VP Cheney wants plans to nuke Iran

Remove all ads!

According to this bit

Why Iran? And why nukes?

Nevermind, after Bush II. helping Bin Laden to transform his terrorist organisation into an idea, one doesn't need to be too specific with targeting anyway. Let god sort'em out. In these post-modern days where there aren't truths anymore and everything's subjective, just think of the 'two sides of every story', any target does fine.

One gets the distinct impression that these people don't need a reason, any more than a serial murderer requires a complex rationale in choosing his next victim.

Maybe it's just the madmen doctrine at work, warmed up once again. But after a while, who can really tell if Cheney is just acting this time or indeed all the moon-howling lunatic?

[ August 06, 2005, 11:50: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I don't see where the flaw in Cheney's instructions are. I'm sure the military has plans drawn up if we have to invade Canada with sporks.

Besides it seems like a good idea to me. I can think of a few other cities and nations that should be added to the plan.

 

What is concerning me is not that the Pentagon is making up war plans for Iraq.

My problem lies in the way Cheney's demand connects another 9/11 with Iran.

It reminds me of the implied connection between Saddam and 9/11 which was baseless and bogus but helped to lead to the war in Iraq.

If there is another 9/11, then probably by anyone else but Iran. The culprits would rather be Al Quaeda types, who have nothing to do with Iran. The absolute majority of Iranians are Shiites, and regarded by Al Quaeda types, who are hardcore Sunnis, as heretics.

That would mean, to make plans for a retaliatory nuking of Iran are a little far fetched. You'd beat Peter when hurt by Paul. But who can tell one of these bearded arabiacs from another anyway?

How about that: I make up plans to blow up your house in case my train's late again TGS.

I bet you'd like that. It is always good to have a plan at hand if the sh*t hits the fan. Just in case. Isn't it just prudent to be prepared for all possible scenarios?

With such talk I imply that you are in a way responsible for my trains being late. I'd blame you in advance. Which is of course nonsense. You know it and I know it.

Cheney's talk implies that Iran has something to do with terrorism and Al Quaeda and that 'another 9/11' that requires such a response.
That is of course as well but demagoguery doesn't care about such trifles like right or wrong or sense and nonsense, as long as there is an enemy to demonise.

As long as enough gullible useful idiots buy in on that, Cheney has achieved what he wanted. And if such talk kills the EU3 negotiations with Iran the better - Cheney and his neocon crew never wanted these talks anyway.

[ August 09, 2005, 20:39: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I'd rather see the entire article, rather than just the paragragh some writer/editor decided was important. Given Iran does sponsor terrorism and is planning to upscale their nuclear research the idea of targeting Iran is not a stretch. However, actually carrying out the attack as a response to a terrorist attack without establishing a tie between the two is quite a stretch. I don't think we're getting the whole picture here.

As far as actually having plans for an attack goes, I don't see what the big deal is. Cheney should already know we have plans of attack for just about every potential enemy (for various levels of conflict, up to and including the use of weapons of mass destruction).

I'm really surprised about the Al Qaeda/Iran connection. Unless there's conclusive evidence that Iran is harboring Al Qaeda, retaliation directed at Iran is just plain wrong in response to another Al Qaeda attack.

A good attack plan in the 80's would have been helpful. Perhaps there is still enough American resentment towards Iran that turning them into a glass factory would be accepted, but I doubt it.

 

I believe the key word here is 'tactical'

"Tactical nuclear weapons are smaller weapons used to destroy specific military, communications, or infrastructure targets. "

 

Most tactical nuclear weapons have the same power as 'Big Boy' and 'Fat Man' -- in the 10-15 kiloton range. Even the smallest at 0.1 kiloton is massive and will cause extensive radiation and fallout damage for a surface burst (which is the application DL is mentioning) -- one bomb would totally destroy a very large military base (think Fort Hood size). The 0.1 kiloton blast in an airburst is used to knock out electronics (EMP), fallout is not as prevalent in an air burst.

Even the tactical use of nukes is insane.

