News Will the US use Nukes against Iran?

[Art]

Unlikely, Farfetched? Possibly but the articles referenced below suggest that the US gov't is quietly creating the right political and legal environment to nuke Iran as a deterrent to other countries both nuclear and non-nuclear.

In support of the authors' argument one of them quotes from the Pentagon draft document 'Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations' which cites reasons why nuclear weapons would be used including

"To demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary use of WMD."

I am interested to see what the views of the members here are about the articles themselves and whether they think nuking Iran is an option which is being or should be seriously considered.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=7861

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10971.htm

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Absolute insanity.

 

[Entropy]

Good God... This can't be right.

"To demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary use of WMD."

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

 

[Smurf]

You see people, THIS IS WHY GOVERNMENTS SUCK!

 

[Smurf]

There's a few problems with this guy's prediction, for example:

Russia, China, and all other nuclear countries will eventually be forced to disarm under the threat of massive U.S. nuclear attack.

never going to happen...

 

[Art]

Good God... This can't be right.
Kind of like how bombing terrorists deters them from bombing us back. How is that going again?

For reference see 'Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations' P47 line 22 http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/jp3_12fc2.pdf

 

[Art]

There's a few problems with this guy's prediction, for example:
never going to happen...

That's what the author thinks optimistic pentagon planners may be thinking. He disagrees and goes on to say why.

 

[Smurf]

Personally I think this is just another oil scam. If countries are hindered from producing nuclear energy -> better for the oil companies.

That's what the author thinks optimistic pentagon planners may be thinking. He disagrees and goes on to say why.

ah. missed that.

 

[franznietzsche]

Unlikely, Farfetched? Possibly but the articles referenced below suggest that the US gov't is quietly creating the right political and legal environment to nuke Iran as a deterrent to other countries both nuclear and non-nuclear.
In support of the authors' argument one of them quotes from the Pentagon draft document 'Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations' which cites reasons why nuclear weapons would be used including
I am interested to see what the views of the members here are about the articles themselves and whether they think nuking Iran is an option which is being or should be seriously considered.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=7861
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10971.htm

Jesus christ, you people are loony if you actually think we would preemptively use nuclear weapons.

For one, we don't have the capability to commit to a war in Iran. Iraq is enough of a problem set currently. Secondly the president cannot launch nuclear weapons unless we are in a state of war. Thirdly, the man's not stupid, contrary to what you would like to believe. Underestimating your enemy is what lost you the election. Not catching on soon enough what they were doing with the gay amendment issue, that was plain stupidity on the Democrat's part. 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?

 

[Smurf]

Jesus christ, am I the only person in this subforum still connected to Earth enough to see past blind hatred for Bush?

Hey I never actually thought it was going to happen anyways. And I don't ahte Bush anymore than I hate any other world leader, past and present.

 

[franznietzsche]

Hey I never actually thought it was going to happen anyways. And I don't ahte Bush anymore than I hate any other world leader, past and present.

Fair enough. Personally I think the guy is corporate whore. But he also didn't go on national TV and declare that the "W" in George W Bush stands for wrong, after which I had and still have absolutely no respect for John Kerry or the Democratic party. They lost the election because of their own stupidity, and now they're getting four years of what they deserve. You do not, ever, ever underestimate your opponent and assume he is a dullard moron (even if he is). You just don't do that, not if you actually want to win. You always assume he's smarter, better prepared, and more popular than you. And then you plan like everything is on the line, because it is. Apparently though, the Democrats are ruled by emotions, like their blind hatred for bush, not logic and reason. All they can think about is voting against republicans, not voting FOR democrats. A sure recipe for defeat.

 

[Anttech]

You've been tangoed

Jesus christ, you people are loony if you actually think we would preemptively use nuclear weapons.

Nobody here has actually said that they thought this would happen...

I am interested to see what the views of the members here are about the articles themselves and whether they think nuking Iran is an option which is being or should be seriously considered.

Its an option, but a serious one, I doubt it.. Nuking Iran will only lead to ww3, a war which will change the world for good, and probably the US wouldn't come out of it smelling too good, neither would Europe

 

[Evo]

Unlikely, Farfetched? Possibly but the articles referenced below suggest that the US gov't is quietly creating the right political and legal environment to nuke Iran as a deterrent to other countries both nuclear and non-nuclear.

