguish it. This act alone could stop a very significant portion of the world's oil from flowing, and uncertainty about when it would be restored would cause speculators to bid up the prices to unimaginable levels.

    But it gets worse.

    Iran has significant long and medium surface to surface missile technology. Saudi Arabia ships some of its oil through the strait of Hormuz, but it also ships much through the Persian Gulf. This is a map of over-land Saudi oil pipelines:

    The U.S. has positioned anti-missile missiles in Saudi Arabia to defend key sites, but pipelines, because of their length, are impossible to defend and very easy to destroy. Iran's missiles have significantly better targeting capabilities than Saddam's SCUDs. Again, anti-missile missiles may have some effectiveness, but Iran produces its own missiles, which means that they likely have massive stockpiles. An anti missile system may be able to stop two or four simultaneously incoming missiles, but eight or sixteen or thirty two and the system becomes overwhelmed.

    Oil facilities are among the easiest targets to destroy. One well placed explosive in a refinery can potentially destroy the whole thing. If pressed, Iran probably has the ability seriously damage Saudi Arabia's oil exporting ability.

    People like to mention the fact that the U.S. has nukes, but consider the fact that the prime target in any bombing raids would be active nuclear facilities. Consider the following map of the Chernobyl fallout:

    Now imagine that map placed over Iran. Depending on which way the wind was blowing (literally) and the locations of the strikes, we're talking about radioactive fallout over Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Georgia, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan. India, Russia and China lay within the possible reach of the fallout.

    Now consider also the Iranian ground forces. Even without leaving their territory, they could easily make available the latest in their domestic or imported hardware. Iran domestically produces updated versions of the U.S. made 'stinger' missiles the mujahedeen used to down Soviet helicopters. If distributed to resistance fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan, they could make travel by helicopter virtually impossible across the region. But that's only the anti-air capability: Iran also produces sophisticated man-portable anti tank missiles, which, if distributed to insurgents along with mine, would guarantee the cutting of the U.S. military's supply lines in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The U.S. Army relies on sophisticated technology, none of which is any good without resupply. One estimate is that a war with Iran would force a U.S. military retreat over land to the Mediterranean and a friendly port, possibly in Egypt or Israel. This could be accomplished even if Iran was leveled with nukes. This would be on top of the global geopolitical fallout over the skyrocketing prices of oil, civilian deaths and radioactive fallout circling the globe.

    For the U.S. government, such a chain of events would result in its downfall and over throw over the short or medium term on economic factors alone. This is called MAD, or Mutually Assured Destruction.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.