Will iran get nuked?

[peaccenicked]

from the American Conservative 2005

"The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing – that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack – but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections."


from global research http://www.endofempire.org/news_eoe.php?page=329
"Despite Pentagon statements which describe tactical nuclear weapons as "safe for the surrounding civilian population", the use of nukes in a conventional war theater would trigger a nuclear holocaust.The resulting radioactive contamination, which threatens future generations, would by no means be limited to the Middle East.'


This is sheer lunacy. How mad is a president who does not rule out the use of nuclear weapons?

And another scary report. http://en.fondsk.ru/article.php?id=526


:wacko: :wacko: :wacko:

[Cyanide Suicide]

I don't think the US would nuke them unless they made some sort of strike on the US, Israel, or some other ally of the US. And even so, I imagine they would use some of the smaller nuclear weapons and use them on their missile factories and whatnot.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Why does the US always blame the Middle East Nations being a terrorist? :huh:
And did the US don't have the balls to attacking North Korea? :huh:

[MrDoom]

And did the US don't have the balls to attacking North Korea? :huh:

Condoleeza Rice(wtf sp): "Mr. President, Mr. President! They've just discovered oil in Zambia!"

George Bush: "Zambia? Zambia has no democracy. We must spread the democracy to Zambia. Have the Pentagon draw up a contingiency plan."

Rice: "But, North Korea has no democracy, and we've no plans to invade them..."

Bush: "North Korea has no oil."

[Pawn Power]

Another thread about this a few weeks ago- Israel, Iran, and the Bomb (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60840)

Article from the thread

Israel formulates "secret" plans (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-524-2535177-524,00.html)

[peaccenicked]

One of the key elements of the current speculation globally is the occurrence of a new 9/11 type attack. To me it is very possible that a false flag operation could seal Iran's fate.
It is highly unlikely that Iran will attack Israel, it is more likely to suspend uranium development.http://www.antiwar.com/ips/parsi.php?articleid=10408
I think the nuclear threat is the ultimate in bullying, carrying it out, is lunacy beyond belief. Yet the fear is that Bush is a lunatic on a 'crusading' mission that has more to do with biblical fantasy than anything.

[Cyanide Suicide]

I'm not so sure it's that unlikely, the tension seems to be growing between Israel and Iran, and I don't think it really matters who strikes first, they're both nuclear states and I'm sure Bush wouldn't take long in getting the US involved...you know, "defendin' freedom."

[Hit The North]

This is sheer lunacy. How mad is a president who does not rule out the use of nuclear weapons?


I doubt there's ever been a US President who has ruled it out.

[anarchist]

check out these links:


Iran space test (http://infowars.net/articles/january2007/260107Iran.htm)


iran attack possible (http://infowars.net/articles/january2007/260107Cameron.htm)

[Red Heretic]

Anarchist, Infowars is a terrible source, they're bat shit crazy!


Anyway, I think there is actually a very real question of whether or not Israel will nuke Iran FOR the USA.

[Fawkes]

they're both nuclear states
Iran is not a nuclear state.

Although Bush has already come pretty close to commiting historical suicide, this would make him the Kurt Cobain of American politics. I think it very unlikely that he would use nukes.

[Kia]

Im 99% sure that nukes will not be used. The actual use of nukes is political and national suicide nowadays. Isreal would loose backing from all its allies if it were to launch nukes at Iran. Iran doesnt currently even have nukes and even if they did do develop nukes theyre going to use them the same way as everyone else...to stop people from invading or fucking with them. The USA will NEVER launch nukes unless some insane global mass war breaks out...which it wont. Thankfully bush isnt that dumb. The most likely use of any nuclear weapon is that some small group gets ahold of some enriched uranium or plutonium....etc... and somehow is capable of building a bomb and then detonates it.
This whole "Maybe they'll nuke each other" shit is completely ridiculous..