In support of the authors' argument one of them quotes from the Pentagon draft document 'Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations' which cites reasons why nuclear weapons would be used including

I am interested to see what the views of the members here are about the articles themselves and whether they think nuking Iran is an option which is being or should be seriously considered.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=7861
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10971.htm

What do I think? I think people need to stop posting this kind of krap. This amounts to crackpottery. It's fear mongering. Can we have threads that discuss non-flaky, non-conspiracy news?

For those of you that prefer facts to slanted tabloids, here is an article that explains what the documnet contains. It is not a new document, it is a revision and it has not been approved.

Revised US nuclear doctrine outlines preemption strategy

By Walter Pincus, Washington Post | September 11, 2005

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to preempt an attack by a nation or terror group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...uclear_doctrine_outlines_preemption_strategy/

Now I'm no expert, but I'd like to find out how this can be done safely. "The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons."

There are also some good concerns raised here: https://www.mmrs.fema.gov/news/terrorism/2005/sep/nter2005-09-12.aspx

I will see if I can find the related article.

 

[scott1]

It will never happend.We just finished the cold war and we really don't need another cuban missile crisis.Also everone is going to invade for using wepons of mass desturtion.We'll get kicked of NATO and going to have worry about the British milltary in Iraq with the terriost.Also no one in the government want's kill 1,000's of innocent people like that.

 

[Evo]

Ok, here is the article. "White House Readies Nuclear Pre-Emption Guidelines" Click on "full story". http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005_9_12.html#0728BD5E

I think the article raises some important concerns with the proposal.

 

[Art]

Jesus christ, you people are loony if you actually think we would preemptively use nuclear weapons.

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.

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.

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)

 

[Art]

Ok, here is the article. "White House Readies Nuclear Pre-Emption Guidelines" Click on "full story". http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005_9_12.html#0728BD5E
I think the article raises some important concerns with the proposal.

Glad to see you found it. And that you see it is considered highly controversial and so perhaps worthy of discussion on a POLITICAL forum. Now may I ask that as a mentor you do your research BEFORE posting comments such as this

What do I think? I think people need to stop posting this kind of krap. This amounts to crackpottery. It's fear mongering. Can we have threads that discuss non-flaky, non-conspiracy news?

That's twice in 2 days you have ridiculed posts of mine only to then find (shocking as they are) they are well substantiated. That I think in anybodys terminology amounts to ad-hominem attacks.

Now an apology would be nice!

 

[RunDMC]

Being realistic, the US probably won't use 'nukes' on Iran the way they used 'nukes' in WW2.

Do depleted uranium weapons count as 'nukes'? If so, the US deploy 'nukes' all the time!

(http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/DU_Zimet-13Nov05.htm )

 

[Art]

Being realistic, the US probably won't use 'nukes' on Iran the way they used 'nukes' in WW2.

Hopefully you are right but it is a matter of grave concern that they are looking for the right to use nukes in circumstances that would have been unthinkable a few years ago and one wonders why?
This paradigm shift is thought to have been initiated from the very top

The proposed language, which remains under review, probably reflects a classified policy decision signed by President George W. Bush several years ago, said Lewis, a former staffer in the Pentagon’s defense policy office.

“The White House drafts a national security presidential directive [NSPD]. Then the secretary of defense creates a nuclear weapons employment policy [NWEP], and then that kind of goes down into the bowels of the Pentagon and ends up with the SIOP [Single Integrated Operational Plan] and all the different plans that might exist,” he said.

Military affairs analyst William Arkin in January 2003 published an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times stating that the U.S. Strategic Command, following a December 2002 presidential decision memo, was preparing target lists for potential nuclear attacks against non-nuclear Iraq.

Attributing his information to documents and interviews with military sources, Arkin also wrote of planning for possible targeting of WMD capabilities in other countries, including Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya, Russia and China.

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005_9_12.html#0728BD5E

 

[pattylou]

The nukes that are being developed are called "micronukes" or "bunker busters" and supposedly have great precision and a smaller blast. As I understand it, the military may be able to target sites that conventional weapons can't reach.

