VP Cheney wants plans to nuke Iran

Nuke 'em 'till they glow and shoot 'em in the dark.

Turn the place into a glass factory.

Interesting statements I've heard on occasion in the military -- said as a joke just like 'Join the Marines, go new places, meet interesting people, then kill them.'

I've heard these many times, but I don't know anyone who really feels that way. Ragusa, you're taking a contingency plan for the worst case to the extreme -- no one in America want another war in the middle east. We certainly don't want to lose more family and friends. You're also labeling such plans as neo-con plot of some kind -- but the liberals are involved in these plans too. Contingency plans are non-partisan, even Clinton had them (and he wasn't that hot on the military). Iran has had many contingency plans (both to attack them and to help them) -- I really think this is more a re-evaluation of the plans than a total rewrite.

Your comment about China, India and Pakistan is interesting and indicates you're not very familiar with how the US military works (sorry if this sounds offensive, but I don't know of any other way to phrase it). Every time a new regime comes into power contingency plans are modified. China's plans have probably been the same for a very long time. Plans for India and Pakistan should be very thorough by now. There are also plans to help those countries against an aggressor (hard to imagine China being invaded, but it's possible).

Wargaming is an art at the pentagon and defense schools (like the Naval Warfare College). They are constantly coming up with new scenarios and playtesting the scenario. Good guys and bad guys shift constantly in such plans (except the US -- after all we are always the good guy to us). All contingency plans are tested this way.

This really isn't a plot or even an indicator that an attack is eminent. It just boils down to being prudent. If a dirty bomb (or even a nuclear weapon) were to detonate in a major city in your country, what would you do? What should your government do? What should the world do?

 

Don't you mean "Sunni?" I think we can all agree if they were more "Sunny" they'd be a lot less irritable...

/end smartass

 

T2Bruno, at least I wouldnt see the point of nuking a bunch of Iranian farmers and factory workers in retaliation. So what if a bomb kills a few thousand Americans/British/Germans or Swedes, us killing a bunch of their civilians wont bring em back.

 

joacqin, now your just being silly. You know as well as I do the targets would NOT be the farmers -- factories which make components for weapons would probably be targeted though in any type of plan.

 

T2 is correct here. There's nothing to be gained militarily or politically for nuking a bunch of farmers, not to mention justifying the cost of a nuclear strike (which is enormous) for something so strategically insignificant. Not to say that civilians haven't been accidentally killed in such strikes in the past - known as "collateral damage" - but there's no point in targeting civilians with such a weapon. Even if retaliation were the motivation for something like that, we'd certainly find a better target than a bunch of farmers, I guarantee you.

Now - if a terrorist cell were meeting and operating WITHIN the group of farmers, and using the farmers as a cover for example, now that would be a different story. Or if a church or school were being used to hide an underground factory that produced roadside bombs, etc. Then I could see a tactical strike targeting such a location. But iin such a case, the farmers / school / church wouldn't be the target, per se, they would be the collateral damage. Which would be unfortunate, to be sure, but well worth the cost of taking out the greater danger.

I may be missing your point though, jaoquin. Please let me know if I am.

 

I think what he's trying to say is that nuking a town of say 10 000 inhabitants to get a terrorist cell of 100 persons who attacked a shopping mall and killed 500 Americans/Germans/Swedes/little green men from Mars ain't acceptable and I fully agree with him on that one.

 

Basically what Morgoroth is saying, you get hooked on the choice of the word "farmers". Perhaps the word "peons" would be better, you know, the average dude who have no say whatsoever and just wants to go on with his life. This are the dudes that always gets killed, on both sides and Iranian peon have alot more in common with American peon than what respective peon have with their respective bosses.

It is kinda like a computer strategy game where gamer A bombs gamer b's 1's and 0's on a screen and vice versa. It isnt the binary you want to defeat but it is the binary attack.

My general point is the pretty old thought of it being the "innocents" who play the price when the big boys decide to play. Thus it really shouldnt be justifiable to kill a whole bunch of noones to get back a gang of dudes in big beards and funny hats. This is exactly what those labelled as terrorists do and for which they get the worlds contempt. Why would it be different when we do the same?

