Nuclear Insanity
Bush is apparently set upon war with Iran and he apparently wants the war to include nuclear weapons:
The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said that Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler.
“That’s the name they’re using,” the report quoted a former senior intelligence official as saying.
A senior unnamed
” name=”c1″ />
News | News Photos | Images | Web” name=”c3″ />
Pentagon adviser is quoted in the article as saying that “this White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war.”
The former intelligence officials depicts planning as “enormous,” “hectic” and “operational,” Hersh writes.
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.
In recent weeks, the president has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of the House of Representatives, including at least one Democrat, the report said.
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
Putting aside the morality of a nuclear first strike, this is insane. First, these people are idiots if they really believe that a bombing campaign will lead to the overthrow of the government. No bombing campaign in history has lead to something like that. The British didn’t surrender in the face of the Blitz, the Japanese didn’t surrender in the face of almost uncontested Allied attacks, and the Vietnamese didn’t bow in the face of an onslaught by one half of the world’s then superpowers. Bombing campaigns have historically rallied nations to the war. Want to ensure that the Mullahs of Iran are never overthrown? Bomb Iran.
They are also idiots if they think a more democratic Iran would not continue to try and get nuclear weapons. Three of its regional neighbors, Israel, Pakistan, and India have nuclear weapons. Iran, for reasons of safety and national pride, is going to want to have nuclear weapons. That dynamic won’t change just because the mullahs are no longer in control.
Adding nuclear weapons to the mix makes things exponentially worse. At least some of the targets are near civilian centers. Even without mistake in delivering the weapons, and even if they stick to just bunker busters, there will still be fallout and innocent civilians will die. The attack itself will reinforce to the point of turning the idea into concrete that the US is engaged in a crusade against Islam. Invading Iraq is bad enough, but nuking a country that could not plausibly be seen as a threat by anyone? Bush might as well deliver a speech from the offices of the Southern Baptist Convention or the Vatican and declare that the US will rid the world of infidels; it certainly couldn’t help al Qaeda any more than a nuclear first strike on a Muslim country. The consequences of such an insane move are too horrible to contemplate.
The American economy will stop. No oil will come out of the Middle East, not to Western nations. Iraq and Iran will simply refuse to sell and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States will not be able to and survive their own people. Venezuela, I am sure, will have no problem selling to the EU and the Chinese instead of the US. Terrorism will explode. With the proof of Western intent to destroy Muslims wafting over Iran in the form of a mushroom cloud, the ranks of those willing to become terrorists or to aid terrorists explodes in an exponential fashion. Southern Iraq, the Occupied Territories, Israel proper, and the United States will see a wave of suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks the likes of which the world has never seen. The economic and diplomatic isolation of the US will be total. No non-western government will want anything to do with the US, particularly as its economy grinds to a halt, and no Western government will survive the ballot box if it remains close to a United States that nuked a nation that was not threatening it.
This is insane. And not even your normal, run of the mill insane. This is John Birch Society, Michael Jackson Daycare Center insane. Anyone even suggesting this has proven themselves too stupid, too immoral, and too damn clueless to be allowed near anything more dangerous than a piece of string. And I would probably keep the string away from Cheney.
How did we get to a place in this country where I can no longer tell the difference between a news story and a scene from Dr. Strangelove
Kevin: No bombing campaign in history has lead to something like that.
Fred: Have you not heard about Afghanistan and Iraq? Have you not heard about the surrender of Japan after the 2 atom bombs were dropped on them? Wasn’t the bombing of German cities and war making factories a prime reason Germany could no longer continue the was? Where did you go to school?
When you go to war, every option to defeat your enemy should be considered. To do otherwise is irresponsible.
We Have Always Been At War With Oceania…
I was gonna write a long-winded post on the idiocy of the Bush administration’s paln to attack Iran but the Left Leaner pretty much covers it: They are also idiots if they think a more democratic Iran would not continue……
An alien incounter, August, 1956 had the scenario above. The aliens said that the US would go into a sudden state of disaster brought about by nuclear war with Iran. I never put much stock in things like that, only saw them as interesting, chewing gum for the mind but whow. I am in disbelief but reserve the right to faint at any moment. The aliens said that Americans would panic, take to the roads in their automobiles and die of exposure, 30 plus million or so when the tank went dry. The picture was of the interstates in grid lock, no food or water, no shelter other than the auto and no way out except to walk to nowhere.
If that story had a moral it was that fear is the damning attribute of Americans. The employment of “mushroom shaped cloud” as a political terror tool by the Bush bunch, 2004 is consistent with that showing that there is an overall above overage fear in the hearts of Americans. The term “fear God” is accepted as what we must do to be saved. Could that be the source of the ailment?