Nukes have the advantage of requiring less military than an invasion. Someone made an argument earlier that we don't have the man power for a nuclear war - but that's backwards. You need less manpower for a nuclear war.

I expect micronukes are more palatable than WWII nukes, and that some would consider this approach acceptable - I certainly would not be one of those people.

Not to derail the thread - but I was appalled to see that we used chemical weapons in Fallujah last year - this is also unconscionable and against international law (if I understand correctly.). I see no reason why an administration that will invade, torture, and use chemical weapons would refrain from using nukes, particularly high tech nukes that they can claim are capable of "surgical strikes."

 

[Evo]

Glad to see you found it. And that you see it is considered highly controversial and so perhaps worthy of discussion on a POLITICAL forum. Now may I ask that as a mentor you do your research BEFORE posting comments such as this

I had already read it dear, I was trying to find the link to the rest of the article to post here.

Big difference in what I posted and what you did. What I posted raises valid, intelligent questions. Those two pieces you posted didn't. I did my research before I posted a response to your articles.

That's twice in 2 days you have ridiculed posts of mine only to then find (shocking as they are) they are well substantiated. That I think in anybodys terminology amounts to ad-hominem attacks.
Now an apology would be nice!

No, you need to apologize to me. Your articles are fear mongering junk. Go back and read my post. I was pointing out what the real information was as opposed to the stuff you posted.

 

[Evo]

Art, the proposed Nuclear Doctrine that you mentioned IS something that's worth discussing. I'd like to see it discussed. I think giving the President that kind of final decision on something like this is scary, especially with Bush at the button.

I'd like to see the real issues discussed here and not waste time debating whether or not it's true that we're nuking Iran.

 

[Art]

I had already read it dear, I was trying to find the link to the rest of the article to post here.
Big difference in what I posted and what you did. What I posted raises valid, intelligent questions. Those two pieces you posted didn't. I did my research before I posted a response to your articles.

I'm not your 'dear' and I don't appreciate being patronised. It's rude. (well not unless you mean it )
I suggest you reread my original post as you appear to have missed the point.
The key points from the articles were;
1) Iran is no longer protected by the non-proliferation treaty agreement. This is a fact following the recent UN report,
2) The US gov't is in the process of changing their nuclear doctrine which if signed off as is, will allow the preemptive use of nuclear weapons. Including specifically against non-nuclear countries which are not part of the NPTA. This also is a fact for which the article provided a link to the pentagon's final draft document.
The question I then asked was

I am interested to see what the views of the members here are about the articles themselves and whether they think nuking Iran is an option which is being or should be seriously considered.
.

As I outlined in a post earlier I could envisage a set of circumstances whereby somebody like Bush WOULD use nuclear weapons if he is given the power to do so. The added danger being that the required set of circumstances COULD be created deliberately by manipulation.

No, you need to apologize to me. Your articles are fear mongering junk. Go back and read my post. I was pointing out what the real information was as opposed to the stuff you posted.

some additional information from your 'real information' source

“The White House drafts a national security presidential directive [NSPD]. Then the secretary of defense creates a nuclear weapons employment policy [NWEP], and then that kind of goes down into the bowels of the Pentagon and ends up with the SIOP [Single Integrated Operational Plan] and all the different plans that might exist,” he said.
Quote:
Military affairs analyst William Arkin in January 2003 published an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times stating that the U.S. Strategic Command, following a December 2002 presidential decision memo, was preparing target lists for potential nuclear attacks against non-nuclear Iraq.
Attributing his information to documents and interviews with military sources, Arkin also wrote of planning for possible targeting of WMD capabilities in other countries, including Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya, Russia and China.

Now although not containing pertinant facts as my sources did, your op/ed source also appears to be 'fearmongering junk' by confirming that Iran has been targeted for possible nuclear strikes.
I'd have thought if you were trying to debunk this idea you would have supplied a source saying it wasn't so rather a source confirming it?
ps The white house's 'fearmongering' is working. Apparently the N Koreans cited the US change in nuclear policy as the reason why they need to have nuclear weapons. (I read that in your article too )

 

[Art]

Art, the proposed Nuclear Doctrine that you mentioned IS something that's worth discussing. I'd like to see it discussed. I think giving the President that kind of final decision on something like this is scary, especially with Bush at the button.
I'd like to see the real issues discussed here and not waste time debating whether or not it's true that we're nuking Iran.

