Good Idea to Nuke Iran?

Daisy · Apr 10, 2006

I don't see how anyone would think this would be anything other than a last resort, but then that's what I thought about attacking Iraq over 9/11 and WMDs.

The debate over whether the US might attack Iran's nuclear installations has taken a step forward with the publication of an article which suggests that the US has considered using a nuclear "bunker buster" in such an operation.

The article, in The New Yorker magazine, is by veteran military analyst Seymour Hersh.

<snip>

Hersh himself downplayed the prospect. In an interview with the BBC, he said the Pentagon had told the Bush administration initially that a nuclear attack was the only way of guaranteeing success:

"Nobody was advocating it, they were just saying a 100% guarantee. Where it becomes interesting, the joint chiefs, in one of its subsequent papers, wanted to withdraw that option because of course it's madness, a nuclear weapon in the Middle East to an Arab Muslim country [sic], my God. And the White House won't withdraw.

"That's the issue, that the White House, some people there still wanted to have this option. That's what's causing the trauma, not that they're going to do it, but the White House won't take it off the table."

<snip>

But a nuclear attack is improbable.

There are three main reasons for this.



The first is that even a nuclear "bunker-buster" would produce large amounts of radiation. This could cause thousands of casualties among civilian populations.

The Federation of American Scientists says that "the bombs would penetrate at most only a few metres into rock, causing no reduction in blast, fire, or fallout damage on the surface. The largest would have blown out a crater almost a thousand feet across and thrown a cloud of radioactive fallout tens of thousands of feet into the air where it would be blown hundreds of miles downwind."

The second is that the political implications are so huge of the US attacking, with nuclear weapons, a country (and in the Muslim world) which is not armed with similar weapons and which says it has no intention of making.

The third reason is that, doctrinally, the US is moving away from developing new nuclear bunker busters. It does have one already, the B61-11, but it cannot penetrate very deeply and last year Congress withdrew, at the administration's request, funding for further research.

<snip>

One reading of the White House attitude is that it wants to scare Iran into making concessions and wants in any case to foment political unrest....

<snip>

Iran says it will not build a bomb but wants the technology only to make fuel for civil nuclear power. It is allowed to make its own fuel under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

However, the dilemma might be more difficult than that because Iran might not became "nuclear-armed". It might simply become nuclear-capable.

The technology in question can be used for both civilian and military purposes.

<snip>

Of course, the legality of any attack would be hard to justify. The British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told reporters recently: "I don't happen to believe that military action has a role to play in any event. We could not justify it under Article 51 of the UN charter which permits self-defence."

In the absence of Security Council approval, the US might argue that its interests in the Gulf were at stake and that its ally Israel was at risk.

Source: BBC News: Paul.Reynolds: "Iran attack debate raises nuclear prospect" - Monday, 10 April 2006, 10:13 GMT 11:13 UK (linkie)
Click to expand...

The original New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh which is causing such a stir can be found here (linkie). It's long compared to newspaper stories, but interesting.

rbell · Apr 10, 2006

I'm conflicted on this.

On one hand, right--there is no way that we could sustain another military effort...especially in a country twice the size of Iraq. It would be a foolish effort.

On the other hand, this president of Iran is scary crazy. He has outright said he will use nuclear weapons on Israel. (source) I can't help but think that when Hitler wrote "Mein Kampf" folks just thought it was a madman's ravings...then he went and did it. Is this nutcase the same? Who knows...

I guess my question is...are these plans to bomb Iran just contingencies, or a done deal?

Dave · Apr 10, 2006

I think we need to bear in mind that the military constantly draws up plans for war. Just because something is in the plan as a possible course of actions does not mean it is sanctioned. It is documented in case a situation comes up that you would want to exercise the option.

Nuclear weapons would obviously be a last resort and I cannot see a situation where we would use them as a first-strike tool. One possibility for its use would be retaliation for a WMD attack on US interests. Would we also consider this for an attack on Israel? Maybe, but I would think Israel would use their nukes before we would in that situation.

lomax · Apr 10, 2006

Where are the religious leaders of America when
these choices, that will enevitably affect the
health of the entire planet, are made?

They speak-out on other issues. Why not this one?

LadyEagle · Apr 10, 2006

Conservative religious leaders in America have more or less been shunned by the WH and media when it comes to anything to do with muslims. Perhaps that explains the silence.

Daisy · Apr 10, 2006

Originally posted by Dave:
I think we need to bear in mind that the military constantly draws up plans for war. Just because something is in the plan as a possible course of actions does not mean it is sanctioned. It is documented in case a situation comes up that you would want to exercise the option.

Nuclear weapons would obviously be a last resort and I cannot see a situation where we would use them as a first-strike tool. One possibility for its use would be retaliation for a WMD attack on US interests. Would we also consider this for an attack on Israel? Maybe, but I would think Israel would use their nukes before we would in that situation.
Click to expand...

Seems reasonnable (but then so did letting the UN inspectors finish inspecting), and I hope you're right.

SpiritualMadMan · Apr 10, 2006

The use of Nukes on Iran would be a serious mistake unless they Nuked someone else first...

But, even if they Nuked someone else first...

We have the conventional capability of completely raziing Iran...

