US Prepares Military Blitz Against Iran's Nuclear Sites

[bizorky]

i think it may be just a strategy to announce this. if the strategy fails, the americans will attack, but we won't know untill it happens

Sure it's obfiscation on the part of the Americans; that does not mean it will ever happen. But you can be sure that some people in Iran are thinking about it all the time now.

By the same token, you have to accept that this is roughly the same game that the Iranian government is playing. One day they appear to agree to deal for uranium enrichment with the Russians, then pull back the next, then threaten to withdraw from the non-proliferation treaty altogether. They, too, want to look "threatening" because they feel threatened.

 

[allabootmatt]

I'm as leftish and sceptical of US foreign policy as the next Canadian...but to suggest some sort of equivalency (as many here have, to varying degrees) between American and (potential) Iranian nuclear arsenals is patently absurd. The circumstances under which the USA would EVER use nuclear force again are extremely limited (ie, if attacked itself with nuclear weapons). Why? Because, believe it or not, the American foreign policy establishment, at least when it comes to nuclear issues, are just as appreciative, if not more, of the unacceptable risks and consequences of such use as any of us is.

If you look back at the documents associated with post-WWII nuclear policy (the political documents, not strategic plans like SIOP-62 drawn up by the military), what will strike you is the theme that American politicians essentially saw nukes as unusable--paralyzingly so, in fact. Even Eisenhower, who is generally perceived as the most bellicose of American presidents when it came to nuclear brinksmanship, understood acutely that nuclear options were not really options at all, and not just because of the threat to Americans. Even the big bad Yanks were never so crazy about genocide. (It is a bit silly to bring up WWII in this context...after that conflict, can you blame them for looking for the quickest way out? I guarantee you absolutely that Canada or Britain or France would have made the exact same decision).

 

[cacruden]

I think the large (larger than now) conventional weapons will be used in Iran if they are on the verge of going nuclear. If not the United States, Isreal would use the first strike option -- because for them -- there is no option. Iran has stated over and over that their goal is wiping Isreal off the map.

Remember the statement from France -- that if terrorists attack France that THEY WOULD consider using first strike option with the Nuclear weapons (which they have been quietly upgrading). Several sources (news) have mentioned that the subtext of that was that it's threat was directed at Iran (diplomatic speak).

So "acting" threatening -- only keeps several countries fingers firmly on the button. Mistakes can happen -- and they may very well happen. That is the result of acting threatening.

 

[bizorky]

Remember the statement from France -- that if terrorists attack France that THEY WOULD consider using first strike option with the Nuclear weapons (which they have been quietly upgrading). Several sources (news) have mentioned that the subtext of that was that it's threat was directed at Iran (diplomatic speak).

These are statements to warn against perceived but unspecified threats. It is the tough language of diplomacy. Any Iranian official has a fair idea that an attack against Isreal would bring an end to Iran. It is not beyond the pale to suggest that should the Iranian government ever do something so stupid as launching mutiple missiles against any target one morning, it probably would not last out the afternoon. They could never be the "winner" in any scenario. And no doubt, they know this. The purpose of pursuing a nuclear weapon is to draw attention to themsleves, to their capacity for power. Isreal is just the strawman, here. This is about Iran in the eyes of the Iranian government, and to other like-minded nations and people, and not much else.

 

[cacruden]

bizorky,

It may end up only be posturing -- but like any game of chicken (especially when you have more than two participants).... may very easily lead to undesireable consequences.

Isreal cannot bet their existence on relying that they will not be attacked. Conflicts that Israel has been involved in either directly or indirectly this century have taught most israeli's that they continue to be the target of groups/countries that -- if the believe they have the upper hand -- would not hesitate to go on the offensive.

I once asked someone who is Jewish why Israel's continued existence was important to many Jewish people here.... the answer was not what I expected --- basically although they are currently integrated and generally doing fairly well in North America -- there is an underlying belief/fear that as many times in history things will change again -- that anti-semitism will rise again leaving only one safe place for them to retreat to -- Israel

 

[allabootmatt]

Sadly, cacruden, as a Jew I can confirm this. There's a saying that every Jew, no matter how comfortable in their society, has a suitcase mentally packed, just in case. A lot of us were pretty comfortable and integrated in Berlin and Warsaw and Paris and Budapest in the 1930s...and that didn't really work out. Even though I absolutely think of myself as Canadian first and Jewish second, I sleep better at night knowing that Israel is there, and there with a military that could kick the %#^$%# out of just about anybody save the US in a fair fight. And unfortunately, the Israeli nuclear arsenal is a big part of this. A major component of the dialogue around its development in the 1960s under Golda Meir was that, with a nuclear option, the Jews would always be able to fight back against anyone, no matter what, no matter how desperate the situation or existential the threat. In other words, a Holocaust could never happen again.

