Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

US considering use of nukes in Iran

Iran Bush Administration Nukes 2006

  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

#21 Nikcara

Nikcara

    confused little imp

  • Islander
  • 3,500 posts

Posted 09 April 2006 - 12:19 PM

And if you start going Old Testement on people, it can get quite violent in a hurry.

Muslims aren't by nature or religion or whatever any more or less violent than any other group.  I think that there are substantial hisotrical, political. and economic reasons why the Middle East is currently such a violent place...but the Quran is not one of them.  What some nut decides to make of the Quran, yes, but remember that Phelps thinks he has the Bible's backing when he protests funerals and whatnot.  I've heard several scholars talk about Jihad, and most of them say that when read carefully it means to try and convert those who aren't Muslim or to kill those who attack Islam, not to indiscriminatly kill everyone who isn't Muslim.

I've known a good many peaceful, kind, and loving Muslims, as well as a few jerks who were Muslim.  I can say the same thing of every relgion I've encountered.

back to the topic at hand:
NUKES???  IS HE BLOODY STUPID???
there's the reaction this would cause from the rest of our allies, the Americans citizens, and every Muslim country I can think of...global radiation spikes (I don't care what he says about 'low radiation nukes'...BAH)...asking for more terrorist attacks....GAH!!  NO!!!  BAD PRESIDENT, NO DOUGHNUT!!!
We have fourty million reasons for failure, but not a single excuse  -- Rudyard Kipling

Develop compassion for your enemies, that is genuine compassion.  Limited compassion cannot produce this altruism.  -- H. H. the Dalai Lama

#22 Denny

Denny
  • Just Washed Ashore
  • 46 posts

Posted 09 April 2006 - 12:22 PM

View PostNikcara, on Apr 9 2006, 05:19 PM, said:

GAH!!  NO!!!  BAD PRESIDENT, NO DOUGHNUT!!!

But have another pretzel, please!

#23 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 09 April 2006 - 12:23 PM

The Times of London has a long piece on this today, including a Senior Administration Official confirming Sy Hersh.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#24 Denny

Denny
  • Just Washed Ashore
  • 46 posts

Posted 09 April 2006 - 12:49 PM

View PostGodeskian, on Apr 9 2006, 05:14 PM, said:

Incidentally, and accepting that the new-yorker is hardly an unbiased middle of the road source.

While it may not be, it's funny how Seymour Hersh as an individual always turns out to be telling the truth.  His track record speaks louder than what journal his article is published in.

#25 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 09 April 2006 - 01:11 PM

View PostNikcara, on Apr 9 2006, 01:19 PM, said:

back to the topic at hand:
NUKES???  IS HE BLOODY STUPID???
there's the reaction this would cause from the rest of our allies, the Americans citizens, and every Muslim country I can think of...global radiation spikes (I don't care what he says about 'low radiation nukes'...BAH)...asking for more terrorist attacks....GAH!!  NO!!!  BAD PRESIDENT, NO DOUGHNUT!!!

I think of the oppertunity for the US to be nickled and dimed into allowing Iran to Nuke Israel. I see the chance of Millions of Jews being killed before the US and our Allies finally discover how understanding our Arab Allies really are.

Then after the radiation spikes show us that no Jew is alive in Israel or will be alive for very long. Then we can enter into long term discussions about why that was a bad thing and maybe we could find a better way to deal with Iran . Oh I do not know maybe someplace we can arrange the surrender of the US in another nickle and dime manner.

That is why the Diplospeak crap needs to end when dealing with a dangerous enemy.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#26 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 09 April 2006 - 02:19 PM

It would be stupid NOT to consider using nukes. For one thing, "consider" doesn't equal "plan to do it"; it means knowing what your options are and comparing them to each other, possibly only to end up not doing some of them. Also, keep in mind that not all nukes are the metropolis-vaporizing supernukes with zillions of civilian casualties that people envision; the smaller ones are not much more than the biggest chemical bombs, just enough to demolish a compound or base.

And, since "consider" means consider options, what are the options here, to respond to the fact that Iran is developing nukes and wants to use them for genocide against some and to threaten others into giving them whatever they want?
1. Strike their nuke sites before those weapons become ready and used.
2. Don't make any such military strike.

If #1 were chosen, the question would then be what kind of strike. Invasion on the ground? Takes lots of time, lives, and other resources, and would amount to an invasion. Conventional bombing from the air? Not as much time, risk to lives, and cost in other resources as a ground invasion, but still more than a nuclear strike, and for a less effective and reliable result. Nukes? You get to wipe out only the specific targets you need to wipe out without so much collateral damage to both sides, and do it quickly.

