US considers use of nuclear weapons against Iran

Elissar

Venerable Relic of the Wastes
Orderite
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The administration of
President George W. Bush is planning a massive bombing campaign against
Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a key Iranian suspected nuclear weapons facility, The New Yorker magazine has reported in its April 17 issue.

The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said that Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler.

"That's the name they're using," the report quoted a former senior intelligence official as saying.

A senior unnamed
Pentagon adviser is quoted in the article as saying that "this White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war."

The former intelligence officials depicts planning as "enormous," "hectic" and "operational," Hersh writes.

One former defense official said the military planning was premised on a belief that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government," The New Yorker pointed out.

In recent weeks, the president has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of the House of Representatives, including at least one Democrat, the report said.

One of the options under consideration involves the possible use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, to insure the destruction of Iran's main centrifuge plant at Natanz, Hersh writes.

But the former senior intelligence official said the attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the military, and some officers have talked about resigning after an attempt to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans in Iran failed, according to the report.

"There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries," the magazine quotes the Pentagon adviser as saying.

The adviser warned that bombing Iran could provoke "a chain reaction" of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world and might also reignite Hezbollah.

"If we go, the southern half of
Iraq will light up like a candle," the adviser is quoted as telling The New Yorker.

Does anyone else see the use of nukes by anyone as a bad thing? If one country uses nukes against another, their is no reason for anyone to hold back from their use, and the death toll will be catastrophic.

However, this would bring about a quicker end to this war that's going on, for good or ill.

But quick end or not, I am against the use of nukes. Especially right now, too much instability in the world.
 
Fuck me! To think I thought the War on Terror wouldnt possibly be as potentially bad as the Cold War. I mean the Soviet Union was infinitely more dangerous than these terrorist and the groups that support them, but at least the USA and the USSR knew what would happen if WW3 came about and luckily that never happened.

If I'm correct arent there a handful of Muslim countrys that (though moderate) have nuclear weapons and after such an attack probably wouldnt hold back?

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
 
Article said:
April 17 issue.

:scratch:

ZOMG! Elissar has traveled through time!!!
aiee.gif
 
heh, it's most likely a typo or AP newswire got ahold of an advance copy.

But back on topic +1

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has told Al-Arabiya satellite channel that most Shiites across the Arab world are loyal to Iran first rather than the countries where they live.

"There are Shiites in all these countries (of the region), significant percentages, and Shiites are mostly always loyal to Iran and not the countries where they live."

He singled out Iraq for special attention. "Naturally Iran has an influence over Shiites who make up 65 percent of Iraq's population," Mubarak said Saturday when asked about Iran's role in neighbouring Iraq.

That taken withthe fact that many arab countries have access to nuclear weapons and seem perfectly willing to fight to the death, even over cartoons, does not bode well.
 
Impeachment, please. The fucker has gone too far this time.

Also, brilliant way for the administration to both reveal plans as well as make threats. Yet people wonder why their kids come home in a box when the enemy is given that kind of intel. People also wonder how that nuke suddenly hit a city in Pakistan because they saw a turban.

On behalf of the veterans of the United States, I hereby formally apologize for how my President and associated "defense" advisors are complete fucking retards.

"a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government"

PPFFFTWHATTHEFUCK?!

Sounds like the White House has been playing too much Conflict: Desert Storm. No...you kill the government, you kill people that people are related to others, as well as emmissaries and merchants from the remote regions, many also have ties to people all over the world, and then you instead breed martyrdom, hatred, and more importantly a new generation of terrorists since the US and Russia collectively bombed the fuck out of Afghanistan, and that is where most of this shit started in the first place.

And that is without counting the additional mess of nukes. As Elissar said, if someone starts, there it goes.

Also, Bush and Co. think they want to start messing around with another country and religious center when they have been a spectacular failure in one country and been batting at wasps in another? Ambitious, but stupid.
 
I really wouldn't worry to much, If the president ever really tried to pull a stunt like that, the american public along with the rest of the government wouldn't stand for it, if this was a real article there is some manipulation of details occuring. I don't think Bush is the smartest president we have ever had, but hes too smart to actually try a stunt like that...
 
I really don't think the people in the US is ready for a new conflict. But that doesn't mean it wont happen.

This is why there should be stated in the constitution that if a offensive war is to begin there should be a referendum.

But i wounder how many US soldiers that have to die before it will be impossible for another conflict, the line gets closer and closer.
 
keyser Soeze said:
I really don't think the people in the US is ready for a new conflict. But that doesn't mean it wont happen.

For example, Nixon's Operation Breakfast for the bombing of Cambodian villages and the forest near Nam.

For more details, here's the full New Yorker article, with the full quote:

One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ”
 
Elli- do I see an anti-bush agenda in you?