I'm glad you agree but seeing as how Iran is getting an awful lot of negative comment from the Bush admin (a lot of it remarkably similar to the rhetoric used prior to the invasion of Iraq) it seems logical to me to tie the two together.

It appears not many people here even knew about this major change in nuclear policy until I quoted my 'fearmongering, mudraking, conspiracy, whatever links . I think this is a HUGE issue and given the situation in the ME with regard to Iran and Bush's track record it is pertinant to speculate on why Bush has sought this change and is he likely to use this new power if he gets it and if so against whom?

 

[Art]

The nukes that are being developed are called "micronukes" or "bunker busters" and supposedly have great precision and a smaller blast. As I understand it, the military may be able to target sites that conventional weapons can't reach.
Nukes have the advantage of requiring less military than an invasion. Someone made an argument earlier that we don't have the man power for a nuclear war - but that's backwards. You need less manpower for a nuclear war.
I expect micronukes are more palatable than WWII nukes, and that some would consider this approach acceptable - I certainly would not be one of those people.

The military have long advocated that nukes should just be another weapon in the arsenal to be called upon if needed but until recently the politicians in charge have been adamant they are for deterrence / reprisals only. Over the last few years the attitude of the most senior politicians has visibly changed and the new thinking is embodied in this draft proposal.
Previously there were 2 superpowers which held each other in check but now with the US being the only world's superpower so long as they don't threaten Russia or China (to a lesser extent) directly they pretty much have a free rein in the rest of the world.
Since 9/11 Bush has been immersed in terrorism to the point where his entire world seems to be full of them and this is clearly affecting his policy decisions. It seems to me the guy no longer has a sense of perspective which is a very dangerous thing for the rest of the world.

 

[franznietzsche]

What do I think? I think people need to stop posting this kind of krap. This amounts to crackpottery. It's fear mongering. Can we have threads that discuss non-flaky, non-conspiracy news?

Nice to find someone in this subforum not off their rocker with hatred for bush.

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.

The president still cannot use a nuclear weapon without us already being in a state of war. Such is not a preemptive strike. He could not just wake up tomorrow and "push the button". First strike, and preemptive strike are not the same thing.

It appears not many people here even knew about this major change in nuclear policy until I quoted my 'fearmongering, mudraking, conspiracy, whatever links . I think this is a HUGE issue and given the situation in the ME with regard to Iran and Bush's track record it is pertinant to speculate on why Bush has sought this change and is he likely to use this new power if he gets it and if so against whom?

What change? That we're willing to strike first? That hasn't changed since eisenhower.

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)

I didn't say that we are definitely on a collision course with China. However, we will be faced with serious economic conflict with them, especially if morons keep running the country (in other words, unless we evolve into a new species suddenly). Military conflict is much less likely, because, in reality neither nation stands to win from war. War with China will almost definitely become nuclear. Depending on how taiwan plays out, war may or may not happen. What amazes me is how little attention this gets. Everyone worries about Iran, or even Korea, but those countries really are nothing compared to the threat China poses in the long run. Policy towards China now is reminiscent of policy towards Soviet Russia from 1920-1940. Just sort of ignoring it. Except I very much doubt we'd win the second cold war.

You think that China and Russia would not respond to the US launching an unprovoked nuclear strike? Please tell me how you justify that. Russia easily possesses the capacity to wipe the US out in a first strike response. Now granted, I'm assuming the US were to launch a strategic nuclear strike on Iran, rather than a tactical one (one at a civilian city, Tehran for example). China and Russia might not declare war over a tactical strike, but I don't see how they could not over an unprovoked strategic strike. Especially china, since they seem to know better than us what is coming in the next 50 years.

 

[Astronuc]

Do depleted uranium weapons count as 'nukes'? If so, the US deploy 'nukes' all the time!

DU is used in armor piecercing shells - because it is very dense and it is pyrophoric - burns. It's nasty, but it is not a nuke. There is NO fissioning in a DU shell.

 

[Astronuc]

The nukes that are being developed are called "micronukes" or "bunker busters" and supposedly have great precision and a smaller blast. As I understand it, the military may be able to target sites that conventional weapons can't reach.

