Will the United States nuke Iran?

[Steve_O_Brien]

Here’s an upsetting column by Justin Raimondo (whose writings are must reading):

antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=6734

The core of Raimondo’s essay is this quotation from a recent article by Philip Giraldi in The American Conservative:

"The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing – that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack – but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections."

Catholics should realize this: the Church, speaking in the name of Christ, condemns nuclear attacks on cities–in Iran or any country on earth. Please see section 2314 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Giraldi’s report confirms something of which we should already have been acutely aware: we must implement the message of Our Lady of Fatima. Our physical survival may depend on heeding her admonitions. Please remember that the Blessed Mother said that nations would be “annihilated” if her requests were not fulfilled.

Ask yourself: “Can I be sure that Russia and China (which just conducted joint military exercises) will merely stand by and watch the United States nuke Iran? Isn’t it the case that every act of merely conventional warfare is now the potential trigger for a nuclear catastrophe–a catastrophe that may not leave our own country untouched?”

Here’s the best Web site on the Fatima message:

fatima.org/

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[walstan]

Steve O'Brien:

Here’s an upsetting column by Justin Raimondo (whose writings are must reading):

antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=6734

The core of Raimondo’s essay is this quotation from a recent article by Philip Giraldi in The American Conservative:

"The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing – that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack – but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections."

Catholics should realize this: the Church, speaking in the name of Christ, condemns nuclear attacks on cities–in Iran or any country on earth. Please see section 2314 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Giraldi’s report confirms something of which we should already have been acutely aware: we must implement the message of Our Lady of Fatima. Our physical survival may depend on heeding her admonitions. Please remember that the Blessed Mother said that nations would be “annihilated” if her requests were not fulfilled.

Ask yourself: “Can I be sure that Russia and China (which just conducted joint military exercises) will merely stand by and watch the United States nuke Iran? Isn’t it the case that every act of merely conventional warfare is now the potential trigger for a nuclear catastrophe–a catastrophe that may not leave our own country untouched?”

Here’s the best Web site on the Fatima message:

fatima.org/

Keep and spread the Faith.

In other words the administration knows who “did the deed” before the “deed” was did!!! and the ultra right wing apologists try to tell us how concerned they are for others welfare, like the Iraqi people.

Ho…hum…

 

[gilliam]

As we have stated before in this forum, the Pentagon has contingency plans for all kinds of threats. If they didn’t and we needed them, we would fault them for it because it is part of their job description.

Will the US nuke Iran? I seriously doubt it.

Will the US nuke Iran if we can prove they nuked NYC? Yes, and Iran needs to know this. So advertising the planning acts as a deterrent to Iran.

As I have said before, the only plausable senario, to me anyway, is for Iran to give the nuke to a terrorist group in such a way as to hide that they gave it to them, and then if NYC is nuked, we would not know where the nuke came from. Under such circumstances we would never nuke another country.

Case in point: the Anthrax attacks of 2001

 

[space_ghost]

…if you would have asked me a few years ago that we would invade a country that couldn’t harm us, and cook the evidence to justify it… i would have said no way…

…go figure…

 

[walstan]

gilliam:

As I have said before, the only plausable senario, to me anyway, is for Iran to give the nuke to a terrorist group in such a way as to hide that they gave it to them, and then if NYC is nuked, we would not know where the nuke came from. Under such circumstances we would never nuke another country.

Case in point: the Anthrax attacks of 2001

No, the only plausible scenario is to insist that Iran had nuclear weapons or some other form of meapon of mass destruction, to insist to the rest of the world how this is a threat to all humanity, to point out to the American public the dangers of war waged on the streets of NY and THEN attack. (sound familiar?).

Once you’ve won the “war” claim that all the missing WMD’s that nobody can find have been spirited away by some magical means, presumably to Syria, (next target) and then go on to tell the American public how sporting and noble you are “protecting” millions of people from the mad mullah’s. Oh, be careful not to mention the hundreds of thousands that died based on a false premise, i.e. WMD’s.

Brilliant strategy, worked before so why not again!!!

 

[gilliam]

walstan:

No, the only plausible scenario is to insist that Iran had nuclear weapons or some other form of meapon of mass destruction, to insist to the rest of the world how this is a threat to all humanity, to point out to the American public the dangers of war waged on the streets of NY and THEN attack. (sound familiar?).

And just what country did we nuke? When you are talking about nukes, you are talking about an entirely different ball game.

