Duck and Cover, Nuking Iran

[drekmed]

This article makes me really upset. For the prez to even be considering using nukes is horrendous and barbaric. I mean, I could understand it if Iran were to be overrunning our cities here in the US, but not as a first strike option.
The amount of damage would be catastrophic. It is capable of carrying a wide range of of warhead sizes, however, if they target a nuclear power plant, the detonation would spread the radioactive material over a large area, and depending on how hard the wind is blowing, it could carry several hundred miles. So not only will we have the possibility of thousands of deaths from the initial explosion, but also many more from the fallout. Then you have the contamination of the irradiated area, this will effect the people for many years raising the number of cases of birth defects, infant death, and many other health issues for the population. If the wind blows in the right direction, there could be fallout that affects countries other than Iran.

I think this option needs to be removed from any war planning, it should be used only as a retaliatory option in the event Iran uses a nuke or bio/chem weapon on us or our allies.

Drekmed

 

[Mike182]

obviously if the Prez was concidering this, it would be very *hush hush*, as i doubt they would tell the media their strategic plans.

surely even Bush and his advisers realise this, i doubt they would let it be leaked.

this article is quoting a "former" intelligence officer quite a lot, i would rather hear it from a more "current" officer before i take the bait.

 

[ΩRôghênΩ]

always remember to get your information right before releaing it to rf

 

[Mike182]

always remember to get your information right before releaing it to rf

hey! im not that cynical :biglaugh:

 

[Sunstone]

Here's a link to the current issue of The New Yorker online:

http://www.newyorker.com/

Warning: The article by Seymour Hersh won't be online for long. The New Yorker publishes weekly and then changes the content of its website to its current issue.

The thing that makes this article troublesome for me is my impression that Seymour Hersh has in the past been right more often than wrong about the things he exposes.

 

[Quiddity]

Good for you drekmed. I can barely justify it as a last option, let alone a first.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm not trying to be especially hard on Bush and Cheney, here, but if any other president and vice-president were in office, I wouldn't be nearly so concerned with reports like this one.

 

[Ori]

Maybe Bush and co are just putting the idea out there to get some feedback.

 

[Sunstone]

Maybe Bush and co are just putting the idea out there to get some feedback.

I fervently hope that's all there is to this.

 

[drekmed]

the thing that worries me the most about using nukes against Iran, isn't the damage we would do, and it isn't even the retaliation from ticked-off Iranians. both Russia and China are allies of Iran, im most worried about them deciding something needs to be done about our aggresive military stance, and deciding a regime change is needed in this country. If any other country invaded 2 countries in 2 years, there would have been a concerted world effort, lead by the US, to remove that country's leadership from power.

If we attack Iran without Iran attacking first, i dont think i would try to stand in the way of any force that tried to attack the US, we'd deserve it. call me a traitor, call me whatever, but i will not defend a government that i feel is bent on using force to make the world to see things our way. if we use nukes against Iran, i would completely expect a nuclear response from both Russia and China, unless of course we plan on hitting them first too. just think what we would do if Russia or China were to nuke one of our allies in the region.

Drekmed

 

[greatcalgarian]

This is a pre-war planning strategy. US will invade Iran, it is a matter of time. Previously US can instigate and give background support to Sadam to do the attack. Now Sadam is no longer there. In order to pave the road to invade Iran, first 'leak' some intelligence that US is considering using nuke as a first round attack to take off Iran nuclear work. When public is quiet or did not respond to this leak of news, then later use of this weapon will be fully justified. If the public opinion response is NO NO, then conventional weapon will be used. Most likely again like previously create some incidents to allow Israel to fire a missle in self defense against an imaginery plan of attack from Iran, followed by whatever fleet of navy to launch the attack. In the background, negotiation will be going on to see whether Iran will stop using the Euro etc. It is a very disheartening thought of what is going to happen to Iran in the next few months or years with Bush still commanding US.

 

[Booko]

Maybe Bush and co are just putting the idea out there to get some feedback.

IF you think that, then I'd advise you to read some of the neocons writings on the subject. It fits in very nicely with their plans for American hegemony.

And if we do nuke Iran, we will be stripped of the hegemony we already have.

Does anyone imagine the rest of the world will sit down and take quietly the idea that any country, even ours, is clearly out to dominate every one else's?

 

[delta0021]

This is a pre-war planning strategy. US will invade Iran, it is a matter of time.