I expect micronukes are more palatable than WWII nukes, and that some would consider this approach acceptable - I certainly would not be one of those people.

I believe the nuclear bunker buster program has been suspended.

The US has a very effective bunker buster - GBU-28 which uses conventional high explosive. It's good for about 40 m, and possibly up to 70 m.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/gbu-28.htm

Presumably it could be fitted with a small fissile warhead of several kT, with the same mechanical penetration, but with a larger blast underground.

I recently visited the arsenal where the GBU-28s were made. Impressive place. They also make the smooth bore 120 mm gun for the M1A2 tank.

 

[Astronuc]

I think the OP question is a bit premature, since at the moment there does not seem to be an escalation in a conflict with Iran, and Iran does not seem to be moving toward threatening anyone with WMD.

That said, I am concerned about Bush's belligerent doctrine, and I am concerned about President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments concerning the destruction of Israel, and any possible support for Hezbollah other organizations who might be using funding to attack Israel.

I would hope that Congress would not allow a pre-emptive nuclear strike, when conventional weapons seem to be sufficient.

One of my principal concerns about Bush and his administration is that they do not seem concerned with establishing a credible threat. IMO, Bush had determined that he would use the US military to invade Iraq, and he mislead Congress regarding the rationale and evidence. Basically, I believe Bush lied.

I don't 'hate' Bush, I just think he is unfit to be president, I think Cheney is unfit to be VP or in any other capacity in any government, I don't agree with Rumsfeld's strategy in Iraq, and I could go on and on . . . .

 

[pattylou]

I believe the nuclear bunker buster program has been suspended.

You caught me - I assumed the original link had to do with the Cheney/STRATCOM news from this past summer. I hadn't followed the link; based on your post it sounds as though the new "news" has to do with other nuclear issues. I'll have a look.

 

[Astronuc]

Bush admin. drops 'bunker-buster' plan
By H. JOSEF HEBERT (AP)
Oct 26, 05

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bush administration has abandoned research into a nuclear "bunker-buster" warhead, deciding instead to pursue a similar device using conventional weaponry, a key Republican senator said Tuesday.

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said funding for the nuclear bunker-buster as part of the Energy Department's fiscal 2006 budget has been dropped at the department's request.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-10-26-bunker-buster_x.htm?csp=36 for full article, which was published on Yahoo and other media sites.

WASHINGTON (AP) - A Pentagon planning document being updated to reflect the doctrine of pre-emption declared by President Bush in 2002 envisions the use of nuclear weapons to deter terrorists from using weapons of mass destruction against the United States or its allies.

The "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations," which was last updated 10 years ago, makes clear that "the decision to employ nuclear weapons at any level requires explicit orders from the president."

But it says that in a changing environment "terrorists or regional states armed with WMD will likely test U.S. security commitments to its allies and friends."

"In response, the U.S. needs a range of capabilities to assure friend and foe alike of its resolve," says the 69-page document dated March 15.

The pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons has been around for some time - and the US has not implemented it - not even in Iraq. It only came up again because of the request for funds to build a 'nuclear' bunker buster or penetrator. That program was not funded - at least for the current fiscal year.

Let's just see where the conflict with Iran goes before we start worrying if Bush is planning a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

And ease up on Evo. She is quite reasonable.

 

[pattylou]

Thanks for the clarification. It is a relief to see that the bunker buster nuke is being re-thought.

I assume your comment about easing up on Evo was directed at Art, as I was not 'hard' on her in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Astronuc]

pattylou, your assumption is correct, although my statement as written is not directed to anyone specifically. However, I should have been more careful with my choice of wording.

I prefer to address the comments, not the commentator.

 

[Art]

According to the Sunday Times, Israel is planning an attack on Iran by the end of March at the latest. This is phase 1 of the scenario I suggested above.

Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran
Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel Aviv, and Sarah Baxter, Washington
ISRAEL’S armed forces have been ordered by Ariel Sharon, the prime minister, to be ready by the end of March for possible strikes on secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran, military sources have revealed.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1920074_1,00.html

 

[Blahness]

...So, if Israel follows through, the general outline of the future =:

1. Israel attacks uranium enrichment sites
2. Iran responds, using manned forces
3. Israel drags the U.S. into the fight
4. ?

