News Will the US use Nukes against Iran?

[Art]

More from today's papers;

Iran - Bush 'ready to use nuclear weapons'

The White House is stepping up plans for a possible air strike on Iran and, in a shock revelation, is seriously considering using 'bunker buster' nuclear weapons, according to a report by influential investigative journalist Seymour Hersh.
Hersh's story in the April 17 issue of the New Yorker magazine, mostly citing unidentified current and former officials, says President George W. Bush views Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a "potential Adolf Hitler," and sees "regime change" in Tehran as the ultimate goal.

"This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war," Hersh quotes an unidentified senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror as saying.

The White House, without denying the report, reiterated that it was pursuing a diplomatic solution. "We are not going to discuss military planning," said spokesman Blair Jones.
<snip>
The Pentagon adviser is quoted as saying some senior officers and officials were considering quitting over the plans to use nuclear weapons.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=382508&in_page_id=1811

It's about time the terror of Bush's War on Terror was brought to an end.

 

[Amp1]

Yep, its on the mainstream media now too. This in light of some posts I read that we (the US) had stopped the tactical (bunker buster) nuke program. [sarcasm]Yeah right[/sarcasm]. The news reports I saw said much the same as your snip Art - that senor pentagon officers and officials have grave concerns about the use of tactical nukes on Iran. There was talk about Bush drawing a line in the sand where he will order the use of these nukes, I think it is when Iran starts making enriched Uranium or Plutonium or something like that.

 

[russ_watters]

Naah. Big talk, that's all...

I agree. The current effort is Iraq is about all we're up to.

Echo, echo.

 

[SOS2008]

U.S. seen stepping up war plans for Iran

Washington Post
By Peter Baker, Dafna Linzer and Thomas E. Ricks
Updated: 10:32 p.m. ET April 8, 2006

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12225188/

No matter how the U.S. looks at it, the risks are always too high.

Joseph Cirincione, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: "Whatever you do," he said, "is almost certain to accelerate a nuclear bomb program rather than destroy it."

What it boils down to is a paranoid Israel putting pressure on the U.S. to act aggressively against all Arab enemies, real or perceived. Israel makes me think of a woman who is always getting her husband or boyfriend into fights because of her.

The administration is also coming under pressure from Israel, which has warned the Bush team that Iran is closer to developing a nuclear bomb than Washington thinks and that a moment of decision is fast approaching.

And Israel is threatening to take action on it's own if the U.S. does not (as if that wouldn't automatically draw the U.S. into the conflict).

Israel is preparing, as well. The government recently leaked a contingency plan for attacking on its own if the United States does not, a plan involving airstrikes, commando teams, possibly missiles and even explosive-carrying dogs.

The reality is no Arab country is crazy enough to attack Israel. It is all rhetoric.

The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally, Israel," Bush said. "That's a threat, a serious threat. . . . I'll make it clear again that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel."

The U.S. does not need to engage in military action, nor does Israel in order to keep the peace. Like Mutually Assured Destruction during the Cold War, Israel's, the U.S., and eventually Iran's nuclear arsenal will prevent war from happening.

In the meantime, I believe Bush welcomes Iran's threats as a diversion from all the other bad news.

...the White House, in its new National Security Strategy, last month labeled Iran the most serious challenge to the United States posed by any country.

It is making us all forget the price of gas is skyrocketing again (etc., etc., etc.).

 

[jimmie]

Will the US use Nukes against Iran?

Has the US demonstrated a nuclear explosion during a time of war? Yes, Japan, 1945.

Has the US demonstrated they are fully capable of a pre-emptive strike? Yes, Iraq, 2003.

Has the US demonstrated they are not fully capable of a pre-emptive nuclear strike during a time of war? Not yet.

Just like a salesman; he can get a thousand no's, but one yes and he wins.

 

[Astronuc]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060411/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear_16;_ylt=AiRu8X8sOf.JYSvOKWBI7XBSw60A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

No nation has pre-emptively used nuclear weapons, that is as a first strike against another nation. The U.S. is the only nation to use nuclear weapons in a conflict during World War II.

It would be a very dangerous precedent.

I heard someone mention today that both Russia and China might have retargeted (or may be considering retargeting) the US with their nuclear missiles! I hope that was pure speculation, since that would mean we re-enter the Cold War, which now won't be so cold. It just increases the risk that conflict for limited resources will escalate.