This is called sabre rattling. The US wants to shake of the Iranians with total nuclear annihiliation. That said, the US has developed a posture where, "those who ignore the rattling sabre are likely to feel its point."

I would imagine that use against the Iranians has been on the table for a long time, but not as a first strike option.

Personally I would rather the US began promoting insurgency in Iran and support that insurgency with weapons, and let the fucking Irans fight their own civil war for a change.
 
welsh said:
Elli- do I see an anti-bush agenda in you?

Nothing of the sort, I simply dont like the idea of setting the example that it's okay to use nukes. Especially with the US not being exactly the #1 most loved country in the world right now.


This is called sabre rattling. The US wants to shake of the Iranians with total nuclear annihiliation. That said, the US has developed a posture where, "those who ignore the rattling sabre are likely to feel its point."

I would imagine that use against the Iranians has been on the table for a long time, but not as a first strike option.

Personally I would rather the US began promoting insurgency in Iran and support that insurgency with weapons, and let the fucking Irans fight their own civil war for a change.

Yeah, i understand sabre ratteling, and am fine with it, however, the fact that i dont quite believe that the governement is ONLY sabre ratteling at this point makes me a bit nervous.

though i totally agree, we need to promote insurgency in iran, if they kill eachother off they'll stay out of everyone elses hair.
 
I disagree about the sabre rattling, as according to the New Yorker article, soldiers are already being put into place for intel.
 
Rosh:

we should all be cheering.

why play a post-apoc/fallout game when we can live the real thing !!!

wussies!
 
I disagree WesDude, while i enjoy playing post apoc games. I'm pretty sure that i'd be happy enough just going on visiting other places in the world that have close to the same atmosphere.
 
Because of the actions of "W", American is universally hated. Since modern civilization is crumbling and descending into a (long) period of barbarism anyway, I say we go out with a historical bang.

Nuke the Iranians & North Koreas until they glow and then shoot them in the dark!
 
It's curious how you decide for other people's lives while drinking your juice in the hood.

I'm actually against Iran's having nukes of their own, but the matter can be settled peacefully all right.

You have already acquired a nice reputation. Now you're just going to ensure peolpe that they're right when estimating your achievements.
 
I find it extremely ironic that to keep the iranian's from having nukes we are going to nuke them. I believe we should focus more on internal problems than what is happening halfway across the world. It will in some way affect us, but going on suspicious dealings and the like are what make us look like retards before and i don't think it should be repeated. That's my limited knowledge at work.
 
Hokian said:
I believe we should focus more on internal problems than what is happening halfway across the world.
But W is focussing on internal problems. He has said on various occassions that people should be more aware of the fact that the oil is running out and that all those precious SUV's will turn into rusty ruins if a solution is not found. And that's where this whole Arabian nights scenario comes up. You don't honestly believe that he cares whether or not Iran/Iraq/North-Korea have nukes or not, do you? These countries don't pose a threat to the USA at all. But them having nukes is, however, a perfect opportunity to act as if the USA cares, invade these countries and secure the resources that America so desperately needs. By the way: North-Korea probably has nothing to fear, since they don't have any oil or other valuable resources. Afghanistan was invaded not to fight the Taliban and search for Osama (those were just excellent excuses to bomb the shit outta that country), but simply to build bases in that region (Saudi Arabia is too wishy-washy to count on, so they needed a good alternative).

How horrible a nuke-the-shit-out-of-all-muslim-countries-scenario may seem, it will inevitably happen. And W has been very honest and open about that (which is something one might even appreciate about him): the Western world needs that oil. We need it to continue our excessive lifestyle, even if it is only for the next twenty years or so. He's just doing what we want him to do, in a way. Imagine a different scenario, one where El Presidente admits to his slaves that it's over: "I'm sorry, people, but all our own resources are depleted. We can buy some resources from some Stone Age cultures around the globe, but frankly said, they hate our guts and we're going to have to pay way too much for these resources so only the very rich will be able to afford them. The rest of you are doomed. You're going to be homeless in the next ten years or so, you're going to be hungry and thirsty like hell and you're going to die before you know it. I'm a peaceful hippy president, so I just can't wage war over this. I'm sorry. Thank you and goodnight."

It's not a war on terrorism. It's a war for a continuation of a luxurious lifestyle. It's not the White House that is responsible for all the horrible things that have happened, are happening and will happen. It's your fault and mine. And don't go saying stupid things now, like 'I wouldn't mind living on the streets, killing my neighbours to get my hands on some food and some matches' because you know you wouldn't be able to survive for two weeks in a new Stone Age. You want your car, you want your airco, you want that expensive plastic crap that is so cool and neat and collectible, you want your cellophane wrapped cheese and ham and veggies, you want all the luxuries our industrial civilization has to offer. So stop acting like a baby when your government does everything it needs to does to offer you these things at an affordable price.