 

"Tactical nukes"? Hm, the way I see it, nukes are nukes - and if you use them, you've let the genie out of the bottle for good, no matter how many KTs or MTs the bomb/rocket had. I'd really prefer to consider this simply a rumor circulating in select circles.
Regardless of the possible implications of Iranian research, and whether or not it can be considered more than a power-production program with possible dual use (mind you, it's hard to have a NPP without a possible dual use), simply using nuclear weapons at a state that hasn't declared war on you is barbarous to say the least. Sure, there may be plans for that, but I hope they are never put on the table or computer screen. Especially considering the conventional warpower the USA has, using nukes against an opponent like Iran - especially if a 9/11-ish attack has not included a nuclear device itself and has not been conducted under express instructions by the Iranian government - would be a humongous atrocity. Sheesh, such a thing would be so beyond every war crime ever committed even "absurd" seems a little weak a word here.

 

Besides, the NPT gives Iran, just like the U.S., the 'inalienable right' to have a nuclear power program. The Iranians have every right to have nuclear power plants and a nuclear program. Just like the U.S. they don't have to ask anyone, much less the U.S.

The neo-con reference that they have a lot of oil and thus don't need nuclear power and that thus their program can only have a military aim is simply brazen.

Even Iran's energy supplies are finite. Would be silly to run out of energy one day.

And beyond that there is another advantage: With his nuke plans Cheney also supports the current U.S. weapons program and finds a justification for the development of the bunker-buster, and perhaps even a continuation of nuclear testing in the U.S. - all things the Nukies in the Bush administration would love to see.

In the end the neo-cons are very Albrightian: What use is a nuke if we ain't gonna use it?

And even when we won't use it and just play the madman theory game, we can anyway make up a bogus scenario to justify it's fielding.

 

Hmmm...let's see if we can connect the dots...

1. Islamist fundamentalists plan and carry out a devastating terror attack on 9/11.

2. Islamist fundamentalists have been painfully obvious in attempts to obtain nuclear weapons or material.

3. Iran has an aggresive nuclear program, which it keeps secret and denies inspection to any world agency.

4. Iran has just recently shifted to a far more fundamentalist government than many analysts had thought possible.

5. We now have possible fanatics in positions of power in a nation which is soon to possess threat capable nuclear missiles (or at least nuclear material conveniently left laying around in some mosque)



Wow...it seems to make perfect sense that the US military should have contingent plans in such an event...how many people on 9/10/01 would have thought that 4 jet aircraft could have been simultaneously hijacked and used as weapons? (besides Tom Clancy )

Or maybe, Rags, you would be happier if we put our heads in the sand and pretended that the threat wasn't there?

Besides, the missiles could never reach the American mainland anyway. They'd max out range somewhere over Germany

 

The point is that muslim fundamentalists of the sunny and shia kind may well be incompatible. To equal two different things is a mistake. When you nuke athe wrong guy the term 'mistake' get a completely different dimension.

Iran won't engage in a massive 9/11 type attack because they ahve a 'home adress'. Having lost a million citizens in the war against Saddam they recall much better than the U.S. what war on the home soil means.

 

I know many republicans (even some politicians), very conservative ones at that. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, wants to use a nuclear weapon. There is a difference between wanting a war plan involving the use of nuclear weapons and actually using them.

Reagan was the last person I felt had his finger on the trigger.

Ragusa, you have a really warped idea of what neo-cons are like.

 

Why Iran? Because they're on the "enemies" list. The temptation to wait for evidence will be resisted. It will be manufactured, as it was for Iraq.

Why nukes? Because our conventional forces are at full stretch in Iraq and Afghanistan. There's no reserve left to cover Iran, which would be much tougher than either of the other two. Or maybe because these people, who are certainly not shy about flexing their muscle, would just like to nuke someone.

 

T2,
I don't really think I have warped the idea what they are like. To a good degree they have warped themselves. From warning against social engineering they have become advocates of it. Read neo-cons from the 1980s and from today and you will find a notable difference. Opposition to nation building then was a neo-con morning prayer.

It is very interesting to read Fukuyama's opposition to the Krauthammerian neo-conservatism that led to the Iraq war.

And I don't mean to imply that neo-cons are nuke happy in a sense that they would love to use them. Far from it.