#27 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 09 April 2006 - 02:51 PM

You're neglecting to factor in the reaction of the world, Delvo.  The probability that nuking Iran would lead to a world war.  The radiation.  Pesky little things like that.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#28 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 09 April 2006 - 03:07 PM

Yeah the world that will go America how dare you stop Iran from getting nuclear devices so they can kill the jews of Israel.  How dare you America use such horrible devices to stop the killings of millions of people. It is better for the world if the jews were dead.

Is that the world reaction your talking about.  You actually think Iran is reasonable? You think they are working towards Peace? When did Iran not say it was holy duty to destroy Israel?  This is the side you want to talk to.  This is the side you think is dealing in good faith?  

I am thinking they have the world thinking that when Iran pisses on them it just a sudden rainstorm. I am thinking we have so many people willing to give away the safety of other nations for their own. We saw how that worked out for Austria and Czechslovakia in the 1930's.

So yes let us appease Iran and see how far it gets us.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#29 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 09 April 2006 - 03:08 PM

View Post_ph, on Apr 9 2006, 02:48 AM, said:

Ya think??  You have been advocating nuking Iran for quite some time now, LoTS.  What's changed?

I never advocated nuking Iran...My advocation of nukes was that the US could've responded with them after 9-11. Since they were referring to the attacks as a WMD.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#30 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 09 April 2006 - 03:51 PM

There is also zero evidence from the article that the president is in favor of using nuclear weapons of any kind. It just mentioned that there is a faction in the administration that thinks the option should be available, not that that faction was winning in its arguements or was even having much in the way of influence.
The issues with Iran would have to go through a complete failure of the diplomacy that is currently ongoing then rachet up through the tensions in a way that doesn't involve Isreali preemptive action first and have that pronuclear weapon use faction gain over the precision weapon strike/special forces faction that includes Rumsfeld before a choice to use nuclear weapons would even arrive let alone a deployment.
That someone is considering something doesn't mean that they will do it and that a plan exists for something doesn't mean that it will happen. There has been a plan for the invasion of Canada sitting in some file somewhere since at least the 1920s but it doesn't mean it will ever happen. Just like wargaming doesn't mean an attack is imminent. Iran has been part of American military wargaming since the 1980s. I even have a book of wargames that were run in the mid 1990s and one of them was a conflict with Iran. I see a lot of hype and hysteria over very normal parts of the decision making process.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#31 Denny

Denny
  • Just Washed Ashore
  • 46 posts

Posted 09 April 2006 - 04:19 PM

View PostG1223, on Apr 9 2006, 06:11 PM, said:

That is why the Diplospeak crap needs to end when dealing with a dangerous enemy.

The only reason Israel's enemies are our enemies is because we chose it to be so.

I wouldn't sacrifice my son or anyone else's for Israeli security or Israeli existence.  As Ayn Rand put it (though in a quite different context) "If they can only survive at the price of our blood, why should we wish them to survive?"

#32 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 09 April 2006 - 04:43 PM

I know we have plans sitting on the shelf somewhere on how to carry out an invasion of Canada and it wouldnít surprise me if most of our allies have one of those just in case folders.  Iím sure those same allies have plans sitting somewhere collecting dust on how to launch a strike on the United States.  Most militaries have thousands of just in case plans in case the extremely unlikely happens.  The fact that the author is using the term tactical nuclear weapons when referring to B61 gravity bombs indicates his ignorance on the topic or desire to stir people up.  

If anything had, the administration failed to at least consider the use of nuclear weapons in a situation where nuclear weapons may come into play by one party or another that lack of foresight could be disastrous.  The last thing you want to do is be forced into using nuclear weapons in a situation where you havenít planned out the implications of using them.  The reality is that the nuclear component in the situation with Iran is very present and failing to consider the implications of it would be negligent.  

Quote

Denny: The only reason Israel's enemies are our enemies is because we chose it to be so.

I wouldn't sacrifice my son or anyone else's for Israeli security or Israeli existence. As Ayn Rand put it (though in a quite different context) "If they can only survive at the price of our blood, why should we wish them to survive?"
  

1) You stand by your allies and you do not abandon them to the wolves.  
2) I have no interest in standing by as a witness to a potential second Holocaust.  Many of the enemies of Israel are not out to destroy Israel as a nation but rather out to destroy the Israelis as a people.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#33 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 09 April 2006 - 05:22 PM

View Posttennyson, on Apr 9 2006, 04:51 PM, said:

There is also zero evidence from the article that the president is in favor of using nuclear weapons of any kind. It just mentioned that there is a faction in the administration that thinks the option should be available, not that that faction was winning in its arguements or was even having much in the way of influence.