I'm lost at #4.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

At this point I'm thinking that the US will not back Isreal militarily, at least not in any significant way. Even if the White House pushes for it I don't think Congress will go along. I wouldn't exactly bet money on it but I think that too many people here are tired of having our military interfering over there.

 

[Art]

At this point I'm thinking that the US will not back Isreal militarily, at least not in any significant way. Even if the White House pushes for it I don't think Congress will go along. I wouldn't exactly bet money on it but I think that too many people here are tired of having our military interfering over there.

Iran would have to pass through Iraqi airspace and land to retaliate against Israel which would immediately involve the US. I suspect the main reason why Israel is keen to do this before the end of March is because after that date the US are expected to start drawing down their forces in Iraq. The situation can be manipulated such that congress never get to decide to go to war it will just happen.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Hmmm... this is interesting then. Iraq is supposedly having decent relations with Iran, or were, and they don't like Isreal I don't believe. It's really THEIR airspace. Would the interim government tell the US to stand down to you think?

 

[Art]

Hmmm... this is interesting then. Iraq is supposedly having decent relations with Iran, or were, and they don't like Isreal I don't believe. It's really THEIR airspace. Would the interim government tell the US to stand down to you think?

If they did I strongly suspect they would be ignored which would lead to more attacks on US troops by even more Iraqis compounded by an assault by 500,000 Iranian troops which is the point where I believe the US gov't at the request of military commanders on the ground will authorise the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran and it's military forces, on the grounds that if they don't a sizable chunk of the US occupation force in Iraq will be wiped out before they can be reinforced.

The pieces are being put in place to allow this to happen which makes one wonder if the whole 'crisis' is being carefully choreographed.

BTW the Israeli air force would also need to violate Iraqi airspace to reach Iran. I wonder will the US intercede to stop them en route? Somehow I doubt it.

 

[Art]

At this point I'm thinking that the US will not back Isreal militarily, at least not in any significant way. Even if the White House pushes for it I don't think Congress will go along. I wouldn't exactly bet money on it but I think that too many people here are tired of having our military interfering over there.

I think this settles the argument as to whether or not the US will defend Israel militarily

Bush: US would defend Israel against Iran

By Steve Holland
Reuters
Wednesday, February 1, 2006; 1:59 PM

NASHVILLE, Tennessee (Reuters) - President George W. Bush vowed on Wednesday the United States would defend Israel militarily if needed against Iran and denounced Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for "menacing talk" against Israel.

In a Reuters interview aboard Air Force One en route to Nashville, Bush also said he saw a "very good chance" the governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency would refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.

"I am concerned about a person that, one, tries to rewrite the history of the Holocaust, and two, has made it clear that his intentions are to destroy Israel," Bush said.

"Israel is a solid ally of the United States, we will rise to Israel's defense if need be. So this kind of menacing talk is disturbing. It's not only disturbing to the United States, it's disturbing for other countries in the world as well," he added.

Asked if he meant the United States would rise to Israel's defense militarily, Bush said: "You bet, we'll defend Israel."

 

[russ_watters]

Key words "if needed": The US has never had to defend Israel with American troops and I don't think it ever will.

 

[Art]

Key words "if needed": The US has never had to defend Israel with American troops and I don't think it ever will.

If Iran doesn't back down then how will conflict be avoided given that Israel has said it will bomb Iran's nuclear facilities and Iran has vowed to retaliate if they do??

Iran is also unlikely to make the mistake Iraq made in allowing the US to stage it's forces and choose the time of attack. I imagine at the first sign of a US build up they will hit the US troops already in theatre and their ships transporting men and materials. Afterall once they decide on the path of confrontation they'll have nothing to lose.

 

[alexandra]

Also no one in the government want's kill 1,000's of innocent people like that.

Two words: Hiroshima; Nagasaki.

 

[alexandra]

For one, we don't have the capability to commit to a war in Iran. Iraq is enough of a problem set currently.

Too true - this is precisely why "the nuclear 'option'".

Secondly the president cannot launch nuclear weapons unless we are in a state of war.

This president seems to do precisely as he pleases (check out the thread about the NSA spying on civilians - I believe this is against your laws?).

Thirdly, the man's not stupid, contrary to what you would like to believe. Underestimating your enemy is what lost you the election.