But they sure do love the bomb tech in the military-industrial complex. Advocating more nuclear weapons and new nuclear weapons is a traditional neo-con cottage industry.
And they are against all the treaties keeping the labs out of business, like the nuclear test ban treaty and the like. They still do all those cold war war games and it's toys: Star wars, new and better nukes etc.

And as far as deterrence is concerned the neo-cons aren't that imaginative either, and play a game they know, the madman theory deterrence - under Bush the U.S. have for the first time made the nuclear first strike on a non-nuclear opponent an option.

http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=882

They may act a little when making such implicit nuclear threats like Cheney's on Iran, but the fact is and remains that they still have lowered the nulcear bar, increasing the risk of use of nuclear weapons.

And of course, given the current U.S. manpower headaches, nukes look atractive: They offer good bang for the buck. A hardware solution for a software problem.

Cheney's implicit nuclear threat against Iran also serves the purpose to keep up the heat in Iran in face of the current impossibility of a conventional U.S. internention.

Neo-cons offer yesterdays responses to today's problems. Sadly, thanks to their ideological blinkers they only have their limited off-the-shelf repertoire of responses, but use it with great skill. They're excellent buereaucrats.

[ August 10, 2005, 17:50: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

Anyway, I have strong doubts that Cheney or anyone else would actually not be against using nukes. IMO, you need to be quite removed from this world to prefer nukes to any possibility for peace. Especially in a case as precarious as that against Iran. The Non-proliferation treaty gives them full right to have a nuclear power program, and they have allowed inspections - in fact, a moment some TVs mentioned when Iran decided to resume its program, is that the IAEA needed some times to reinstall its surveilance cameras in the Iranian facilities. Excuse me, but if that is not surveilance, what is? As long as the agency has some observation there, it seems a safe bet that we will know in advance if Iran really tries to create nuclear missiles.
I've always felt it a bit arrogant to prohibit Iran from having any nuclear program just because they are an "unstable" nation, not to use any more demeaning words. With polarization in the USA, rise of far-right movements in several European countries, wars in Africa, fundamentalism in many asian countries and violent separatism spreading throughout the world, just where do we draw the line between "stable" and "unstable", and who's blameless enough to do the drawing?

 

I'm really not sure what you mean by this statement:

The Tomahawk used to have a nuclear variant. There were attack profiles made for almost any warfare contingent -- that would imply a nuclear first strike of a tactical warhead.

'Special weapons' have been carried on US Navy ships for 50 years now (there was even an atomic projectile for the Iowa class battleships), do you really think those were to be exclusively used against nuclear capable enemies? As an aside, US Navy ships are not allowed into New Zealand unless they inform the NZ government the ship is not carrying nuclear weapons -- I don't believe a US Navy ship has visited New Zealand in over twenty years.

Truman used the big stick. Eisenhower brought it out and waved it in the face of all nations -- he set the policy of carring such weapons on forward deployed units, a policy which probably still stands. Kennedy, Nixon, Carter, Reagan (especially Reagan), Bush and Clinton have all waved that big stick (and all had contingency plans to use that stick on every possible enemy). This is not a new neo-con plot to destroy the world -- this is simply cold war mentality that has not gone away and is perpetuated by both sides.

 

Ragusa -- get a grip. Iran has been so anti-American for decades -- every since the Shah was exiled. Iran is 90% Shiite -- the most radical, theocratic and anti-American of the lot.....and Iran has been controlled by them ever since 1979. I believe a plan is prudent -- given their history and their attitude toward the US. Nuclear war? Of course no one wants that. This is a contingency or backup plan. Any country would be foolhardy not to have one, in this day and age.

 

Just the tossing of a quick 2 cents from little old me...

I second pretty much everything Hack said. Of any of the countries right now for which the United States - or ANY western (i.e. non-muslim) nation in the world right now, for that matter - should have a nuclear contingency plan, Iran should be at the top of the list. If not THE top.

That said - having a contingency plan is just plain good policy for any responsible government - especially one capable of global tactical strikes. Much as I hate to pay him a compliment, Cheney wouldn't be doing his job if he weren't doing this. Actually, I think this is technically Rummie's job (anybody know for sure here?), but a necessary one nonetheless.

