The Iran Plans

[AMosely]

The Iran Plans.

The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning. Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran—without success, the former intelligence official said. “The White House said, ‘Why are you challenging this? The option came from you.’ ”

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060417fa_fact

[CingularDuality]

What good are nukes if everyone knows that you're not willing to use them?

[Wyzcrak]

From the article you provided:

One of the military's initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites.

From 1997's B61-11 Concerns and Background; Los Alamos Study Group, which offered the following disclaimer: "These project pages are only occassionally updated and should be considered historical."

The United States is now fielding a new tactical and strategic nuclear military capability that has already been used to threaten a non-nuclear country. This new capability was certified without nuclear testing, using an existing surrogate testing facility with capabilities much less than those under construction and planned. The weapon was developed and deployed in secret, without public and congressional debate, contrary to domestic and international assurances that no new nuclear weapons were being developed. Other new or "modified" nuclear weapons, earth-penetrating and otherwise, are planned.

A central and expressed purpose of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) has always been to arrest the further evolution of the world's nuclear arsenals. This modified weapon, certified without nuclear testing and deployed after signing the CTBT, undercuts that treaty...

Is my country telling people that "modifying" existing weapons so that they become nuclear is not a violation of a commitment they've made to not create nuclear weapons?

Someone educate me, because that sounds like the "within the letter and spirit be damned" mindset that gets players banned from our servers.

[Wyzcrak]

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

What good are nukes if everyone knows that you're not willing to use them?

Does the stuff of my above post mean that we have nuclear weapons we're considering using?

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

Does the stuff of my above post mean that we have nuclear weapons we're considering using?

Yes, I think so. But the important part is not whether or not we're willing to use them, but whether or not the enemy believes that we're willing to use them.

[icky]

Which topic are we discussing in this thread?

1. Iran must be stopped, one way or another, from developing nuclear weapons, as the inevitable result is nuclear war in the middle east.

2. There is no "spirit" when it comes to international treaties and laws. The world is not a friendly place. The US, like everyone else, bends and breaks the rules.

[Pokerface]

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Yes, I think so. But the important part is not whether or not we're willing to use them, but whether or not the enemy believes that we're willing to use them.

Presuming that we DON'T want to foster more nuclear war by dropping our own bombs: the other side believing that we're not willing despite our posturing to the contrary won't do much to keep us on that straight and narrow path.

If [random leader X] calls Bush a chicken for not whipping out a nuke, I'd put money on being able to get the best tan of my life in that country within a week, despite any willingness or non-willingness that might have existed beforehand.

[icky]

Originally Posted by Pokerface

If [random leader X] calls Bush a chicken for not whipping out a nuke, I'd put money on being able to get the best tan of my life in that country within a week, despite any willingness or non-willingness that might have existed beforehand.

It's funny, but I don't buy it at all.

[Pokerface]

Originally Posted by icky

It's funny, but I don't buy it at all.

I exaggerate for comic effect, but I DO in fact believe that someone's going to call our bluff, and that when that time comes, the reprisal for doing so will involve doing many of the things we said we wouldn't do.

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by Pokerface

If [random leader X] calls Bush a chicken for not whipping out a nuke, I'd put money on being able to get the best tan of my life in that country within a week, despite any willingness or non-willingness that might have existed beforehand.

Random leader X? Let's stick with Iran, OK? If Germany called President Bush a chicken tomorrow, we would NOT be nuking Berlin...

Yes, if Iran calls us out, how will we show the world that we are willing to use nuclear weapons? Well, by using one, of course. Sometimes it takes violence to prevent violence. If we don't respond, it confirms to the entire world that we're NOT willing to use them...

[Steeler]

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Sometimes it takes violence to prevent violence.

In other news, up is down, war is peace, chocolate is slimming, and it became necessary to destroy the country in order to save it. International politics is not a competition. Nuking a non-nuclear nation in a first strike would be tantamount to economic and political suicide. Oh, and it would also be murder.

[Wyzcrak]

Russia yesterday. Iran today. Random X tomorrow. When discussing the validity of a race that's consumed the better part of a century, it just doesn't seem that important which leader, country, enemy, or threat is used to justify it, as it seems we'll not within the plannable future be without one.

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

the important part is ... whether or not the enemy believes that we're willing to use them.

Sure. That's important. Also important is our word and others' ability to respect it (and us in the process). Sure, keeping people from blowing us up is way up there on the list, but I sure do want to be able, with a straight face, to discredit another guy's claim that we're newly developing nuclear weapons while we tell the world we're not.

So, first we say we're not developing nuclear weapons, but we are. In doing so, we're saying we'll use them, but we're not.

My country is falsely claiming itself as a peer in international abstinence? And for what? So we can make of international politics what Steeler says they're not?

Originally Posted by icky

There is no "spirit" when it comes to international treaties and laws. The world is not a friendly place. The US, like everyone else, bends and breaks the rules.

That sounds like an escape (from accountability) mechanism. I dare say laws cannot exist without spirit, and so spirit exists when the law is created, and signatories later abandoning it is not the same thing as it never existing.

I see no option but to accept the gross realization that we are a peer of Iran (and surely others) in this regard. We do what we do and justify as we will. I guess we go to bed at night taking comfort from the fact that we're the biggest liberator in the schoolyard (and hoping we remain such for the duration of our lineage) and manage national pride where we can.

God Bless America? Sure. Why not.

[AMosely]

The question I keep banging around in my head is the cyclical nature of the nuclear threat, and how long it will take humanity to figure out that nuclear war is unwinnable.

I constantly ask myself if we, as a species, have learned anything from the events of the 20th century? The critical piece of the American military responsible for studying war, the war college, has, and the President will not listen to them. Why? Does he and his civilian staff think they know better? The track record would seem to prove otherwise.

Has anyone taken notice that the primary reason, according to all public and private statements, that Iran and North Korea have persued nuclear weapons is to defend themselves against an American invasion or attack? Of all the possible responses, fulfilling that fear is the probably the surest way of provoking them further.

Further threatening Iran with nuclear war will only serve to encourage their nuclear defense ambitions. I am not arguing for a stand-down, but a rapid stand-up is surely not going to help anyone.

I overheard a conservative talking point last week proclaiming (in response to the renewed calls for Rumsfeld's resignation by both current and ex-military brass) that it should be made illegal for active military officers to call for the resignations of their civilian superiors during a time of war. I cannot even begin to describe how assinine that statement is - and how ironic it is for a political group to criticize so many (and so much) for being unpatriotic yet fail to see how silencing active military officers is perhaps one of the most unpatriotic things one could do during a time of war.

Support the troops - at least listen to them when planning for military action!

[Black_V!per]

Originally Posted by Steeler

In other news, up is down, war is peace, chocolate is slimming, and it became necessary to destroy the country in order to save it. International politics is not a competition. Nuking a non-nuclear nation in a first strike would be tantamount to economic and political suicide. Oh, and it would also be murder.

Sometimes something bad is needed to create something good.

[Wyzcrak]

You giving me $4,500 hundred dollars would be bad for you, but it would buy me a really good video card (and I'd have enough left over to grab dinner).

Can I have $4,500?