[peaccenicked]

The question of how dumb Bush is not the point . He is dumb enough not to rule out the use of nuclear weapons. Jack Straw as British foriegn secretary got the sack just after saying attacking Iran with nuclear weapons was nuts. When the plans for getting ready to use them have been drawn up. It is enough reason to call for the impeachment of Bush. If Iraq was not enough.
The question of their actual use is unthinkable but who really knows.

[Guerrilla22]

I'm tired of the right warning us of the dangers posed by certain "rouge states." Iran poses no threat to the US, on the contrary the US poses a threat to the entire world.

[red_orchestra]

If a nuke was used on Iran, the rest of the Islamic world would wage all out war on the US and its allies. It would be the start of a new world war -- unlike any we have ever seen. I don't want to even think about it.

NUKES = SUICIDE


Iran poses no threat to the US, on the contrary the US poses a threat to the entire world.

YES! Absolutely... the US is the biggest rouge state of them all! School Yard bullies!

[Marukusu]

Originally posted by red_orchestra
If a nuke was used on Iran, the rest of the Islamic world would wage all out war on the US and its allies. It would be the start of a new world war -- unlike any we have ever seen.

I really doubt that, considering the heavy animosity between the sunni and shiite muslims. The islamic world isn't very united at all.

The world would see a massive increase of anti-american imperialism though.


I don't want to even think about it.

A new world war would, though being extremely destructive, in the end probably lead to a new era where the old values of the capitalist societies (which caused the war) whould be abandoned in favour for new ideas like communism.
If there where any survivours after the war, that would say.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

I really doubt that, considering the heavy animosity between the sunni and shiite muslims. The islamic world isn't very united at all.

The comrade is essentially correct.

The Muslims are far too divided by sectarian conflict to present one united anti-imperialist front.

Even here in Pakistan, we have much conflict between the two groups.

[Janus]

The US definitely feels threatened which is why they're applying political and economic pressure on Iran as well as upgrading their anti-missile shield technology. However, in all likelihood, they'll resort to conventional weapons or perhaps attack Iran by proxy through Israel before a possible nuclear response.

[peaccenicked]

There is a proxy war going on already in Iraq between the US and Iran.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070131/ap_on_...iran_war_clouds (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070131/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_war_clouds)

The danger of escalation is discussed here by Juan Cole
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...&articleId=4654 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=COL20070131&articleId=4654)

[*PRC*Kensei]

nobody should have nukes.
not us, not iran, not isreal.

ban boms, fight with bullets ffs. wussy's !

[Janus]

There is a proxy war going on already in Iraq between the US and Iran.
Right, and it's possible that this proxy war may escalate as Bush has continually threatened Iran over interfering in Iraq.


fight with bullets ffs. wussy's !
Chivalry's dead and has been dead for quite some time in warfare.

[Fawkes]

Though I definitely know what you mean, if chivalry is standing in lines and shooting at each other, it's a good thing it died.

[piet11111]

i think its very possible that america is going to use nuclear weapons against iran.
they did not build the RNEP just to put it on the shelves and look menacing.

everything america has done so far regarding nuclear weapons was meant to put the nuclear card back into the card game of world politics.
and they really need that card because conventional military "expeditions" turned into a disaster in iraq and afghanistan.

america is in a crisis as they are rapidly losing their position as the worlds most powerfull nation.
they no longer have the ability to force other country's into obedience by threatening anymore thats why america felt the need to prove its power by going after afghanistan and iraq.

they only have 2 options left when dealing with country's like iran that cant be beaten with conventional methods
1 back off and admit defeat
2 act on the threats and attack with nuclear weapons

[Kia]

i think its very possible that america is going to use nuclear weapons against iran.
they did not build the RNEP just to put it on the shelves and look menacing.

The RNEP was never built, they tested one but they do not have one to use. The whole thing why America updates its nucleur arsenal is for showmanship mostly. The most update weaponary that could whipe millions off the face of the planet in minutes is a rather good way of detering people from screwing with you. The only other reason America develops them is incase some HUGE World War 3 breaks out and they need to nuke everyone to death...but thats luckly pretty slim at the moment.



everything america has done so far regarding nuclear weapons was meant to put the nuclear card back into the card game of world politics.
and they really need that card because conventional military "expeditions" turned into a disaster in iraq and afghanistan.