I have to disagree with this statement. The United States does not have the capability to invade a country such as Iran. The U.S. military planners also know this. Though the public is not happy with their current government in Iran, and invasion would spread nationalism like wildfire. As we have seen in Vietnam, Afghanistan (1980’s) and in Iraq today no matter what people think of their regime, no country will stand around while they are invaded. 80% of the public in Iran feels that the Iranian government is doing the right thing in trying to acquire nuclear technology. That being said for the United States to invade Iran would be almost impossible. What the article talks about is a bombing campaign to try and dismantle, or slow down the Iranian nuclear program. In my opinion this option should also be taken off the table, but I just wanted to add that invasion would be highly improbable for the United States with a coalition, let alone by itself.

 

[evearael]

I tend to follow delta's thinking on this one. A preemptive military strike will only ally the population behind the government, which is not the case now. Iran is a huge country with a strong military, we can't just waltz in like Iraq. Economic sanctions and political pressure over time will likely be our best recourse, and more progressive change will come as the old guard die off... like in China.

Also, even if Iran develops a nuke, I don't believe they are stupid enough to actually use one. They just want to be taken seriously on the global stage. They want a credible defense of their autonomy. If they did use one, we have enough nukes to reduce the entire country into a radioactive wasteland. Mutual Assured Destruction.

 

[drekmed]

i just got done watching an interview on c-span with Rumsfield and Gen. Pace (chairman of the joint chiefs).
apparantly the military consists of approximately 2.4 million people. Gen. Pace stated that there we currently have nearly 200k troops currently in the middle east.
the 2.2 million remaining consist of Active Duty, National Guard, Active Reserves, and Inactive Reserves.
while we may not have enough personnel on active duty combined with the active guard and reserves, if they were to call up the inactive reserves it would make an extremely large difference. i dont know exact numbers, but im willing to bet it is probably around 2/3 the total force.
when a military member leaves the military, they are technically still under under a contract. to explain a little better, i will give the example of myself.

i joined the air force in 2000. i signed a contract to be on active duty for 6 years. the contract that i signed i have an obligation of military service for 8 years. i am not required to be on active duty all 8 years, only the 6 years that i agreed to, unless i am called up after i am seperated from active duty. now, i have already spent 1 year in the inactive reserves, prior to going to active duty, so technically i have spent a total of 7 years in military service. this leaves me with 1 more year of commitment. should i be called up within that year, i am required by law to report for duty at the nearest base. i am only obligated until June 7, 2007, and on that date i am no longer contractually obligated to serve in the military. if i am called before that date, i will only serve until that date. if i am called after that date, i will tell them to go and jump off the nearest cliff (i should note i will be a bit more vulgar in wording, but this rf)

the math for it is, just subtract however many years you served in active duty from the eight and you have how many years you can still be called up.

i know that the army, marines, and certain air force careers(mine) have offered enlistments of less than 4 years since 9/11/2001, and a large number of people have gotten out of the military recently, so that is why i would say it is probably around 2/3 of the total military force equation. i could be a bit off though and i dont have any hard numbers, just the guess, and what i heard on c-span.

with these numbers, it is possible to defeat Iran in a short conflict, however long-term military operations in Iran would require something more along the lines of a draft.

Drekmed

 

[evearael]

Defeat, sure. Rebuild afterwards...

 

[Abram]

Maybe we don't know all the facts...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060411/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear;_ylt=AqwflF8C40tIL0bwnWoadQhvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

Do you know what it means to enrich uraniun? This is a scary thought.

 

[Mister_T]

obviously if the Prez was concidering this, it would be very *hush hush*, as i doubt they would tell the media their strategic plans.

You'd be suprised.

 

[evearael]

As I've said previously, there is a huge number of people whose job it is to run through various senarios and to anticipate outcomes. There is probably some guy who works through senarios involving a violent overthrow of the US by Togo, regardless of it not being remotely likely. Just because someone has worked up senarios on nukes, doesn't mean there is ANY intention of doing so.

 

[Booko]

Iran is a huge country with a strong military, we can't just waltz in like Iraq.

Not that I'm advocating anything, but their military isn't quite as strong as you think. Their military aircraft have been rusting on the sides of roads since 79 because they can't get parts for them. They havn't recovered their military that much since the Iran-Iraq war.

Economic sanctions and political pressure over time will likely be our best recourse, and more progressive change will come as the old guard die off... like in China.

I'm not so sure about the efficacy of economic sanctions. The people who suffer most from those are those on the bottom of the totem pole, while the black marketeers (usually in or with ties to gov't) rake in the dough.

Considering my coreligionists in Iran are rock bottom on the totem pole, I naturally have concerns about sanctions. Most likely the gov't will do what they have before -- claim the Iranian Baha'is are allied with Western gov'ts (silly, since we're as apolitical as anyone gets), and use that as an excuse to resume killing us willy nilly.

I think it's likely that the gov't in Iran will collapse of its own weight, just as the USSR did. The younger generation, which far outnumbers the olders ones, aren't that fond of those in charge, not that they're allowed to say much about it.