 

I can certainly see your point (both of you), and it's a good one.

However, I can't really imagine we'd kill 10,000 just to get 100 - that's not the kind of target situation that would suitable for a tactical nuke. Or even within the capablities of the kind of weapon we're talking about. Keep in mind, tactical nukes are much smaller than your Hiroshima variety. These are the "bunker-busters," amongst other clever names. As was pointed out by someone earlier, this type of weapon is designed to take out a single building, or small area. The blast radius wouldn't be more than, say, a quarter mile. To pack 10,000 people into an area that small is pretty unlikely, and still have enough room for whatever military target a tactical nuke would require. In a situation where taking out 10,000 average Joes (or Habib's...whatever) would be part of the cost, other options would almost certainly be chosen and a tactical nuke would be a last option.

I realize your 10,000 number was arbitrary, but I think you get the point. If it were merely people we were trying to get rid of with such an attack - such as a terrorist cell, even one as large as a hundred - a different form of attack would most likely be used.

Another thing you've brought up a few times is the idea that this kind of strike would be retaliatory on our part. It's not really something we would be likely to do. The Israelis and the Palestinians have the market cornered on revenge and retaliation. The Israeli soldiers blow up a bus full of Hammas radicals, so the Hammas radicals blow up a shopping mall full of Israeli civilians, rinse, repeat. THAT'S retaliation. The US doesn't do that. We're about pre-emption and prevention. I'll be the first to admit it doesn't always get carried out perfectly or even properly (see: Iraq), but retaliation just isn't our style. The vast majority of attacks our military carries out are in the interest of either preventing further attacks or weakening the enemies ability to carry out said attacks. Retaliation for it's own sake is both strategically counterproductive and ideologically pointless (as it only invites more attacks on people who don't deserve it, doesn't produce anything constructive, and is incredibly messy politically). The practice of retaliation - for everything from pleasing Allah to "who stole my camal?" - hasn't made the middle east a better place and it's been the order of the day there for thousands of years. All it does is bring more violence and, as you pointed out joac, doesn't bring the dead back to life.

Like I said, not our style.

 

Come on, the entire Afganistan thing was one big retaliatory attack. One that even was relatively justified in how such things go.

Also, again, what is it that makes the US so different from all other entities throughout the history of man? What is it that makes them so special? I hear and read that they are time and time again and it seems to be one of the few things most Americans agree on while the rest of the world stands perplexed.

 

See, I didn't see Afganistan as retaliatory. I saw it as toppling a government that supported, harbored and collaborated with a terrorist organization who attacked us. Toppling said government prevented al Qaeda from launching another attack, at least one aided by the help and support of the Taliban. Retaliation was obviously a side effect of removing that support source, but it wasn't the goal. The goal was kicking the legs out of the people who helped make 9/11 possible so that 9/12 wouldn't happen. What you saw as "You're gonna pay for that!" I saw as "Oh no, you kids won't be doing THAT ever again." Retaliation, versus prevention. It's a matter of one's point of view, I suppose. Given the global scale of our actions, I'm quite certain opinions and interpretations vary internationally, unfavorably more often than not. But that's the way of things when you're the U.S. anymore.

As for what makes us so special - I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you asking what gives the U.S. the right to conduct military strikes against nations and/or entities that mean to do us harm, such as al Qaeda? Or to use military force in general? In which case my answer might be, "because we have the capability and the will to do what other countries don't." That's as simple an answer as any.

Of course, I'm speaking from a purely civilian standpoint here. There aren't any stars on my sleave or districts to curry favor with for me. The opinion of most American citizens is that we do what we do because we as a country believe it's the right thing to do, and we have the means. Opinions vary throughout America as well as to whether that position is actually a good one for us to have, but that's the generally accepted sentiment amongst the American population. What those who have districts, shiny patches and oblong-shaped offices have in mind, however, is something most Americans think they have a grasp on but almost certainly don't.