The New Yorker said:

The President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”

...

A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror expressed a similar view. “This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war,” he said.

...

Bush and others in the White House view him [Ahmadinejad] as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official said. “That’s the name they’re using. They say, ‘Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?’ ”

Or will they?  

Quote

The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning.

Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran—without success, the former intelligence official said. “The White House said, ‘Why are you challenging this? The option came from you.’ ”


Quote

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles.

He called it a juggernaut that has to be stopped.”

He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue.

“There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries,” the adviser told me. “This goes to high levels.”

The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. “The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks,” the adviser said.

The adviser added, however, that the idea of using tactical nuclear weapons in such situations has gained support from the Defense Science Board, an advisory panel whose members are selected by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Quote

He warned, as did many others, that bombing Iran could provoke “a chain reaction” of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world: “What will 1.2 billion Muslims think the day we attack Iran?”

I especially appreciated the unnamed UN diplomat who said

Quote

There may be a military option, but there is no military solution.
  

Too true.  War with Iran, particularly nuclear, would be so catastrophic as to make Iraq, by comparison, look like a heated argument.  There would be no winners.  Only degrees of losers.    

tennyson said:

The issues with Iran would have to go through a complete failure of the diplomacy that is currently ongoing...

Quote

A discouraged former I.A.E.A. official told me in late March that, at this point, “there’s nothing the Iranians could do that would result in a positive outcome. American diplomacy does not allow for it. Even if they announce a stoppage of enrichment, nobody will believe them. It’s a dead end.”

tennyson said:

There has been a plan for the invasion of Canada sitting in some file somewhere since at least the 1920s but it doesn't mean it will ever happen.

Patrick Clawson, on Iran expert and Bush ally, said:

This is not like planning to invade Quebec.

Like the rest, it's right there in the article.

Edited by _ph, 09 April 2006 - 10:39 PM.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#34 Denny

Denny
  • Just Washed Ashore
  • 46 posts

Posted 09 April 2006 - 05:25 PM

View PostCJ AEGIS, on Apr 9 2006, 09:43 PM, said:

1) You stand by your allies and you do not abandon them to the wolves.  
2) I have no interest in standing by as a witness to a potential second Holocaust.  Many of the enemies of Israel are not out to destroy Israel as a nation but rather out to destroy the Israelis as a people.

1.) Alliances are man-made and can be man-unmade.  One of the Founding Fathers, I forget which, said nations do not have permanent friends, only permanent interests.  Oil is a permanent interest of the U.S.   Jewish rule of Palestine is not.
1a.) Israel is not an "ally" in the sense that we do not have a mutual defense treaty binding us to defend them.
2.) Then you go and fight for Israel.  Leave the rest of us, who care no more about Israel than we do about Nepal, and our kids out of it!

#35 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 09 April 2006 - 05:32 PM

At no point does it say that either the president or Rumsfeld are in favor of using nuclear weapons. That was what I was talking about. Even war does not mean the use of nuclear weapons, that is an additional summise by you and others. It can be read into it but it is not said in it.
Thier are other ways to change the power structure in Iran beyond war and that it can only be war is the commentator's summise not the president's own statement or action.
As it was the previous administration setup commitees to investigate ballistic missile threats and the threat to American interests in space but that didn't mean that it unambigously followed thier recommendations or went with the most extreme viewpoint on the panel.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#36 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 09 April 2006 - 05:49 PM

View PostCJ AEGIS, on Apr 9 2006, 05:43 PM, said:

The fact that the author is using the term tactical nuclear weapons when referring to B61 gravity bombs indicates his ignorance on the topic or desire to stir people up.

The B61-111 bombs cited in these pieces aren't nuclear?  

Times of London said:

Hersh reports that one option involves the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, to ensure the destruction of Iranís main centrifuge plant at Natanz.

The Sunday Times understands that a strike with a conventional weapon is much more likely. By 2008 a new bunker-busting missile called the Big Blu should be available to the US air force. The 30,000lb behemoth is being designed for dispatch by the B-series stealth bombers and can penetrate 100ft under the ground before exploding.

Trident ballistic missiles, newly converted to carry conventional warheads, may also be on hand by 2008, providing Bush with further options.

CJ said:

Quote

Denny: The only reason Israel's enemies are our enemies is because we chose it to be so.

I wouldn't sacrifice my son or anyone else's for Israeli security or Israeli existence. As Ayn Rand put it (though in a quite different context) "If they can only survive at the price of our blood, why should we wish them to survive?"
  

1) You stand by your allies and you do not abandon them to the wolves.  

Agreed.