Another thing about contingency plans that I don't think has been mentioned: I guarantee you we have analysts forming contingency plans for every nation on earth, in every situation. I'm sure we have a nuclear strike contingency plan in effect for even Canada, England, etc. and they're our closest allies. The purpose of a contingency plan is to have a plan in place when the unexpected happens. If "X" happens, then we do "Y." Though it's unlikely the plans will ever have to be carried out, they still need to be there just in case. Call it an insurance policy.

Bottom line - there's a world of difference between a contingency plan and a direct policy. And as anti-American as Iran has been for decades, as Spelly rightly pointed out, I almost wonder if a contingency plan alone is enough.

I realize you tend to find fault with nearly everything the American government does Ragusa, and I often find your criticisms valid, even if I disagree with them. But in this case, you're really kinda reaching. There's nothing to this one.

 

Why is a nuclear Iran so immensely worrying to the U.S. if a nuclear China, India or Pakistan isn't?

The key difference is that the three countries already have nukes.

If you ask me the Iran hawks in Bush's crew have simply never gotten over the humiliations of the U.S. embassy siege, the toppling of the shah and the bombing of the U.S. Marines in Beirut. Among other things, they want to settle old scores.

I really don't get all the panic about Iran. Iran will never again be a world power, even if it has a few nukes. Persia was a power in ancient times, not today. If the U.S. don't bother Iran, Iran won't bother the U.S. But that might require political restraint.

Anyone here who can imagine that even if Iran had a nuclear program, it might have a legitimate desire to deter agressions, to protect it's citizens after losing 1 million of them to Saddam? The U.S. have practically encircled them, and are threatening nuclear first strike and apply an openly hostile rhetoric - but wonder when, surprise, surprise, Iran get's a litte annoyed and worried about the not at all far fetched idea of U.S. intent of meddling in their affairs, too, again?

The U.S. policies might well end up pushing the Iran into doing what U.S. talk declares to try to avoid.
Considering the neo-con need for demons to fight cold wars against that might not even be undesirable. An enemy Iran could help rally the pro-U.S. countries behind the U.S. and could bring a degree of stability to the Gulf that was lost with the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
It would be the other pill to fix the ailment caused by the pill used the week before.

But arguments don't count here anyway as everyone clearly sees, that per doctrine the the mullahs are clearly evil and insane, and this presumption invalidates all facts and arguments. Life made simple.

The neo-con repertoire is limited, as is the amount of brainpower they put into their strategies. They can be summed up as that if she only uses enough force, America can teach those towelheads (or whoever else) on the receiving end a lesson and make them do what the Bush administration wants. Action good. Talk weak, talk bad.
Their general strategy has the persuasive appeal of simplicity.

If you worry about a nuclear second 9/11 -- and that is what Cheney has implied all the time -- what about this nuclear Pakistan, which has practically a sunni Al Quaeda branch in their gvt that was a founding member and longyear mentor? For this particular doomsday scenario Pakistan seems to me like a likelier return adress.

Talk about ideological blinkers.

[ August 11, 2005, 13:11: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Frankly, I'm starting to think the whole deal is blown out of proportions. The main stinger in the excerpt ragusa gave was that in case of another 9/11-ish attack, the main plan is to strike Iran. Now, I can't say if that is explained in any more words in the TAC article, but what I find a rather dangerous possibility is that an attack like 9/11 could be used as justification to attack a possible perpetrator, who has long been a strategic rival in the region - regardless of whether the country actually performed the attack. Kinda like what happened to Iraq with relation to 9/11, looking in retrospect.

 

Ragusa -- you're quite ignoring what DR said, which was very well spoken. It would seem common sense for countries to have contingency plans for MANY countries, particularly those that are connected to terrorism in some way. You seem to only focus on Iran. It is a CONTINGENCY plan. Do you know what that is? In this day and age, it makes sense to have these plans in place -- with the HOPES that no one EVER has to use them.

And yes, Pakistan's government sleeps nice and cozily with it's friends.....something that is a danger as well. Do we have a CP for them too? I sure hope so.

Please, wipe the froth from your chin.