Jeez.
 
welsh said:
This is called sabre rattling. The US wants to shake of the Iranians with total nuclear annihiliation. That said, the US has developed a posture where, "those who ignore the rattling sabre are likely to feel its point."

I think you answered your own remark there clearly enough.

I would've called Iraq sabre rattling too. But the though of invading a country based on some shoddy WMD intel is not below Bush, so neither is invading a country that's an actual threat.

Man, the US is heading towards bankruptcy fast, this way. Bombs cost money, y'know.
 
alec said:
It's not a war on terrorism. It's a war for a continuation of a luxurious lifestyle. It's not the White House that is responsible for all the horrible things that have happened, are happening and will happen. It's your fault and mine. And don't go saying stupid things now, like 'I wouldn't mind living on the streets, killing my neighbours to get my hands on some food and some matches' because you know you wouldn't be able to survive for two weeks in a new Stone Age. You want your car, you want your airco, you want that expensive plastic crap that is so cool and neat and collectible, you want your cellophane wrapped cheese and ham and veggies, you want all the luxuries our industrial civilization has to offer. So stop acting like a baby when your government does everything it needs to does to offer you these things at an affordable price.

Jeez.

Bingo.

This is your world, now it's time to pay the debts.

Sabre rattling for the US means not just listen to us warn you, but don't think we're not crazy enough to actually do it, because we can and if you fucking don't believe it, it's your ass.

I have said this before- nuclear war is about measuring the potential gains vs. (the potential costs) multiplied by (probability of the actually going all the way).

Sabre rattling here means- have no doubts that we will do it. Studies on the Iraqi mindsight before the war suggested that the Iraqis didn't believe it. The North Koreans are believed to have a similar mindset.

How do you rattle? By making damn sure the other side believes its coming. You make it so that the other side can't afford to ignore it. They've got to believe the hand of God is going to wipe them off the face of the earth.

But with the US that's a loaded bluff. If the other side calls the bluff- "Oh W, you're not serious, you'll bankrupt your country!" W can say, "Hey, I have got to do this. Besides, I won't be the next president, and my buddies can actually profit from all of this."

So you threaten to put a bullet between the eyes of Iran. And if the Iranians call the bluff, well you got a bullet in the chamber, baby. Fuck them for calling the bluff.

And if the Military is starting to get cold feet about all of this, it's about fucking time. Maybe it's a bit too late and I can't be that sympathetic. For the past few years they have received some nice sidepayments to make sure they are good loyal conservative christian republicans. Oh, forgot to give you armored jeeps.... but conservatives didn't seem to mind so much that they voted W for another four. How did the military vote last election?

Perhaps now they are beginning to realize... "Hey, we're being used by this administration that doesn't really give a fuck about us."

Duh! How many bodies have to come back. They don't even send them back in body bags anymore. Body bags is politically incorrect.

So the military gets fucked.
Why?
Because W doesn't need them. He's got the christian whackos eating out of his hand (why? because he's got all that faith based initiative payolla to feed the leaders of the Christians which tell their folks- if you're a good Christian you vote Republican). So the Christians are in his pocket- (and lets not forget the evangelicals make up about 50% of the population and they believe in the "end times" and spend their cash on Revelation apocalyptic fantasies).

So what if they have to pay the costs of all of this. Hey, at least homos can't get married.
And if you are feeling really bad about this, I tell you what, let's keep out the immigrants too...

So who really benefits? Remember it's the top 10% of the top 1% who are W's "base".

So?
This policy is called mercantilism.
Mercantilism means- internally- The state intervenes in the industrial economy by giving generously to corporate welfare- "Hey Haliburton, want some cash?"
Externally- imperialism means an expansion of control over markets and the seizure of raw materials.

And who benefits? Not the middle class or the poor. Those poor bastards are fucked.
No it's the rich folks- and just because mercantilistic policies usually end up with corrupt administrations (see Imperial Spain and France) and bankruptcy (see Imperial France and Spain), isn't a big problem for the rich who draw the profit.

But it's your blood.

Bankruptcy Kharn? What are you kidding. So what if we have a huge debt. We also got light taxes on the rich and they are trying to get rid of estate taxes too. If things get really expensive we could raise the tax rates again. I mean, they are among the lowest in US history right now.

We can afford to nuke the crap out of Iran if we want to. We can impose a draft, we can conquer Afghanistan, Iraq, and even Syria if we want too. It will mean a draft and higher taxes, but the next administration won't be Republican so what does Bush care? His base is living the vita loca right now. Do you think nuking Iran will change that?

Don't forget Nukes were historically considered cheap weapons. Rather than deploy a large conventional force against the Soviets in Europe, the US relied on nuclear deterrence. It's cheap.