 

[walstan]

gilliam:

And just what country did we nuke? When you are talking about nukes, you are talking about an entirely different ball game.

Don’t you know a very simple military maxim? The destructive degree of weaponry is directly proportional to the level of resistance.

In other words the more the resistance the bigger the guns. Its called "Overwhelming Force" (Now where have I heard that before?)

---

Thats a fact of war sadly.

 

[gilliam]

walstan:

Don’t you know a very simple military maxim? The destructive degree of weaponry is directly proportional to the level of resistance.

In other words the more the resistance the bigger the guns. Its called "Overwhelming Force" (Now where have I heard that before?)

Thats a fact of war sadly.

Nukes are primarily deterrents not tactical weapons.

 

[walstan]

gilliam:

Nukes are primarily deterrents not tactical weapons.

Did anybody tell the Japanese at Hiroshima and Nagasaki that?

 

[Richardols]

Forget it. Bush, for all his faults, is NOT a madman.

 

[walstan]

Richardols:

Forget it. Bush, for all his faults, is NOT a madman.

Sadly Ricard I agree with you, unfortunately I don’t have the same faith in those around him. i.e. Cheney and Rumpsfeld and other of the same ilk.

 

[NWUArmyROTC]

Cause the source of this report is really credible. Really, some of you might have a few screws loose. It is the same as newsmax.com on the right. There are sites on both sides that are rarely credible, this strikes me as one of those.

I mean really, take a deep breath, and realize that Air Assault and Nuclear don’t go together. I realize many of you might have no idea what Air Assault means but it means a aerial insertion of infantry via helicopters. You AREN’T going to drop nukes on locations you are inserting troops into. Take a deep breath, and realize that the author is probably a little nuts.

 

[thestickman]

space ghost:

…if you would have asked me a few years ago that we would invade a country that couldn’t harm us, and cook the evidence to justify it… i would have said no way…

You can still say that, with 100% confidence you are speaking the truth.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

NWUArmyROTC:

Cause the source of this report is really credible. Really, some of you might have a few screws loose. It is the same as newsmax.com on the right. There are sites on both sides that are rarely credible; this strikes me as one of those.

I mean really, take a deep breath, and realize that Air Assault and Nuclear don’t go together. I realize many of you might have no idea what Air Assault means but it means an aerial insertion of infantry via helicopters. You AREN’T going to drop nukes on locations you are inserting troops into. Take a deep breath, and realize that the author is probably a little nuts.

Just a second, ROTC cadet. In journalism and general discussion, it’s perfectly legitimate to use common-parlance phrases that don’t match technical definitions, including those in The Oxford Essential Dictionary of the U.S. Military. In common parlance, an "air assault’ is any attack involving aircraft or missiles flying through the air.

Moreover, in logic, there’s no conflict between using nuclear weapons to destory targets in a country and deploying troops to other regions of the same country after the attacks. U.S. troops occupied Japan after the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[manualman]

So Bush was a complete jerk for believing the intelligence estimates of this nation, but you and we should determine OUR national policy (OUR VOTES) based on the unsubstantiated hearsay of this guy?

Anybody see a bit of a double standard here?

So NONE of the Air Force officers involved that are so concerned about this are planning of mustering out soon anyways? None of them care for the world more than their own careers? Authors that appear to perceive the American military as made up of cloned storm troopers are immediately suspect to me.

Finally, there MAY be an element of not-so-terrifying truth under all this. Note the reference to hardened, deep facilities. THEN the discussion of nukes. This says to me, that there are some contingency plans being made that might invovle the use of nuclear bunker-busters. This is not a city killer, folks. No mushroom cloud. No ball of fire and blocks of buildings falling down. These weapons are designed to penetrate DEEP into the ground, THEN detonate. The shock will destroy underground facilities within about a block and, if done right, would have very little effect above the ground more than a block away. And give a little credit. No politician is dumb enough to use one of these unless he is thoroughly convinced that it will prevent the use of a true city-killer nuke in the immediate future.

 

[BioCatholic]

Richardols:

Forget it. Bush, for all his faults, is NOT a madman.

madman, maybe not. a “nationbuilder”, yes. how this man was elected i will never understand. he convinced people in the “red” heartland states that terrorists would fly planes into their grain silos or farms, and he was “making progress” in Iraq.

ever wonder why the cities and states that were attacked, NY and DC voted for Kerry? DC voted i think a 6:1 Kerry:Bush, and NYC voted almost double for Kerry. that says something.

all of the sudden the conservatives now loved and wanted to defend areas they considered evil and sinful areas of liberalism? THEIR country was attacked, be it in a city they considered the “devil’s home”?

as far as Iran, HA. Bush has tied our military up, and Iran will get what Iran wants. we simply do not have the power to stop them from developing Uranium. and we have lost complete credibility in the international community, so no one is going to jump to your side when Iranian fighters pound our ground troops if we do invade. Iran is not Iraq, and their military isnt something to laugh at. we have to just sit back and watch, and hope that sanctions work.