It was pointed out that most of the Iranian oil is toward the Gulf Region, although I suspect that there is considerably more reserves in the Caspian Sea. The US could occupy the oil regions of Iran, and do so without resorting to nuclear weapons.

 

[Astronuc]

The argument that the enrichment is sufficient for nuclear reactor fuel is somewhat disengenous since the Iranian could use Canadian CANDU technology, which the Canadians have used successfully for decades, and which has been exported to Romania (Cernavoda), Argentina (Atucha) and Korea (Wolsung).

So maybe the Iranians want LWR/VVER technology, but the Russians and others can supply the fuel.

Nevertheless, there is no valid reason to pre-emptively attack Iran. But then, there was no valid reason to attack Iraq - which doesn't seem to be a problem for the Bush administration.

 

[batboy]

More fuel:Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days, U.S. Says
Here we go! Let's play hardball...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000100&sid=aduNTcpDuDd4&refer=germany

 

[batboy]

I thought that Iraq had failed to meet the requirements of Resolution 1441? What does one do next, pass the buck?

 

[sid_galt]

Nevertheless, there is no valid reason to pre-emptively attack Iran.

Not even if it is run by murderers who kill their own countrymen on a daily basis and are now threatening to destroy other countries (Israel) and are intent on getting their hands on the most destructive weapon in human history?
When does it become reasonable to attack them? When they have annhilated us and killed millions more? The world is going the way of Neville Chamberlain here.

 

[SOS2008]

Unlike Israel, Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which gives them the right to peacefully use nuclear technology for energy generation. The U.S. completely supports the development of nuclear energy globally and "without discrimination," and Iran has shown a clear need to do so.

Even with prior U.S. support and assistance, it has taken Iran until 2006 to enrich uranium to reactor-grade from 164 of their centrifuges - 39 years since the program began in 1967. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran's_nuclear_program#Timeline

By the late 1990s the U.S. Intelligence Community estimated that Israel possessed between 75-130 weapons, and no doubt the amount has increased. I am so done with Zionist alarmists -- stop it for peace sake.

 

[sid_galt]

And Mr. Murderer has promised never to kill again.
Promises mean nothing unless they are backed up by actions. And the actions of Iran in regard to human rights, and given its statements in regard to Israel and the Holocaust, it would be ridiculous and foolish to trust them.

Tell me, in science a theory is shot down if it doesn't pass even one experiment, why should such murderous thugs be given chances after chances?As for Israel, even if it has nuclear weapons (which it likely does), it has demonstrated that it is a responsible rights respecting nation which will not go around nuking other nations at random. Though Israel has not signed the NPT, it is loads better and more reliable than Iran which has signed it.

 

[turbo]

As for Israel, even if it has nuclear weapons (which it likely does), it has demonstrated that it is a responsible rights respecting nation which will not go around nuking other nations at random. Though Israel has not signed the NPT, it is loads better and more reliable than Iran which has signed it.

A responsible and rights respecting nation that established itself through ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians and refuses to pay reparations and honor the right of return for the victims as mandated by the UN as a condition for recognition? The same nation that calls all the Palestinian attacks "terrorism" while assassinating Palestinians at will and bulldozing peoples' homes into the ground on the suspicion that a family member might be involved in the defense of the Palestinian territory? That's funny...not. As Noam Chomsky says, for Israel to consider giving back the Gaza Strip and the West Bank is like a violent home-invader, who after 60 years of occupying your house and torturing your family offers to let you live in the cellar and the attic, but is torn about the decision because he has grown fond of the attic.

 

[Astronuc]

Not even if it is run by murderers who kill their own countrymen on a daily basis and are now threatening to destroy other countries (Israel) and are intent on getting their hands on the most destructive weapon in human history?

The US has tolerated killings of citizens by many countries, particularly dictatorships supported by the US in South and Central America. Yes, the 'hardliners' in Iran have been calling for the destruction of Israel and perhaps now the US.

Iran is not in imminent possession of a nuclear warhead (while N. Korea may have several), and even so, that is still far away from the most destructive weapons, which are thermonuclear warheads.

When does it become reasonable to attack them? When they have annhilated us and killed millions more? The world is going the way of Neville Chamberlain here.

