Bush's plans to nuke Iran

[Drocket]

It appears there's going to be a rather interesting article in next week's New Yorker regarding the Bush administration's plans for invading Iran - including plans to use nukes. From a synopsis of the article from Yahoo (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060408/wl_mideast_afp/usirannuclearmilitary_060408061934;_ylt=Avrl5ANGq. ytJXGklaE7Ywys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MT Y-)

One former defense official said the military planning was premised on a belief that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government," The New Yorker pointed out.
And then we'll be greeted as liberators. Hmm, this sounds oddly familiar...

One of the options under consideration involves the possible use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, to insure the destruction of Iran's main centrifuge plant at Natanz, Hersh writes.

But the former senior intelligence official said the attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the military, and some officers have talked about resigning after an attempt to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans in Iran failed, according to the report.
Coming soon to a planet near you: WW3.

[AlonzoMourning23]

The nuclear weapon mentioned is very different than a traditional nuke. It has the same effect to those surrounding it, but in a much, much smaller area.

It's unlikely to be an option that's actually used though.

But it's foolish to think humiliating a government works. Iran is not a country where the people feel completely oppressed, like in Iraq or afghanistan. If we attack it's likely to result in people rallying around their country.

[KrAzY3]

Simply because of the potential reaction you will not see American use a nuclear weapon unless the stakes are very, very high.

I've kept score on some things that Bush was "going to do" and one ends up with a almost amusing list of things. Look, the guy isn't the best possible leader. I get that, but this crap that people keep throwing out there gets silly. Like the idea they would use nuke's or the like (even tiny ones). In the end this will be right there with the "Bush will have a draft if he gets re-elected" junk. Just another thing that will never happen and people will quickly forget about it.

[imike]

I think that we have to look back to history and see what nuclear weapons has done and killed millions of innocent people. Do we want that to happen in the 21st century?
__________________
How Next-Generation Game Engine Works (http://www.mensarticles.com/misc/125-gameengine.html) | Join The Moblog Mania (http://www.mensarticles.com/misc/192-moblogmania.html)

[PittsburghAfterDark]

What the hell are you talking about?

Nuclear weapons have killed millions of people?

On what planet?

[Old Corps Gunny]

It is more likely that, if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, their loony-tunes president will use it first. He is already threatening to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty if abiding by it does not serve Iran's best interests (i.e., the development of nuclear weapons), has again reiterated that Israel "...cannot continue to live", and believes the UN will not impose sanctions against him or the Iranian Taliban, saying "Those who speak about sanctions would be damaged more." and then adds "...don't worry." Frankly, anyone who thinks he is passing on a message from Allah (in other words, declaring himself to be a "prophet") and is trying to develop nuclear warheads scares the hell out of me, because as a zealot he would have no compuction against actually using those warheads against any and all "unbelievers". Now is the time for the UN to step in and tell Iran to open all of its nuclear facilities, cease and desist its uranium enrichment program until an international monitoring system can be set up, or face sanctions a lot more serious that admonishments.

[bmulligan]

Yes, Seymour Hersh, the man who also "reported" that the US was planning to invade Pakistan and confiscate their nuclear weapons if Musharrif coudn't maintain order in Pakistan during the inception of the Afganistan exercise. Yup, I believe everything this guy says. Hasn't he had a reputation for having to retract things on numerous occasions ?

[RickSp]

Yes, Seymour Hersh, the man who also "reported" that the US was planning to invade Pakistan and confiscate their nuclear weapons if Musharrif coudn't maintain order in Pakistan during the inception of the Afganistan exercise.Â*Â* Yup, I believe everything this guy says.Â*Â* Hasn't he had a reputation for having to retract things on numerous occasions ?


Gee, Seymour Hersh has gotten things wrong before? Must make him human, I guess.Â*Â*Of course, the reporting that you reference may have bee exactly right, but as Musharrif never did not lose control in Pakistan, we will never know.

On the other hand his reporting on the massacre in My Lai and subsequent cover-up did win him a Pulitzer prize. His reporting on Abu Ghraib thirty years later helped blow the lid off that cess pool, as well.Â*Â*We could use a few more investigative reporters like Hersh.

With luck, the sort of reporting that Hersh has done on Iran will make it just a little harder for the war criminal in the White House to start World War III.

[bobbylien]

I know someone who worked for the department of defense and he says that the military has plans for every conceivable action or possibility in any situation. Just because they have plans for it doesn't mean they will use it unless its absolutely necissary. There is nothing wrong with being prepared and planning for the worst care scenario.