Agreed: he and the people behind him are not stupid: there's a definite agenda they're out to achieve. They will do anything they see fit to achieve it.

Jesus christ, am I the only person in this subforum still connected to Earth enough to see past blind hatred for Bush?

It's not hatred of Bush: it's called 'analysis'. This is what current news reports seem to be pointing towards. It's not a 'conspiracy theory' either - it's happening. The media is priming 'us' (the sheople of the world) for the event... And, damn it, how I really, really hope I'm wrong! WW3 will be the last one...

 

[alexandra]

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.

'Gamble' - a good word, Art. This is precisely the word that seems to be the best descriptor of the current US administration, and this is why I believe it may actually use the nuclear 'option'. It has proved itself to be a 'gambling' administration so far (evidence: Iraq).

 

[alexandra]

Glad to see you found it. And that you see it is considered highly controversial and so perhaps worthy of discussion on a POLITICAL forum. Now may I ask that as a mentor you do your research BEFORE posting comments such as this

That's twice in 2 days you have ridiculed posts of mine only to then find (shocking as they are) they are well substantiated. That I think in anybodys terminology amounts to ad-hominem attacks.

Now an apology would be nice!

I agree that this topic is well worth analysis and discussion in a political forum, Art. It is, perhaps, the most important topic requiring political analysis today. The commencement and inevitable escalation of nuclear war is unquestionably a real danger at the moment (all signs seem to point that way) and if we turn a blind eye to it, it won't just 'go away'. The thing is to be aware of the potential dangers and somehow try to prevent it happening. I don't know about everyone else, but I have kids - I don't care about myself, to say the truth (really!), but I do care about them and their future...

 

[alexandra]

Being realistic, the US probably won't use 'nukes' on Iran the way they used 'nukes' in WW2.

And this makes it ok, does it?

Do depleted uranium weapons count as 'nukes'? If so, the US deploy 'nukes' all the time!

(http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/DU_Zimet-13Nov05.htm )

I must say, as a human being I find this totally deplorable. There must be something wrong with me, but I just don't think using depleted uranium weapons is something to be proud of or support. In my very humble opinion, using depleted uranium weapons is criminal.

 

[alexandra]

I think the OP question is a bit premature, since at the moment there does not seem to be an escalation in a conflict with Iran, and Iran does not seem to be moving toward threatening anyone with WMD.

It seems the stakes have just been raised since you posted this, Astronuc:

Iran faces UN nuclear crisis

Tehran defiant over uranium plans as watchdog's referral to Security Council raises the prospect of international sanctions

Ian Traynor in Vienna
Sunday February 5, 2006
The Observer

Iran ignored world condemnation of its controversial nuclear programme last night by ordering the resumption of uranium enrichment.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called a halt from today to inspections of his country's nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Iran's defiance came in response to a decision by the United Nations nuclear watchdog, which overwhelmingly voted to report Tehran to the Security Council over its nuclear programme. The top UN body has the power to censure Iran over its nuclear plans, which some fear could be part of a secret weapons programme, or order sanctions and ultimately the use of force to resolve the dispute.

After more than two days' wrangling over wording, an emergency session of the board of the IAEA meeting in Vienna decided by 27 to three to risk Iranian retaliation and haul Tehran before the supreme world authority. Although the resolution asked the security council to defer any action for a month, giving Iran an opportunity to climb back from a showdown, Tehran immediately signalled an escalation of the crisis.

Javad Vaeedi, deputy head of its national security council, denounced the decision, saying Iran would instantly embark on industrial-scale enrichment of uranium - the main path to a nuclear bomb. And Tehran said later it would end snap UN inspections of its nuclear plants from today. If the Iranians carry out their threats it will be far harder to monitor what is going on in their nuclear projects.

They are also expected to reject a compromise offer from the Russians...

More: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1702565,00.html

 

[alexandra]

...So, if Israel follows through, the general outline of the future =:

1. Israel attacks uranium enrichment sites
2. Iran responds, using manned forces
3. Israel drags the U.S. into the fight
4. ?

I'm lost at #4.

We are all lost at #4, Blahness

 

[Art]

And this makes it ok, does it?