It is only reasonable to attack, when there is incontravertible evidence that an attack is imminent. Ummm, Iran is not going to annihilate us.

For the moment, I prefer political/diplomatic solutions - not war. Unfortunately, the present administration does not seem competent with such a process.

Certainly Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has expressed some rather hostile statements in regard to Israel and the US. Nevertheless, this is not a reason to go to war. The US and the rest of the world need to use every diplomatic method possible to achieve peaceful cooperation with Iran - and where possible, support moderates and reformers in Iran.

Shalom - Salaam - Peace

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No way this will happen. Were this an issue three years ago, maybe, but Bush has made such as mess that he has no real power now.

 

[SOS2008]

No way this will happen. Were this an issue three years ago, maybe, but Bush has made such as mess that he has no real power now.

Too bad BushCo used Powell and ruined his career, resulting in his resignation. The only member of the Bush administration that can even speak intelligently is Rice, but unfortunately she drank the Wolfowitz/Perle neocon Kool-Aid.

In the meantime, BushCo (pressured by Israel) has fallen into Ahmadinejad's trap and have made him a world renowned figure for the extremists. We need to stop fueling his fire. Regime change in Iran? We need new leadership in the U.S. first, and ASAP.

Too bad Bush was reelected in 2004 with the primary goal of destroying the Judicial Branch (anyone see the interview with Sandra Day O'Connor?). I wonder, are all the Christo-Fascists happy now?

 

[sid_galt]

The US has tolerated killings of citizens by many countries, particularly dictatorships supported by the US in South and Central America.

And the US was wrong about that. But because it was wrong before does not mean it should continue that policy.

Iran is not in imminent possession of a nuclear warhead (while N. Korea may have several), and even so, that is still far away from the most destructive weapons, which are thermonuclear warheads.

So why not destroy them right now when the resulting destruction and deaths will be minimum? Why wait for a threat to grow before attacking it? That is what happened in the 1930s. And look what happened!

It is only reasonable to attack, when there is incontravertible evidence that an attack is imminent.

What more evidence could there be when Iran is almost openly threatening the free world and freedom itself?

For the moment, I prefer political/diplomatic solutions - not war.

When they have never been successful before, why do you think they would be successful now? Tell me, would you support the ether theory even though it has failed experimentation?
Why is there a different standard for Iran?

Unfortunately, the present administration does not seem competent with such a process.

The present administration is worse than incompetent in handling a war. But attacking Iran is better than sitting on our hands and doing nothing.

The US and the rest of the world need to use every diplomatic method possible to achieve peaceful cooperation with Iran

The same methods by which we let the North Koreans acquire the bomb?

Shalom - Salaam - Peace

I too like peace. But peace is a state when your enemies have been destroyed.

 

[Gokul43201]

I too like peace. But peace is a state when your enemies have been destroyed.

...or convinced by reason, that being an enemy is not in their best self-interest.

 

[Cyrus]

And the US was wrong about that. But because it was wrong before does not mean it should continue that policy.

Explain to me exactly how Iran is a dictatorship, or killing its citizens?

So why not destroy them right now when the resulting destruction and deaths will be minimum? Why wait for a threat to grow before attacking it? That is what happened in the 1930s. And look what happened!

Eh, what? Why not destory a country? No, this is not what happened in the 1930's sid. Maybe you should go read a history book. You will find that Iran has never once attacked another country in some 230+ years. Sid, turn off Fox news, and get yourself some real news sources.

What more evidence could there be when Iran is almost openly threatening the free world and freedom itself?

Really? When did Iran threaten freedom or the free world? They made statements against Israel, but Israel is not the entire free world. Get your facts straight, man.

When they have never been successful before, why do you think they would be successful now? Tell me, would you support the ether theory even though it has failed experimentation?
Why is there a different standard for Iran?

That was a totally useless and pointless comparison.

The present administration is worse than incompetent in handling a war. But attacking Iran is better than sitting on our hands and doing nothing.

Obviously not. At least Iraq was contained before the war, now it's a freaking mess. Sitting on our hands was working just fine. More wrong information sid...tisk tisk tisk...

The same methods by which we let the North Koreans acquire the bomb?

Wrong again, we never let the north koreans build a bomb. They announced they had one to our surprise.

I too like peace. But peace is a state when your enemies have been destroyed.

If that is true then, no. You have no clue what peace is.