 

[vern_humphrey]

space ghost:

…if you would have asked me a few years ago that we would invade a country that couldn’t harm us, and cook the evidence to justify it… i would have said no way…

…go figure…

And you would have been right.

But if you were asked if the United States could be involved in a dangrous war against a global threat and some Americans would knock themselves out to blame the United States, and you said “no way,” then you would have been dead wrong.

Go figure.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

manualman:

Finally, there MAY be an element of not-so-terrifying truth under all this. Note the reference to hardened, deep facilities. THEN the discussion of nukes. This says to me, that there are some contingency plans being made that might invovle the use of nuclear bunker-busters. This is not a city killer, folks. No mushroom cloud. No ball of fire and blocks of buildings falling down. These weapons are designed to penetrate DEEP into the ground, THEN detonate. The shock will destroy underground facilities within about a block and, if done right, would have very little effect above the ground more than a block away.

Yes, I agree manualman. This is an important distinction to make. Commonly ‘nuclear warfare’ is a term much bandied about, people often harking back to the nuclear testing days which saw weapons measured in the megatons. Those weapons were associated with collateral damage to civilian populations, infrastructures, and the environment.

I understand that current capabilities are measured in the kilotons and – coupled with guidance systems which were not available during the time of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings – are both extremely accurate and selective in terms of minimal collateral damage. So we are no longer looking at city-levelling bombs at least not from a nuclear perspective and at least not from our side and at least not in the preliminary stages of such an escalation.

Now from the point of view of the terrorists, I think it is wise to understand that city-levelling nukes are either currently or will be soon within the capabilities of terrorists. Look at the London bombings: a dress rehearsal for multiple small nukes. When detonated in sync and in a certain configuration the result is a much more devastating firestorm than would occur with large nukes. These multiple small nukes don’t need missiles or aircraft bombers to be delivered to their targets. All they need is suicide personnel, which the terrorist cells have in abundance.

manualman:

And give a little credit. No politician is dumb enough to use one of these unless he is thoroughly convinced that it will prevent the use of a true city-killer nuke in the immediate future.

Yep. Sooner or later people need to wake up to the true and imminent danger of nuclear warfare – not from us, but from those who wish to repeat 9/11, Madrid, and London but on a nuclear, city-levelling scale. One important consideration in all of this is: who are our friends? And why have some people chosen to be our enemies when they so easily could have chosen to be our friends? This isn’t rocket science.

 

[Richardols]

The use of any nuclear weapons by the United States, after 60 years of non-use would destroy any claims the United States ever had for being the nation holding the moral high ground.

It doesn’t matter that the devices would go off hundreds of feet below the surface. They’re still NUCLEAR weapons - and we’d be the ones who went back to using them.

Not even Soviet Russia or Communist China could be accused of such an enormity.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

BioCatholic:

ever wonder why the cities and states that were attacked, NY and DC voted for Kerry? DC voted i think a 6:1 Kerry:Bush, and NYC voted almost double for Kerry. that says something.

It does indeed say something. Here is what it says:

I have learned, from living in Canada’s largest city (Toronto), that being a Torontonian does not mean that you necessarily live here. People all over Ontario know the latest news in Toronto and consider this city to be a kind of suburb of the rest of the province. They have their nieces here, their uncles got a job in IT, they went to university here, they took their kids to see The Lion King here, and so on. And of course their team is the Leafs.

As with many folks in various different kinds of diasporas, the peoples of the Torontonian diaspora hold this city close to their hearts with fierce partiality, pride, and loyalty.

Very likely it is the same thing with New York and Washington. Even I feel protective toward New York because I have been there and experienced its virtues and toward Washington even though I have never been there but have indeed become conscious of its history and what it represents to lovers of freedom.

You have no idea of the helplessness which many Canadians felt when New York and Washington were hit. There were only so many folks we could take in from the grounded airplanes, only so much blood we could donate, only so many firefighters we could send, only so many prayers we could say and candles we could light. Why? Because when all the anti-Americanism is said and done, we are friends. We have some important things in common. Do the math.