I must say, as a human being I find this totally deplorable. There must be something wrong with me, but I just don't think using depleted uranium weapons is something to be proud of or support. In my very humble opinion, using depleted uranium weapons is criminal.

The former US attorney general also believes their use is illegal

An International Appeal to Ban the Use of Depleted Uranium Weapons

Drafted by Ramsey Clark

Depleted-uranium weapons are an unacceptable threat to life, a violation of international law and an assault on human dignity. To safeguard the future of humanity, we call for an unconditional international ban forbidding research, manufacture, testing, transportation, possession and use of DU for military purposes. In addition, we call for the immediate isolation and containment of all DU weapons and waste, the reclassification of DU as a radioactive and hazardous substance, the cleanup of existing DU-contaminated areas, comprehensive efforts to prevent human exposure and medical care for those who have been exposed.

During the Gulf War, munitions and armor made with depleted uranium were used for the first time in a military action. Iraq and northern Kuwait were a virtual testing range for depleted-uranium weapons. Over 940,000 30-millimeter uranium tipped bullets and "more than 14,000 large caliber DU rounds were consumed during Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield." (U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute)

These weapons were used throughout Iraq with no concern for the health and environmental consequences of their use. Between 300 and 800 tons of DU particles and dust have been scattered over the ground and the water in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. As a result, hundreds of thousands of people, both civilians and soldiers, have suffered the effects of exposure to these radioactive weapons.

Of the 697,000 U.S. troops who served in the Gulf, over 90,000 have reported medical problems. Symptoms include respiratory, liver and kidney dysfunction, memory loss, headaches, fever, low blood pressure. There are birth defects among their newborn children. DU is a leading suspect for a portion of these ailments. The effects on the population living in Iraq are far greater. Under pressure, the Pentagon has been forced to acknowledge Gulf War Syndrome, but they are still stonewalling any connection to DU.

Communities near DU weapons plants, testing facilities, bases and arsenals have also been exposed to this radioactive material which has a half-life of 4.4 billion years. DU-weapons are deployed with U.S. troops in Bosnia. The spreading toxicity of depleted uranium threatens life everywhere.

DU weapons are not conventional weapons. They are highly toxic, radioactive weapons. All international law on warfare has attempted to limit violence to combatants and to prevent the use of cruel and unfocused weapons. International agreements and conventions have tried to protect civilians and non-combatants from the scourge of war and to outlaw the destruction of the environment and the food supply in order to safeguard life on earth.

Consequently, DU weapons violate international law because of their inherent cruelty and unconfined death-dealing effect. They threaten civilian populations now and for generations to come. These are precisely the weapons and uses prohibited by international law for more than a century including the Geneva Conventions and their Protocols Additional of 1977.

And US gov't research documents directly contradict what the US gov't tells the public

What Government Documents Admit

"If DU enters the body, it has the potential to generate significant medical consequences. The risks associated with DU in the body are both chemical and radiological."

"Personnel inside or near vehicles struck by DU penetrators could receive significant internal exposures."

From the Army Environmental Policy Institute (AEPI), Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium Use in the U.S. Army, June 1995

"Short-term effects of high doses can result in death, while long-term effects of low doses have been implicated in cancer."

"Aerosol DU exposures to soldiers on the battlefield could be significant with potential radiological and toxicological effects."

From the Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) report, included as Appendix D of AMMCOM's Kinetic Energy Penetrator Long Term Strategy Study, Danesi, July 1990.

This report was completed six months before Desert Storm.

"Inhaled insoluble oxides stay in the lungs longer and pose a potential cancer risk due to radiation. Ingested DU dust can also pose both a radioactive and a toxicity risk."

Operation Desert Storm: Army Not Adequately Prepared to Deal With Depleted Uranium Contamination, United States General Accounting Office (GAO/NSIAD-93-90), January 1993, pp. 17-18.

What the Government Tells The Public

"The Committee concludes that it is unlikely that health effects reports by Gulf War Veterans today are the result of exposure to depleted uranium during the Gulf war."

From the Final Report: Presidential Advisory Committee of Gulf War Veterans Illnesses, December 1996.

Perhaps thousands of troops dropping dead accompanied by a 5 fold increase in birth defects (as has happened in Iraq) is what it will take to wake the american public up to the evils of their gov't.