U.S. Nuclear Attack on Iran Pending...?

[redstar2000]

Since the original post was lost, I'll try and reconstruct it...


Originally posted by Jorge Hirsch
America and Iran: At the Brink of the Abyss

Whether the U.S. will use nuclear weapons against Iran if a military confrontation erupts is in the hands of a single person, President Bush, as stated in NSC 30 from 1948: "the decision as to the employment of atomic weapons in the event of war is to be made by the Chief Executive when he considers such decision to be required." Bush will certainly not ask Congress nor the public permission once hostilities start. Whether or not tactical nuclear weapons should be deployed and used against Iran is a matter that needs to be faced by America right now!

So are U.S. tactical nuclear weapons deployed in the Persian Gulf, on hair-trigger alert, and ready to be launched against Iran at a moment's notice?

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=8577

The use of "tactical" nuclear weapons will come as no shock to most of the members of this board.

But I though it would be interesting to give our resident cappies a little time to start "thinking up their excuses".

It's only "fair", right? :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Severian]

Among the many problems with making this kind of hysterical alarmist claim...is it actually covers for the stuff that Washington really is doing to put the screws on Iran and deny its right to develop nuclear energy.

If it was widely believed that Washington was going to nuke Iran...than anything less than that produces relief, not outrage.

Incidentally, this is off antiwar.com, a site run by supporters of U.S. fascist demagogue Patrick Buchanan. Not everything on there is worthless, but it's definitely....handle with care.

[Big Balls McGraw]

Bush doesn't have the balls. Case Closed.

[Publius]

Why would I make excuses?

Ere I sound like a right rightist, let me again make note of my opposition to the US invasion of Iraq and of all subsequent follies in Iraq.

Iran is a tough situation, to be sure. But, aside from being the most ironic attack in human history, this would assuredly be the biggest mistake Bush has ever made and would, I should certainly hope, lead to nothing short of the destruction of his presidency.

I would like to hear the communist slant on it. I can't think giving a theocratic terror-state nuclear weapons is a 'leftist' position?

[ColinH]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 11:24 PM
I would like to hear the communist slant on it. I can't think giving a theocratic terror-state nuclear weapons is a 'leftist' position?
I can't think causing the deaths of thousands of people as being any sane person's position.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 09:24 PM
can't think giving a theocratic terror-state nuclear weapons is a 'leftist' position?
Who's "giving" weapons to Iran? Aside from Pakistan's nuclear supermarket, maybe, and that's apparently been shut down.

But Iran does have as much right to develop nuclear weapons as any other state; and is not particularly more warlike than other capitalist regimes. In fact the current regime never has started a war.

And the current issue is nuclear energy, not nuclear weapons. A much larger enrichment program - for much more highly enriched uranium - would be needed for weapons.

Iran's desire for nuclear energy is often dismissed as a smokescreen because it's an oil-exporting country. But if current trends of increasing electricity use and descreasing oil production continue, Iran would need all its oil for domestic use within a decade. Makes far more economic sense to generate electricity by other means and save the oil for export.

[VonClausewitz]

Iran's desire for nuclear energy is often dismissed as a smokescreen because it's an oil-exporting country.

I always thought it was seen as a 'smokescreen' as a result of the Iranian President having a few screws loose. 'nuke Israel off the map', or do we ignore this one.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Nuke them with what? Even if they had nuclear capability(which they do not) Israel has the nuclear capacity to destroy Iran many times over. The only ones who are actually threating nuclear war is the US. Talk about a bullshit double standard.

Did not think after the Iraq wmd fiasco anyone would be idiotic enough to buy the same crap coming from the same sources. Its much easier to breathe when your head is not jammed up your ass :blink:

[VonClausewitz]

Did not think after the Iraq wmd fiasco anyone would be idiotic enough to buy the same crap coming from the same sources. Its much easier to breathe when your head is not jammed up your ass

Are you trying to insult my intelligence, or just making generally facetious statements ?.

I was reffering to the disbelief in Iran's intentions with regards to their president having the aforementioned loose screws.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Just getting sick of the hypocricy. Bush and his administration definatly have more than a few screws loose and they have the capability and have threatened to use nuclear weapons. I don't care how nuts the Iranian president is, he can not nuke a damn thing and probably will not even be in power if Iran ever gets nuclear capability which they probably will not. He may want to destroy Israel but it is all bluster he does not and probably will never have the capability. The neo-cons are just fishing for excuses to test out thier new toys on Iran(mini-nukes).