While I'm biased of course, I do think there is a real difference between Israel and other Mid-East countries having nuclear weapons. Israel never launched a war of extermination against a neighbour, and while sometimes its foreign and internal policies make me a little queasy the chance of it using nuclear weapons as anything but an absolute last resort are nil. I'm not so sure about Iran...while a strike on Tel Aviv would amount to national suicide, it's pretty clear that certain groups of Muslim fanatics (like, say, the ones who run Iran) have no problem with suicide under certain circumstances. Isn't the whole point of the story of Ali that it's noble to fight battles you know you can't win, if the cause is just? That's a pretty big part of Shi'i theology...

 

[unimaginative2]

Completely agree, bizorky.

A conventional ballistic missile wouldn't make a lot of sense since even the Trident missiles aren't accurate enough for a precision strike with conventional weapons, even factoring in the much larger warheads they could carry. Of course, the fact that they cost $30 million apiece wouldn't help either.

 

[bizorky]

It may end up only be posturing -- but like any game of chicken (especially when you have more than two participants).... may very easily lead to undesireable consequences.

No disagreement here.

Concerning Isreal, their own nuclear arsenal speaks roughly to the same idea. By some estimates, Isreal has over 200 warheads. Owing to history, the small size of the nation and the neighbouring countries, those weapons suggest a type of ultimate line that can never be crossed. It is an insurance policy against there being a "winner" to a catastrophic invasion.

 

[Danny225]

Israel never launched a war of extermination against a neighbour...........while a strike on Tel Aviv would amount to national suicide,

For the 1st part of that post I think you could think about a certian population named the Palestinians..

and Iran would never nuke Israel.. 1) b/c it won't dare Iran knows that it'll be wiped off the map if it layed a finger on Isreal
2) Israel is in such intigrated and close proximity to Arabs
3) Jerusalem is way to holly and sacred to Muslims to be wiped-out..

so I really think Israel is being used as an excuse to get iran...

 

[BrianHawkins1]

allabootmatt:

"The circumstances under which the USA would EVER use nuclear force again are extremely limited (ie, if attacked itself with nuclear weapons). Why? Because, believe it or not, the American foreign policy establishment, at least when it comes to nuclear issues, are just as appreciative, if not more, of the unacceptable risks and consequences of such use as any of us is. If you look back at the documents associated with post-WWII nuclear policy (the political documents, not strategic plans like SIOP-62 drawn up by the military), what will strike you is the theme that American politicians essentially saw nukes as unusable--paralyzingly so, in fact."

That's probably all true, but the key words above are, "If you look back". It's very likely still true that the "foreign policy establishment" in the US still thinks the same way, but the current neocon leadership does not appear to. What do you think things like the proposed nuclear 'bunker-buster' or 'mini-nuke' are all about? They want to use them. Or more specifically, they want to demonstrate that they are not afraid to, even when not attacked with one. They want to illustrate their indisputable global hegemony in the most graphic terms possible. They want to firmly close the door on the cold war chapter and clearly declare a completely new era and order. They believe that this is a unique moment presenting them with a chance to establish permanent, unrivaled rule of literally the entire planet. So many people still just don't appreciate how extraordinarily radical, ambitious and revolutionary this gang is - they are genuine ****ing lunatic extremists who mean what they say and will do as they claim. The big question is, will the "foreign policy establishment" and the military let them have their cake or not. I just don't know, but I fear that the conditions will arise in the very near future which will prove one of us right. I really, really, really hope it's you, but I suspect and dread that it'll be me.

 

[allabootmatt]

I have a feeling the neocons are on the way out...but yeah, the current (and largely underreported) movement toward nuclear bunker busters is kind of alarming. But I think much of the same calculus will still apply. I think (and hope) The fact that nuclear weapons haven't been used in 60-odd years is an important psychological barrier for the American public, who in the end do most of the electing (Republican-biased Diebold voting machines and assorted fraud notwithstanding). But I guess I hope you're wrong too!

I don't dispute that there's a case to be made for ALL countries to relinquish their nuclear arsenals, or that the USA is far from angelic in terms of foreign policy. But I do think that to ask, "Why is it OK for the USA to have nuclear weapons and not Iran?" is totally absurd.

As for Israel and the Palestinians, when exactly was that war of extermination, again?

 

[bizorky]

But I do think that to ask, "Why is it OK for the USA to have nuclear weapons and not Iran?" is totally absurd.

Fundamentally speaking, "absurd" is the correct word. With no avenue available to get out of this type of situation, it looks like Iran will probably get its weapon.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

allabootmatt:

current (and largely underreported) movement toward nuclear bunker busters is kind of alarming.

It was reported that the program has been cancelled. It could be a PR front to divert attention, however.

AoD

 

[allabootmatt]

Well that's good news then...odds are if something is cancelled it's really cancelled, given how much Congressional oversight there is of nuclear weapon development.

The US will be coming to something of a crossroads in its nuclear policy soon, I gather, because a large part of the "legacy" arsenal is just that--old, and designed for a different world. All those missiles sitting in Montana will have to be replaced or eliminated soon, which might lead to some pretty interesting dialogue about what the role of nuclear weapons should be in post-Cold War foreign policy.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

The remaining US Minuteman III missiles are scheduled to last until 2025. The hypersonic bomber program should be rolling out around then.

Kevin