 

[Art]

Iran defiant ahead of UN report

Mr Ahmedinejad said Iranians should not be denied their rights
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says his country "does not give a damn" about UN resolutions seeking to curb Tehran's nuclear programme.
He was speaking as the Security Council prepared to receive a report from the UN nuclear watchdog on whether Iran had met demands to halt uranium enrichment.

Iran insists it will not abandon its right to enrich nuclear fuel for what it says are wholly peaceful purposes.

The US says the UN must take action if Iran is found not to have complied.

The US secretary of state says the Security Council's credibility is on the line over its handling of the issue.

Speaking at a meeting of Nato foreign ministers in the Bulgarian capital, Sofia, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the council's credibility would be tested over how it dealt with Iran.

"The Security Council is the primary and most important institution for the maintenance of peace and stability and security and it cannot have its word and its will simply ignored by a member state," she said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4952984.stm

lol such irony!

The UN Security Council is only an important institution so long as it supports US policies. In the immediate pre-Iraqi invasion period the Bush administration called this same institution irrelevant!

The U.S. is not concerned with the integrity of the United Nations in general or of the Security Council's resolutions specifically. The Bush administration is only concerned with whether the U.N. dutifully follows its every wish. If they don't, then they are "irrelevant"; if they do, then they are "meeting a great challenge."

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/israel-palestine/2003/0218istheun.htm

Where was the US insistance on security council resolutions being adhered to in respect to resolutions 242, 248, 256, 267, 298, 347, 515, 573, 672, 1322 and 1435?

The current US stance would be almost laughable were it not for the fact that this hypocrisy leads directly to the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

 

[Gokul43201]

I guess I haven't really followed the news here carefully enough to resolve many questions I have :

1. Does the UN have proof/evidence that Iran is currently developing nuclear weapons ? (ie: Has anyone said "look, we found aluminum tubes !")

2. Does the NPT prevent a signatory from developing civilian nuclear technology ?

3. Is Iran allowing free access to IAEA inspectors ?

 

[Art]

I guess I haven't really followed the news here carefully enough to resolve many questions I have :

1. Does the UN have proof/evidence that Iran is currently developing nuclear weapons ? (ie: Has anyone said "look, we found aluminum tubes !")

Nope, no evidence at all. The former ruler of Iran, the Shah, did have a covert nuclear weapons program with (unwitting??) assistance from West Germany (who built the Bushehr reactor in the 70s) and the US (who provided a research reactor in 1967) but this program was halted by Ayatollah Khomeini immediately upon his taking control of the country in 1979 as he believed WMD were immoral. The current crisis stems from a 1995 agreement between Iran and Russia for Russia to complete the unfinished Bushehr reactor.

Despite full monitoring of the work at Bushehr by the IAEA accusations of covert weapons production was raised in 2002 by an Iranian exile group, the NCRI. These accusations were jumped on by Bush leading him to include Iran in his 'axis of evil' speech in 2002. However it is worth bearing in mind that it was Iraqi exile groups who falsely claimed Sadam still possessed secret WMD stores in order to persuade the west to exercise 'regime change'.

2. Does the NPT prevent a signatory from developing civilian nuclear technology ?

Nope, in fact it expressly allows signatories of the treaty to develop civilian nuclear technologies including enrichment.

3. Is Iran allowing free access to IAEA inspectors ?

After initial recalitrance (Iran did not declare it's heavy water production site at Arak but claims it had no obligation to do so until the project was completed at which time it would become subject to IAEA scrutiny) Iran came into full compliance with the IAEA but have stepped back following their referral to the security council. They have said they will once again offer full access to IAEA inspectors if they are not threatened with action through the security council. Understandable really as otherwise the IAEA will be compiling targeting information for a possible US led attack.

 

[Astronuc]

1. Does the UN have proof/evidence that Iran is currently developing nuclear weapons ? (ie: Has anyone said "look, we found aluminum tubes !")

Well, Iran apparently does have centrifuges to enrich uranium, and they have claimed to enriched uranium to 3.6% U-235. This is suitable for light water reactors, but not nuclear weapons. They would have to continue the enrichment process about 25-fold to achieve 90%. That would also mean that they need 25 kg's at 3.6% to get 1 kg at 90%.