So your saying that because Conventional Military Expeditions failed that now we will resort to nuking our opponents instead? Thats just stupid. Conventional Military Expeditions fail all the time. You dont see other countries going around nuking people because they fail..and america wont either. Instead, they try NEW techniques..they learn from their mistakes (eventually). As most historians will tell you. America for the last 50yrs and more has had its military designed to fight HUGE armies coming from a particular country (Cold war ring a bell?). The american military has just recently begun to realize that it needs to change its tactics if it is going to even hope to win against guerilla forces and small militaries that have no main backer. The US is much more likely to use conventional bombs and just bomb the living shit out of anything they run into. Is this any better? Only barely (very very barely).
Anyways, this situation happens to every super power...they LOOSE dominance as a military force! Look at the roman empire. They were a military force to be reckoned with during their time and they basically in the end couldnt beat a bunch of small germanic tribes. It happens...we should be glad that they are loosing the ability to bully/control everyone.

So many people here seem to not realize what the consequence are for a country who uses a nuclear weapon....so I will repeart them again: ITS POLITICAL SUICIDE! You will mostly likely loose all allies or at least weaken the ties to the extreme. Countries will create sanctions against you. In america the public would go nuts and demand impeachment in minutes..even the right isnt that insane. The allies of the country you nuked would probably either declare war also or demand that the leaders of the government be brougth to justice. Basically one might as well jump off a cliff into a pool of lava....it would be a quicker way of ending everything.


We should be worrying about the much more likelier weapons to be used; Chemical bombs? Conventional bombs of horrific proportion? Cluster bombs? etc....those pose a real threat and frankly the US government is capable of using them without fucking themselves over.

[peaccenicked]

Kia, at least one Ex cia disagrees with you.
''Giraldi said that the U.S. nuclear strike against Iran would take place after a 9/11-style attack on the United States, and that the planned attack would be analogous to the unprovoked invasion of Iraq.

The former CIA officer also said that an attack on the U.S. would serve as the pretext for putting the plan into action.

He noted that some Air Force officers are opposed to the nuclear strike plan "but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.""

Political suicide it maybe but that does not exclude the possibility of it occurence.
Bringing rational thought into neo-con ambition might be what the 'realists' in congress want but they are being ignored by Bush who is being egged on by
Kissinger who thinks that leaving Vietnam was a mistake.


The Pentagon also believes that mini-nukes would be safe to use, much like depleted uranium which they are using in Iraq.
Repeating 'political suicide' does not get to the ears of Bush. The world needs rid of him now.

[Kia]

Kia, at least one Ex cia disagrees with you.
''Giraldi said that the U.S. nuclear strike against Iran would take place after a 9/11-style attack on the United States, and that the planned attack would be analogous to the unprovoked invasion of Iraq.

Hmm. I'll agree its possible that if another attack at the same scale as 9/11 or larger were launched against the US then the country would turn around and consdier the option of using nukes against the attackers. The thing is I dont think Iran would directly cause an attack like that and it would much more likely be a small group to pull something like that off again. Even if this hpyothetical attack does happen and Iran did support/fund the people behind it, the US would not be able to use nukes since it would have to target the small group first. If it decided then to strike at Iran in the same way the us government attacked Iraq and Afghanistan then it probably wouldnt use nukes sicne it would sort of be overdoing it for a country that would have only very flimsy attachments to the smaller group. Hopefully that makes sense...



The Pentagon also believes that mini-nukes would be safe to use, much like depleted uranium which they are using in Iraq.
Repeating 'political suicide' does not get to the ears of Bush. The world needs rid of him now.

