 Quote by franznietzsche
Jesus christ, you people are loony if you actually think we would preemptively use nuclear weapons.
|
Quote by franznietzsche
For one, we don't have the capability to commit to a war in Iran. Iraq is enough of a problem set currently.
|
The US armed forces current brief includes the requirement to be able to fight 2 major conflicts in 2 separate theatres simultaneously.
Quote by franznietzsche
Secondly the president cannot launch nuclear weapons unless we are in a state of war.
|
This is incorrect. I suggest you read the draft pentagon document I referenced. One of the reasons WHY the document has been rewritten is specifically to allow for preemptive nuclear strikes.
Quote by franznietzsche
Thirdly, the man's not stupid, contrary to what you would like to believe. (snip) Preemptive nuclear strike on a nation that has not commited an act of agression? Do you know what china and russia would do IMMEDIATELY? Wipe us off the map. China especially, they know that they are facing major conflict with us in the next 50 years, at least economically, and militarily depending on how taiwan runs it course. Anyone who doesn't see that is blind. China sees us attacking a country with NUCLEAR weapons that hasn't actually threatened us? We're dead. And I gaurantee you Bush knows that.
Jesus christ, am I the only person in this subforum still connected to earth enough to see past blind hatred for Bush?
|
The article proposes the possible escalation path that could lead to a nuclear strike.
a) an airstrike by Israel against Iran's nuclear facilities (as the Israelis did against Iraq's nuclear facilities)
b) retaliatory strike against Israel by Iran
c) US support for their Israeli allies quickly leading to war between Iran and the US.
d) Iran attacking US forces in Iraq with overwhelming numbers before the US can effectively reinforce.
e) The US defending it's groundtroops through the use of battlefield nuclear weapons as allowed for in the 'Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations' (see extract below)
|
(1) Geographic combatant commanders may request Presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons for a variety of conditions. Examples include:
(a) An adversary using or intending to use WMD against US, multinational, or alliance forces or civilian populations.
(b) Imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy.
(c) Attacks on adversary installations including WMD, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons or the C2 infrastructure required for the adversary to execute a WMD attack against the United States or its friends and allies.
(d) To counter potentially overwhelming adversary conventional forces, including mobile and area targets (troop concentration).
(e) For rapid and favorable war termination on US terms.
(f) To ensure success of US and multinational operations.
(g) To demonstrate US intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary use of WMD.
(h) To respond to adversary-supplied WMD use by surrogates against US and multinational forces or civilian populations.
|
I have bolded those items whereby this doctrine would allow the use of nuclear weapons in the scenario suggested.
As you can see there is no legal (as Iran has been declared outside the protection of the non-proliferation treaty) or operational impediment to the use of nuclear weapons if the above draft is ratified..
As to how Russia and China would react? I doubt very much they would be prepared to have their countries rendered uninhabitable in a nuclear war on behalf of a country they do not even have a military alliance with and so it is unlikely that besides protesting loudly they will do much else.
If Bush's admin sees it that way too then there is actually nothing to stop the above scenario unfolding. Bush is not going to allow 150,000 US troops to be killed by Iran's well equipped military of 550,000 people when he has a way to prevent it and possibly the american public given the hard option of deciding whether or not to sacrifice so many troops lives in a conventional war against superior numbers will support him.
Also as you state above and as the article suggests the US and China seem to be on a collision course at the moment and so it is possible the US may decide a gamble such as this may actually strengthen their hand in negotiations with China in arms limitation talks thus forestalling a much bigger conflict in the future.
(I removed your comments re the democrats for no other reason than that it was OT)
Good God... This can't be right.
Similar discussions for: Will the US use Nukes against Iran?