The concern is that Iran would continue the enrichment program to achieve the necessary quantites of 90% U-235 or better, in which case they would have nuclear weapons, and the missiles to deliver them.

As for 2, as Art mentioned, peaceful uses of atomic energy are permissible under the NPT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Nonproliferation_Treaty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Nonproliferation_Treaty#Iran

 

[Astronuc]

Iran 'attacks Iraq Kurdish area'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4960478.stm

They seem to trying real hard to give someone justification to use military force.

 

[laurelelizabeth]

Kind of like how bombing terrorists deters them from bombing us back. How is that going again?

Brilliantly concise!

 

[Johan de Vries]

I don't think that the US will use nuclear weapons. However, a conventional strike against Iran is possible. Bush has repeatedly said that he doesn't exclude it. He says that "all options are on the table but we are focussing on diplomacy right now".

If it comes to war, the outcome will be disastrous. Iran knows that the US doesn't want to send ground forces into Iran, so the Iranians will do exactly what Hezbollah did during the Lebanon war: Force the enemy to send in ground forces. Hezbollah basically shut down Northern Israel with their missiles. Now these missiles were made in Iran, and Iran has far more and better missiles than Hezbollah has.

If you look at a map of the Mid East and focus on the oil installations, you'll see that many oil installations are not so far from the Iranian border. In fact the major oil installations in Iraq, Kuwayt, Saudi-Arabia, Abu Dhabi and Bahrein are all within the range of short range Iranian missiles. This is significant, because Iran has a huge stockpile of such weapons. These missiles are propelled by solid fuel, so they an be fired quickly and then the launcher can be hidden before US planes have a chance to take it out.

So, from the strengths and weaknesses of both parties we can see how the war will evolve. The US has complete air supremacy and doesn't want to commit ground forces. They just want to bomb some nuclear installations (but will have to bomb a wide range of targets to be able to do that safely, air defense assets etc. must be taken out).

Iran has missiles and they can attack an enemy that has complete air superiority as they demonstrated in the Lebanon war (Note that Hezbollah was trained by the Iranians). Iran, of course, has no chance at all to successfully deploy troops or their navy.

Iran also has many high prize targets that they can hit:The oil installations. Can tey be defended using patriot missiles? Not really, because the Iranians can simply overwhelm such a defense. Also the Patriot system was not so effective in the Lebanon war (it doesn't work well against short range missiles).

I don't think that Iran would attack oil installations without any warning. I think that they will give the Gulf States a warning that if they continue to sell oil to the enemy then the oil installations will be attacked.

Since Iran can survive after being bombed, but the West cannot do without oil from the Mid East, Iran will win the war. The only way to change this conclusion is by assuming that the US will send in ground forces. The objective would be to clear a region inside Iran of the missile launchers. Once that happens all bets are off. I think that the US will find itself in another never ending war in Iran for unclear purposes. The original goal of taking out the nuclear installations will be long forgotten, just like no one mentions WMD when discussing the situation in Iraq today.

 

[BobG]

You're probably right about how Iran would like to fight the war and they could do some serious damage fairly quickly.

They won't be able to keep firing missiles for more than a week or two, though, and only that long because the US would probably target air defenses first.

The US can't invade Iran right now, which lowers the risk, but Iran faces some serious problems fighting an open war and would have a pretty small chance of success. Their best bet is to keep doing what they're doing - supplying weapons, training, and some small scale "unofficial" actions. A long civil war in Iraq will result in the US leaving if Iran's patient enough.

Of course, the big problem is that things won't stay the same in the region as a whole and I don't think either Iran or the US can control what's happening. The region is on the verge of world war. If Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the other smaller Arab Sunni states line up with the US against Shiite states (and maybe Turkey and Pakistan?), then Iran faces a pretty big disaster. In fact, if the US withdraws from the middle east and the Arab Sunni states line up against Shiite states, Iran faces a pretty big disaster. If countries line up differently, then the US could face a pretty big disaster. I think Iran might still find it hard to believe Arab countries would ally themselves with the US when the US supports Israel. Hussein thought the same thing when he invaded Kuwait.

 

[Art]

The US may be able to persuade the rulers of the Sunni states to line up for them through threats and inducements but I doubt very much the people of those states will do the US's bidding which could quickly lead to the overthrow of some of those despotic regimes with the arms the US supplied falling into the hands of people who hate the US.