CJ said:

2) I have no interest in standing by as a witness to a potential second Holocaust.    Many of the enemies of Israel are not out to destroy Israel as a nation but rather out to destroy the Israelis as a people.

Very much agreed.  However, that's precisely why we gave Israel the means to defend itself.  During the first Gulf War, it made sense to bribe Israel into sitting on its hands.  We were trying to prevent the middle east from exploding.  But now?  I don't think it matters which of us attacks Iran, if one of us does, the middle east will explode.  Certainly, Iran (and Hezbollah) won't hesitate to retalliate against Israel even if we're the ones bombing Tehran.  And they'll have a lot more success than Saddam and his SCUDs did back in the 90s.  

I'll say this: there are no good options here.  Even if we could destroy Iran's nuclear program, what's to stop Pakistan from giving them what they need to jump-start it down the road?

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#37 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 09 April 2006 - 06:04 PM

View Posttennyson, on Apr 9 2006, 06:32 PM, said:

At no point does it say that either the president or Rumsfeld are in favor of using nuclear weapons. That was what I was talking about.

It doesn't say they've decided to use nuclear weapons, no, but it does say that Bush has decided to "resolve" the Iranian situation "one way or the other" by the time he leaves office, and it does say "the white house" is "seriously" considering the use of nuclear weapons to this end.   (And, honestly, it's hard to imagine a scenario in which he has even a chance of "resolving the Iran situation" without nuclear weapons.)  It also says that his "White House" rebuked the Joint Chiefs for trying to take nukes off the menu, and that high-level resignations are in the offing over this.  

And it says that the membership of the civilian DOD panel pushing this was appointed by Rumsfeld.  

So, in fairness, this is not at all analogous to the infamous Canadian war plans.  This is not some middle-manager at the sleepy Iran Desk in Foggy Bottom.  This talk and planning is happening at the highest levels.  There is every reason to take it seriously.

Edited by _ph, 09 April 2006 - 06:07 PM.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#38 Denny

Denny
  • Just Washed Ashore
  • 46 posts

Posted 09 April 2006 - 06:12 PM

View Post_ph, on Apr 9 2006, 10:49 PM, said:

I'll say this: there are no good options here.  Even if we could destroy Iran's nuclear program, what's to stop Pakistan from giving them what they need to jump-start it down the road?

Or buy nukes off the shelf from them for that matter--assuming they haven't yet?

#39 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 09 April 2006 - 06:14 PM

Quote

The B61-111 bombs cited in these pieces aren't nuclear?
They aren't tactical nuclear weapons. They are strategic nuclear weapons and they don't exist yet. That is a proposed modification to the standard B61 free fall nuclear bomb that has armed America's strategic tasked bombers for the last thirty years. The B61-111 bunker busting derivative doesn't exist yet and it is not classed as a tactical weapon anyway. Tactical and strategic have certain very specific means when used in the context of nuclear weapons.
None of the weapons options listed in that quote exist yet and I know for a fact that the conventional Trident program has recieved virtually no funding in the last budget rounds.

Quote

And they'll have a lot more success than Saddam and his SCUDs did back in the 90s.
Actually all of Iran's missiles are either Scud variants or directly derived from Scud technology with North Korean technical assistance. They can carry chemical or biological warheads or nuclear warheads if Iran develops them but they aren't terribly sophisticated. The joint US-Isreali Arrow missile defense system, in service since the mid1990s, was designed in light of the 1991 experience to down just those sorts of missiles. But they can attack by other means and thier is still no garantee that Arrow could get all of them.

(

Quote

And, honestly, it's hard to imagine a scenario in which he has even a chance of "resolving the Iran situation" without nuclear weapons.)
I've presented at least six scenerios I can think of that in no way involve nuclear weapons use but dealt with Iran's current leadership or the nuclear program in previous posts stretching back to 2004. They should be still archived. Even if Iran develops nuclear weapons destroying them militarilly and changing the government aren't things that would require US use of nuclear weapons nor would the infinitely harder postwar period.

Edited by tennyson, 09 April 2006 - 06:30 PM.

"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#40 DWF

DWF

    Dr. Who 1963-89, 1996, 2005-

  • Islander
  • 48,287 posts

Posted 09 April 2006 - 06:48 PM

I certainly hope it never comes to using nukes on Iran or any other country.  :thumbs-down:
The longest-running science fiction series: decadent, degenerate and rotten to the core. Power-mad conspirators, Daleks, Sontarans... Cybermen! They're still in the nursery compared to us. Fifty years of absolute fandom. That's what it takes to be really critical.

"Don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Iran, Bush Administration, Nukes, 2006

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users