Basically, I'd like to think it's the American spirit that drives my country to interfere in national affairs, keep peace when we can and attempt to squash threats before they come to fruition. That's, at least, what we're generally encouraged to believe by our leaders. But I'm not naive enough to think the motives of the people in charge are quite as honorable.

Did that answer your question? Because we can go for 3 times the charm!

 

Because in the opinion of some, including myself, America is a country that was founded on principles. Those principles were not part of a common heritage, or an evolution of ideas, as they were in Europe. These ideals, or principles were chosen with careful deliberation, and setup as the principles that the American people agreed upon as a nation and are presented in the Founding documents.

Please note that I don't agree with the notion of American Exceptionalism, which is something a little different. These ideals are not unique to America, only in the way in which America was crafted as a nation, and how the founding principles and ideals were presented in the documents.

Whether or not these principles are taken with any real regard these days - not only by Americans themselves, but by the current American government - would be the topic for a whole other debate.

 

What I basically mean is the continuation of the "manifest destiny" principle. That whatever the US does is right and good cause it is the US doing it and they are special and good and right and can thus do nothing wrong. That the US in difference from all other political entieties ever do stuff out of the goodness of their hearts and for the best of man and not out of pragmatic self interest like everyone else.

Chandos pretty much touched upon on it and even though he claims to not agree with the theory of American exceptionalism he at the same seems to do so when he puts forth the revered founding fathers and their documents and how that makes the US a different entity altogether compared to all other nation, states and empires.

 

WHY in the HELL does every thread have to be twisted into this??

*sigh* for pete's sake! Don't you people ever get tired of it??? Every god damned thread ends up the same way -- no matter WHAT American political topic is being discussed!

(Sorry, but I am absolutely stupified at this. You guys are like broken records.)

[ August 14, 2005, 20:18: Message edited by: Spellbound ]

 

I can't speak for our political leaders because I can't read minds. So the followin is strictly what I think.

I certainly don't think in terms of 'manifest destiny'.

However, every country has the right and even duty to its citizen to be prepared to defend itself. We do not live in a paradise. Having contingency plans does not mean that we are going to go out and attack someone. It means that we are prepared if attacked or threatned.

At one period in our history (not that long ago) we were isolationist for the most part. World War II changed that. 9/11 changed it drastically and yes we believe that we were attacked.

Whatever my personally thoughts and feelings about our present administration I do believe we should be prepared for another attack.

 

I'm with Spellbound. Why is it that every topic that that speaks of the US get turned into an anti-US thread?

Every topic mentioning the US always gets turned into, "The US is an evil empire seeking out world domination!" Like yourself, Spellbound, I'm getting a little more than tired of it.

Can we please keep this thread on topic?

 

I don't think the US is necessarily out of line for having a contingency plan for dealing with an identified hostile regime in Iran. If I was a soldier in Iraq, I'd want to believe that my government had plans and preparations in place to deal with virtually any conceivable situation, because that's just good planning and I'd expect nothing less. Leaving aside the Iraq situation and my thoughts on that, I would be amazed if such plans didn't exist for any large nation which could conceivably be hostile to the US. Anything else would be a failure of government and military command to do their jobs properly.

Still, if that source is to be believed, that contingency plan calls for action without necessarily considering what to do later. If the plan can be summarised as "IF (TerrorAttackInUSA) THEN (NukeIran)", then it's as bad as Ragusa claims, because there's no substance to it other than bombing the hell out of strategic sites in Iran. Obviously, there is not going to be a way to verify that either way.

However, I question why this was leaked. In my experience, people only leak that kind of information either to highlight issues with which they have a problem, or to send the message that the US is not afraid to use its nuclear arsenal. Divining the motivation behind the release of this information is much more interesting to me than using it to discredit or attack the current administration - and let's face it, if you're so inclined, there's more than enough ammunition to do that with already.

 

My guess would be that NonSequitur is correct.

I hope that nuclear weapons are never used anywhere. To put it mildly...it wouldn't be good for world in general.

 

Well, we need to have nukes ready in case the aliens invade.

Barring that, yeah, probably not a great idea to use 'em.