There was another bit of the alien story that is noteworthy. They said, totally unbelievable in 1956 that Russia would take sides with us. China and India would be invaded by Iran and her European allies and only Japan would manage to hold out before the tide turned. The story had a somewhat happy ending with those that managed to survive the holocost emerging into a fantastic new world brought about by technological advances making earth the equal of the alien’s world.
By the way. This article puncuitates the “leak” game that continues. It gives us a clue as to why the media is downplaying leaking and ignoring all the lies that lead us to war with Iraq. I see striking similarities with the “get used to the idea” build up for the war with Iraq. What’s Rush Limbaugh saying about it? He seemed to know everything about Iraq before it happened.
Fred
Mate, learn to read. The plan is for a bombing campign to so break the will of the country that it rises up to throw off the yoke of the Mullahs. Never. Happened. What you are describing are campaigns in conjunction with ground assaults. And, remembr, please, that Japan came this close to continuing the fight and they only gave up after the introduction of a weapon no one had ever heard of before after close to twelve years of near constant warfare. Not the same thing.
And does your little comment about doing what it takes to win mean that you ar enow infavor of killing innocnets by the millions, of dropping nuclear weapons throughout the middle east on population centers?
Fred:
Not to diverge from the subject of this thread, but in a previous post you stated that:
“I [Fred] certainly would not vote for someone who believes that family planning includes the killing of unborn babies.”
Just so I understand, you would vote for someone who believes the killing of thousands, possibly millions of civilians by bombing Iran is the an appropriate response to the current situation?
Janusz, where do you come up with this stuff? Where do you get the idea that I support nuking Iran? If you are going to chastize me about something, at least do it about something I said, not something you make up.
Kevin, when did the ground assault into Japan’s homeland happen?
Fred:
Just asking…the subject of the post was the possible bombing of Iran, something I think all reasonable people would consider to be wildly extreme. Your post had a belligerent tone to it, so it was easy to infer you may support such action.
Thanks for clarifying that you would not support something as insane as bombing Iran.
Kevin: And does your little comment about doing what it takes to win mean that you ar enow infavor of killing innocnets by the millions, of dropping nuclear weapons throughout the middle east on population centers?
Fred: Has anyone proposed that? When someone proposes dropping nuclear bombs on population centers then get back with me. Blanket bombing of cities is not necessary. Pinpoint bombing of targets is getting more and more precise.
Have you quit beating your wife? Yes or no.
Your assumptions based on the reporting of one person and your wholesale swallowing of everything he says doesn’t say much for you thought processes.
“Thanks for clarifying that you would not support something as insane as bombing Iran.”
Comment by Janusz | 4/10/2006
Fred: The problem with you is that you make assumptions (also known as prejudice) about things which you have no knowledge. I didn’t say I would or would not support bombing Iran. Quit jumping to conclusions. Your knee is going to start hurting if you don’t quit having kneejerk reactions. I was not in favor of us invading Iraq, but I would have to see the circumstances before knowing whether or not I would support bombing Iran.
There is a chance that this is all saber-rattling (although I admit I thought that was what going on the last time – right up to the day we attacked Iraq). My question is this: is saber-rattling a useful tactic, or does it increase the chances of war (as opposed to the desired effect – which is to decrease the chance). Will this intimidate the leadership in Iran, or will it galvanize their will to defy the West. Will it drive a wedge between the leadership and the Iranian population at large, or will it increase the peoples’ support of the leadership? In my opinion, it will make the situation worse, not better, on all accounts.
Regarding military planning. If it can be done in secret (so as not to have the effects described above), I have no problem with it. I believe it is the duty of the military to continually examine potential conflicts and analyze them. There is no better way to stay prepared and to determine the efficacy of current military makeup during peace-time.
For the record, if the US attacks Iraq, I will denounce my citizenship and leave the country permanently.
“For the record, if the US attacks Iraq, I will denounce my citizenship and leave the country permanently.”
Comment by Ted | 4/10/2006
Fred: Bye, bye! Why haven’t you left yet? We attacked Iraq a couple of years ago.
Ted, did you mean Iran above?
To attempt to answe one of your questions, there is certain saber-rattling that is best done through diplomatic channels. One opinion is that this very public saber rattling by the Bush Admin is in effect backing Bush into a corner where a nuke is the only way out.
Guess we’ll see.
wk: “this very public saber rattling by the Bush Admin is in effect backing Bush into a corner where a nuke is the only way out.”
Fred: No one in the administration has suggested nuking the population of Iran. You libs need to quit making things up.
Dang Fred, it must be an interesting life when you can be so mislead by an obvious typo. Of course, given your strident insistance on a word for word interpretation of a 2000 year old fairy tale, this does not come as a great suprise to me.
Have an ice day.