We need to stop the fascist and racist Iranian regime from getting control of nuclear weapons. Over 60 years ago we had the chance to prevent world war two but the anti-war liberals wouldn't even consider any kind of military action that could have stopped it. Sometimes conflict is the only way to resolve a situation, sending a diplomat doesnt always fix it. We need to stop this situation before it gets any worse, and if that means having a draft because other nations don't feel like helping, then so be it.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Back then we called those anti-war liberals isolationists and they weren't confined to one political party or segment of the political spectrum.

Now they're anti-war liberals, not isolationists. The contrast between the two eras really doesn't apply.

This also comes from someone that believes we should nuke the living hell out of Iran's nuclear program sites now instead of later.

[bobbylien]

This also comes from someone that believes we should nuke the living hell out of Iran's nuclear program sites now instead of later.
Did I say that i wanted to nuke iran? No, I didn't. I said that the world should take action against Iran, I do not support using any nuclear weapons but I am saying that its stupid not to have plans to use them. Saying its a good idea to have plans for them doesn't mean i support "nuking the living hell of of Iran." I support using a nuclear device ONLY if there is absolutely no other alternative in that situation.

This is the same thing that happened in the 1930s. Its not just liberals who are against military action. People tend not to care about something until it directly affects them. I am not saying that we should invade Iran, but the world should take a much firmer position in this situation. I am saying that the world seems to be ignoring this issue. We cannot allow Iran to gain access to nuclear weapons.

[AlonzoMourning23]

bobby, while yes, the world did ignore and fail to act against hitler, there's something that happened earlier. They went overboard in punishing germany after WW1. So, basically, after WW1 you have the type of flaw modern conversative thinking could result in, and the type of flaw liberal thinking could result in after hitler came to power. Either point in history, if handled differently, could have prevented ww2.

Also many find flaw with the way we have engaged in negotiations with Iran, as we've been hesitant to engage them as equal partners and more willing to use the "do what we say" method.

Though a comparison with the nazi's isn't very good in most cases, even though it's constantly brought up whenever a country is acting against u.s. interests it see,s.

[rastaman]

For those of you who believe nuking Iran can be done without consequences, then our country and the world is in for a "WORLD OF S**T"!!! When Seymour Hearst speaks its usually true. America sure could use the Intel from Valerie Plaime and "Brewster Jennings" (Goggle this). You know this is a f**ked Up deal and decision if you have high ranking military Generals who have threatened to resign, should the order to Tactically Nuke Iran comes to fruition.

For some of you folks who believe the U.S. can come out smelling like roses should we use TAC Nukes in Iran---you need to lay of the crack pipe. America will have the biggest "BULLS-EYE" on her like never before in our nations History. What happens when or should the rest of the world (Russia, China, and Europe) views the U.S. as a rogue nation and nuclear exchange becomes a reality????? No one will ever trust the for the next 50 – 100 years.

We are going reap the wrath of over 1.2 billion Muslims around the world. The chickens will come home to roost. We just won't know when--it could be 5 years, 10 years or longer. With the no-accountability and proliferation of suit case nukes it will be just be a matter of time before we are hit. Should this happen the perpetrators will probably come in thru or unguarded borders. I say this --Once you let the Nuclear Genie out of the bottle, you can't put it back in. For the everyday Political Cross fire opinionist and millions of American's we will no longer be safe.

However, the rich and powerful already have their sx-figured WMD shelters full of supplies to last until the fallout is over with. Everyday Americans who cannot afford the six-figure shelters will be screwed just like the Kitrina folks.

Talking about living in constant fear, how about Bush going on National TV stating he needs to take away more of our freedoms to protect us from nuclear PAYBACK!!!! Not to mention further monitoring our phone calls and emails.

Oh well, let's get ready for the Bush Propaganda BLITZ, lying to America once again about the need to NUKE Iran. Hell maybe I'm giving Bush to much integral respect-----he'll probably just interrupt or TV program to say--GUESS WHAT FOLKS I have ordered our planes to use Tactical Nukes on Iran's proposed Nuclear program.

Bush will lie to the world and America, how do we know this? Just watch Bush's body language and facial expressions. Bush is a horrible liar; however b/c he's a professional liar he doesn't give a Dam.

We only have the Supreme Court, the right wing religious American tali-ban, and the cult-like Bush voters to thank, for forcing this Meg-la Maniac onto the American people and the free world. Bush is truly a Monster should he go ahead with his plans to use TAC nukes on Iran. Anyone dare debate me on whether or not Bush is the Hitler of the 21st Century should he nuke Iran. The nuclear fall out and the contamination will cause the deaths of millions over the years not to mention poisoning water supplies and food supplies.

Well all you Republicans, it’s time to do some soul searching. Are you true Patriots!! The safety of the entire planet rest with you guys. Your country and the world needs you like never before. You guys need to put the STOPS on Bush and his Administration before it's too LATE!!!!!!!!