As for your question the answer is both :)

[FULL METAL JACKET]

How fast can a nuclear weapon be made?

[VonClausewitz]

Atlas Swallowed;

I've not said I dont think American nuclear arms are dangerous, I was just referring wholly to Iran. The current Iranian leader is worse though, if only for the fact that religion can make people do all kinds of idiot things, and despite what you think, there are infitely more checks and restrictions placed on what a Western government can actually get away with.


The neo-cons are just fishing for excuses to test out thier new toys on Iran(mini-nukes).

I wholly agree that this is the case. I also hope you'll agree that some premiers should stop trying it seems to give ol'Georgy a reason to pick on them. If Iran shut it's president up and got on with the rest of the world, and didnt antagonise the Un, then this situation wouldnt exist.


As for your question the answer is both

Well, at least your honest, far too many people dont have the stomach to admit that they're just trying to insult others.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 11:07 PM
Iranian President having a few screws loose. 'nuke Israel off the map', or do we ignore this one.
Here's a more sober article on the state of Washington's war moves against Iran. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/12/wiran112.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/12/ixnewstop.html)


Publicly, even American hawks such as Vice-President Dick Cheney are backing the diplomatic track to resolve the showdown over Iran's nuclear programme, which Teheran claims is for peaceful energy purposes. But the Sunday Telegraph has learnt from a senior Pentagon adviser that, as the crisis deepened in recent months, military strategists have been updating plans for "last-resort" military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. The raids would be ordered if President George W Bush is advised that they are the only remaining option to prevent the Islamic republic from acquiring atomic weapons.
.....
Britain is hoping that the threat of action by the Security Council, including possible financial sanctions, will expose differences within the regime on how far to push its game of nuclear brinkmanship. But there is a growing belief in Washington that it will be impossible to win the required Chinese and Russian support at the UN for any significant measures that might inhibit Iran's nuclear ambitions.

The review of the Pentagon's contingency plans follows the stream of recent discoveries of Iran's secret nuclear operations and the virulent rhetoric of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad since he was elected last year. Iran is still thought to be anywhere between three and 10 years away from physically producing a nuclear weapon. But the West and Israel believe the "point of no return" - when Iran's scientists acquire the technological know-how and experience to make an atomic bomb - could be reached much sooner.

The Pentagon adviser told the this newspaper: "We will have reached the point of no return in the next couple of years. If diplomacy hasn't worked by then, Iran will be a long way down the line to acquiring a nuclear weapon. We're talking about choosing the least bad of a series of bad options. President Bush will also be nearing the end of his term and have to decide if he trusts this issue to another administration or wants to use the B2s." In a separate interview, Richard Perle, a senior defence official at the time of the Iraq war and who maintains close links to the military, said that 12 B2 bombers, each carrying dozens of precision-guided weapons, could deliver a serious blow to Iran's nuclear ambitions.
.....
"There may well be secret sites out there but a nuclear programme is not that easy to hide," said Dan Goure, a Pentagon consultant and vice-president of the Lexington Institute defence think-tank. "You need large sites for uranium enrichment and manufacturing plutonium. It's not like a biological or chemical warfare programme: you cannot conduct research in a Petri dish."

Mr Perle and Dr Goure believe that America is better equipped to carry out the attacks than Israel, whose F15s and F16s would encounter refuelling problems. In a further signal that if strikes were required the US would prefer to carry them out, Mr Bush said last week that America would "rise to Israel's defence" if Iran threatened it.

Also:
""This is more than just the standard military contingency assessment," (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/12/wiran12.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/12/ixnewstop.html) and
A report says the air strikes would kill 10,000 and lead to a wider war. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/13/wiran13.xml)

I'm linking the Telegraph since it was the first to break the news on those plans; a lot of other papers ran articles based on the Telegraph's.

In short, the direction towards war is real but not immediate. The immediate step Washington is taking to push towards war, is to seek greater international support for their arrogant position that Iran has no right to independent nuclear power.

Any shred of support expressed for that position will be used later to justify military actions.

***

FMJ, the article I quoted above says "Iran is still thought to be anywhere between three and 10 years away from physically producing a nuclear weapon."

[Atlas Swallowed]

To Von Clausewitz,

Sorry for the misunderstanding, thought you were defending the American and Israeli position, would not have insulted you if I thought that were not the case.

I disagree about the situation would not be thier if the Iranian president was not such a jackass. He is making the situation worse but Saddam bent over backwards to try to appease the UN, yet the neo-cons still had thier invasion. They have been planning the war against Iran and Syria long before the idiot opened his mouth.