Besides, what else where we going to do with them?

BEsides, what if the government goes bankrupt? A weak state is an ineffective state in regulating commerce- to the benefit of the rich again.

Jesus fucking Christ, don't you realize that everything else that this President has tried has gone to shit, and that Iraq and the middle east is the ONLY thing he's doing. All his political capital (what little he still has) is invested in Iraq.

Two years from now, no more W. And then?

Really, fuck all this anti-immigration shit. At least the fucking immigrants realized that what's great about the US is that you can make a buck and have a better life. They don't give a crap about giving the schools to Jesus. They don't give a fuck about whether gays can marry. They just want a better life.

You want to fix the US- send the Christian whackos to Mexico and open our borders to the Hispanics. At least they work and appreciate what the US has to offer.

Don't you get it. It's a fucking distraction. Like gay marriage, like abortion, like everything fucking else.
Don't you realize its becoming nearly impossible for a middle class or poor person to declare personal bankruptcy? Why? they are the ones who are going to pay this bill- you can't afford them to go bankrupt.
Don't you realize that the media is becoming controlled by a few powerful companies.
That the administration is saying Christianity is under threat- they 80% of the fucking country? How in the hell are they under threat?

Jesus fucking Christ. Get your head out of your ass.
The threat to the US national security is George Bush.

Either this guy is a total fuck up beyond compare or he's running this country into the ground for a good reason. You figure it out.

Seriously, America, get your head out of your ass.

If I was Iran, the first thing I would do is form a defensive alliance with North Korea so that if one of the two get hit, the other will launch. Increase the costs of US first strike might create sufficient deterrence.

Or not.
 
Leadership 101

Leadership 101






If you knew any reservists in summer of 2002, you "heard" something was in the works. Best to have home and family 'stuff' safely organized for a possible deployment ...
That fall the talk from the White House got tough, hard ball, on Sadamm's Iraq, but the country as a collective whole asked the 'war drum' beaters, '''invasion, what are you talking about?''

The White House was TOO FAR AHEAD.

THE PRINCE-ly leadership, the surest 'street smart', me-first generation, safe at home, leadership is to push people out ahead, let them think it's ""their"" idea. Co-opting the safety in numbers for THE ideological cause.

By February the 'war drum' was beating again, and Colin Powell was force marching the cherry picked intelligence through the U.N.

No time for U.N. conformation, the invasion HAD TO BE April 2003.


The talk of bunker busting Nukes has gone on for years.
Once casually pointed at the ""AXIS OF EVIL'' triplets, the doctrine creep has become - get Iran -.
Smokey dreams of Israel's raid on Iraq's French Built Nuclear facility in 1981.
Visions of a [U.S.] bloodless Kosovo air war, dancing in their sugar plumed heads.


http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/ne...frontpage&st=frontpageap20060409_1144&src=abc


U.S. Aims to Dampen Talk of Striking Iran

Updated 10:03 PM ET April 9, 2006

The White House on Sunday sought to dampen the idea of a U.S. military strike on Iran, saying the United States is conducting "normal defense and intelligence planning" as President Bush seeks a diplomatic solution to Tehran's suspected nuclear weapons program.

Administration officials from President Bush on down have left open the possibility of a military response if Iran does not end its nuclear ambitions. Several reports published Sunday said the administration was studying options for military strikes; one account raised the possibility of using nuclear bombs against Iran's underground nuclear sites.

Britain's foreign secretary called the idea of a nuclear strike "completely nuts."

Dan Bartlett, counselor to Bush, cautioned against reading too much into administration planning. ...


Is The White House 'caught' leading dangerously out front again?
Or, is this steering back to center, the true stated aim of the more traditional foreign policy?
A politicians' habitual ''flip -- flop''?
Recall the information campaign on clean 'neutron nukes' as a ""wistful'' warning to the RED HORDES threatening a younger, old, Europe in the Wonder Years of Cold War One?

Whether from the front or the rear this Administration's leadership lacks the elegance of being 'big boned' heavy handed. It appears again to be corpulent [a.k.a.- fat- ] and uncoordinated.

It rode a miss information wave by implying a link of Sadamm to 9-11, and paid recently for this nervous, hysterical, reflex when it was politically unpopular to have ARABS control U.S. ports, not even 'our' Arabians, 'our' Arabian ALLIES.

Pinned in 'The No Fly Zone', Sadamm was "a deer in the headlights'' regardless the driver.

The sad part was miss information, a.k.a. - lying -, wasn't necessary.

Separating 'the mission' from reality will demand that another 'truth' be fabricated to cover the last ''veracity construct''.

There is a price we pay for leadership from the rear, and a greater cost when the wisdom only appears in hind sight.






4too
 
Back
Top