I know that we currently use some weapons that include depleted uranium, but I think what most of us are talking about is the conventional idea of a nuclear weapon. I found these facts about current use by the American military in Iraq on depleted uranium weapons (if anyone is interested):


Tanks: >2,650 Tanks: >12,000
Bradleys: ~121,000 Bradleys: ~10,300
Jets: ~309,000 Jets: ~93,400

Depleted Uranium Weapons (http://www.wise-uranium.org/diss.html#DUMYTHS) You need to scroll down a bit to find the actual data on it. I had to retype it out since it didnt copy well.
Okay the first row of figures is the number of rounds currently used during the Iraq war from 2003 onwards. The second is the # of kgs used by each group.
The reason depleted uranium is used is for armor plating and ammunition since its incredibly thick and able to punch holes through most things. Im glad the UN and EU generally condemns the use of depleted uranium and there is a push to ban it all together, but of course the US military uses it. Anyways, this is still not the same as a nuclear bomb.
And finally about Bush being deaf to political suicide..I dont think he is. I wont argue this point since I already have and its basically ones opinion on how much of a twit he is. I will say that I 100% agree that Bush should be gotten rid of with the rest of the US government.

[вор в законе]

Nuclear weapons are mainly for defencive use, they aren't used for attacks. In the old times they had Castles and Walls to defend themselves, now they have nukes.

Iran doesn't want stability in Iraq and interestingly enough, they arm both Shiite and Sunni insurgency to escalate the Civil War. Why? Mainly because in case the Civil War continues and goes out of control, the United States will have to ask Iran's assistance to bring Iraq into a state of equilibrium. This would advance Iran's geopolitical importance significantly and would be a defeat for the U.S. policy.

The proxy war and the pressure against Iran by everywhere that we observe right now, is to stop precisely that: bringing Iran into a dominant position when diplomacy begins.

[peaccenicked]

Red Brigade
Nuclear weapons are rarely used because they are so lethal as shown in Japan.

There is as much evidence for Iran being behind the resistance and terrorism as there was for WMD.
There is more evidence that America is behind the terrorism.

The question of regional dominance , are you saying American domination is preferable to Iran's

[Fawkes]

Nuclear weapons are mainly for defencive use, they aren't used for attacks. In the old times they had Castles and Walls to defend themselves, now they have nukes.
What was the U.S. defending against when they nuked Nagasaki and Hiroshima? We all know that Japan had no fighting chance at the time that the bombs were dropped.

[peaccenicked]

Kia

"Hmm. I'll agree its possible that if another attack at the same scale as 9/11 or larger were launched against the US then the country would turn around and consdier the option of using nukes against the attackers."


This below might have been an important slip.

"To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11."
Tony Blair


The idea is already been expressed in congress, as a warning by Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6d8MIENVtKw&eurl=

All I am really saying is that is not an impossibility for Bush to use a false flag operation like the attack on the Tolkin which was the excuse for going into Vietnam.

The trouble with political suicide is when doing the "right thing"and dying like a lame duck have the same consequence

[Kia]

Fawkes

What was the U.S. defending against when they nuked Nagasaki and Hiroshima? We all know that Japan had no fighting chance at the time that the bombs were dropped.

They wern't. It was the first (and second) time anyone had ever used nukes in actual war...they didnt know what they were dealing with. Sure they should have realized how horrific nukes were from all the testing they did beforehand...but they didnt. The differance between a test and actual use is on a scale unimaginable. After the War people began to realize that Nukes cannot be used against others, but they make an excellent deterrent to war.


This below might have been an important slip.

"To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11."
Tony Blair


All I am really saying is that is not an impossibility for Bush to use a false flag operation like the attack on the Tolkin which was the excuse for going into Vietnam.


Well if you believe that 9/11 was a false flag operation (which I think you do?) then wouldnt the thought of being able to pull it off twice with something so similiarly related seem ridiculous? I dont believe 9/11 was (but thats a WHOLE differant debate :D) but i do think the occurrance of two 9/11 attacks in less then a decade would be almost impossible.


What im worried about and feel more of us should be worried about is the weapons that are highly likely to be used if the war does happen. Cluster bombs seem to be taking the place of landmines and who knows what chemical weapons could be used.