So, IMHO, there is no need to use a Sledgehammer when a Tack Hammer will do...

Mike Sr.

Mike McK · Apr 10, 2006

Personally, I think we should have nuked them in '81 the very moment the last hostage's foot set down on American soil.

Dave · Apr 10, 2006

Personally, I think the world would be better off if a high wall was built around several of the countries in that region, all flights in or out were restricted and we air-dropped guns and ammo. Give it a year or 2 and there'd be nobody left.

Seriously, that is not a solution that could be entertained any more than the nuclear option as a first strike could be entertained. All other considerations aside, you would poison the air and land over one of the largest known pools of oil reserves currently available. What would that do the price of oil???

billwald · Apr 10, 2006

We would be the only nation to use the ultimate wmd - twice - and why? To make our owners richer.

rbell · Apr 10, 2006

wow...so Billwald, you think that the bomb in 1945 was for greed's sake?

Mike McK · Apr 10, 2006

Originally posted by billwald:
We would be the only nation to use the ultimate wmd - twice - and why? To make our owners richer.
Click to expand...

Oh, this ought to be good:

"To make our owners richer", Gracie?

UnchartedSpirit · Apr 10, 2006

Seeing the place we bombed is surpassing our power of influence and wealth, the bombings didn't matter much now did they

SpiritualMadMan · Apr 10, 2006

rbell posted April 10, 2006 02:53 PM

wow...so Billwald, you think that the bomb in 1945 was for greed's sake?
Click to expand...

Ditto!

I was so incredulous I couldn't think of a cogent reply!

But, I guess that's 'normal' for some to equate Pearl Harbor and the Battan Death March to 'no good reason'...

yikes!

Mike Sr.

Mike McK · Apr 10, 2006

Originally posted by SpiritualMadMan:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />
rbell posted April 10, 2006 02:53 PM

wow...so Billwald, you think that the bomb in 1945 was for greed's sake?

Click to expand...

Ditto!

I was so incredulous I couldn't think of a cogent reply![/QUOTE]I thought of one, but it violates BaptistBoard's posting rules.

That may have been the dumbest thing I've seen here since CalvinGT (I think that was his name. I just call him Bagdhad Cal) tried to convince us that the animals who flew the planes into the WTC and Pentagon aren't really terrorists, they're really just misunderstood "freedom fighters".

saturneptune · Apr 10, 2006

The answer is, "Israel, nuc em till they glow."

Daisy · Apr 10, 2006

Originally posted by saturneptune:
The answer is, "Israel, nuc em till they glow."
Click to expand...

What do you suppose the consequences of that would be?

Phillip · Apr 11, 2006

saturneptune, good idea!

Back to the first question, can I ask a REAL STUPID question?

Why in the WORLD would we consider using a Nuclear bunker buster when we have conventional stuff that will work?

Baptist in Richmond · Apr 11, 2006

Originally posted by Phillip:
Back to the first question, can I ask a REAL STUPID question?

Why in the WORLD would we consider using a Nuclear bunker buster when we have conventional stuff that will work?
Click to expand...

That is a great point.
Anyone who SERIOUSLY thinks we should detonate a nuclear bomb really needs to get their head examined.

Regards,
BiR

ASLANSPAL · Apr 14, 2006

I think the real "wag the dog" scenario is in play here ..bush is in that much political abyss.

Will he follow the wisdom of God or will he lose the civil war with his flesh and be a political
animal???

To bomb anything ...you must use the bible and prayer as the touchstone to be a pure lustful political animal means many Iranians will die without a hint of sitting down and talking it through. The bush culture has lied yes lied to the american people about the current war ..bush was intent on going to war and his musings of a last resort was the "big lie" and he will face the consequences of deception but bush could get away with it again! by stating if we do not do it Israel will...or fearmonger us by saying it is only months away until they have a nuke.

If bush does use a daisycutter to the 10th power will he start a world wide guerilla war against
Americans at home and abroad????? just a question

war begets war begets vengence begets terror begets fascism begets dictators begets a world lost...should christians support any kind of bombing is the true question???

and to those who will compromise and say it will be a pin point strike...well use your abortion stand as a touchstone..."one is to many"

Good Idea to Nuke Iran?

Daisy New Member

rbell Active Member

Dave Member
Site Supporter

lomax New Member

LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

Daisy New Member

SpiritualMadMan New Member

Mike McK New Member

Dave Member
Site Supporter

billwald New Member

rbell Active Member

Mike McK New Member

UnchartedSpirit New Member

SpiritualMadMan New Member

Mike McK New Member

saturneptune New Member

Daisy New Member

Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

Baptist in Richmond Active Member

ASLANSPAL New Member

Useful Searches

Good Idea to Nuke Iran?

Daisy New Member

rbell Active Member

Dave Member Site Supporter

lomax New Member

LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

Daisy New Member

SpiritualMadMan New Member

Mike McK New Member

Dave Member Site Supporter

billwald New Member

rbell Active Member

Mike McK New Member

UnchartedSpirit New Member

SpiritualMadMan New Member

Mike McK New Member

saturneptune New Member

Daisy New Member

Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

Baptist in Richmond Active Member

ASLANSPAL New Member

Dave Member
Site Supporter

Dave Member
Site Supporter