Is Bush planning a nuclear strike against Iran?

[mhgaffney]

I have been reluctant -- until now -- to contemplate this awful scenario. Yet, I have to admit I was impressed with the following article by Michel Chossudovsky, a professor of economics at the University of Ottawa.

I did not know that Germany actually builds and stockpiles nukes. Nor did I know that France changed to a nuclear first use doctrine earlier this year.

Especially worrisome is the blurring of defense and offense in US military doctrine. Most diabolical though is the likelihood that a second 911 could be used as a pretext for an immediate nuclear attack on a pre selected country (Iran) -- a country that does not currently possess nuclear weapons, nor will Iran have them for another ten years (according to the latest CIA estimate.)

Is the Bush Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust?
Will the US launch "Mini-nukes" against Iran in Retaliation for Tehran's "Non-compliance"?

by Michel Chossudovsky

February 22, 2006

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060222&articleId=2032

[defenseman]

NO....dman

[mhgaffney]

I am not alone in raising this question. Check out Alexander Cockburn's lead article today at Counterpunch

http://www.counterpunch.org/

[W*GS]

I rather doubt it.

[Hotrod]

LOL mhgaffney your simply insane

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LOL mhgaffney your simply insane

No - you're simply illiterate.

[ClevelandBronco]

Planning? I sure hope not.

Setting up scenarios and models and contingencies and studying the possible consequences? I sure hope so.

[Rohirrim]

This reporter is certainly not alone in reporting this. Hersh beat him to it some time ago. What surprises me is what chickensh*ts these neocons are. Never have I seen such cowards occupying the WH. Every policy that they put forward they submit from fear. Every announcement they make to the American people is designed to incite more fear. Osama has won the battle as far as this neocon cabal in Washington is concerned; They are collectively peeing their pants. Here we are, the country that laughed in the face of the Depression, of Hitler, of Tojo, suddenly weeping in terror every time some little Islamic nutjob shakes our chain.

Look at it with a little bit of logic, sans emotion, for a second. What's the big deal if Iran gets a nuke? Who has nukes now? The U.S. has thousands. Russia has thousands. China has thousands. Then you have India, France, Germany, Pakistan, NKorea, even Israel. Japan might want some pretty soon. They're talking about it. So, what's the fear? That Iran will immediately turn one over to Bin Laden? Really? I'd be more afraid that Pakistan will do that. I'd be more afraid that some Russian mobster will do that. Or NKorea. Iran wants nukes to aim at Israel, not to give to Osama. Does Israel have the capacity to deal with this threat on their own? Sure. Maybe Iran wants to aim one at the Saudis. Do the Saudis have the power to smack Iran real hard? Sure. We act like the Saudis are powerless. As if Iran could attack the Saudis with impunity. They have one of the top air forces in the region. Iran's biggest trading partners are the Russians and Chinese. How would they feel about Iran selling a nuke, or firing it off at Israel - knowing full well that the next day after they did such a thing, Iran would be obliterated? Do you really think there are no checks and balances on Iran?

Is this the real deal, or just a bunch of saber rattling on both sides? Bush/Rove/Cheney scare America into voting for them, while the mullahs and their mouthpiece, Ahmadjihad, squelch dissent in their own country - both acting, of course, in the best interests of national security.

MAD still exists in all its glory, folks. The USSR has changed, but MAD hasn't. The Bushies are pretending it no longer exists, but only for their own, political, gain. The U.S. is under two terror threats. One comes from Al Queda. The other comes every time the GOP wants to win an election.

[alkemical]

If enough people want the apocalpyse to happen, it will.

[W*GS]

What's the big deal if Iran gets a nuke? Who has nukes now? The U.S. has thousands. Russia has thousands. China has thousands. Then you have India, France, Germany, Pakistan, NKorea, even Israel.

China has maybe low hundreds, not thousands.

Germany has zero.

[Spider]

on the positive side .. if Bush does nuke Iran , He should go all the way with it , then clean it up ......... Iran would be a kick áss headquarters and home for groups like the KKK , Peta , Republicans , Libertarians who think they are libertarians , but are realy Neo cons .and so on

[Rohirrim]

China has maybe low hundreds, not thousands.

Germany has zero.

Ooops! I guess that invalidates the entire post. Thank you for your response. ;D

[W*GS]

on the positive side .. if Bush does nuke Iran , He should go all the way with it , then clean it up ......... Iran would be a kick áss headquarters and home for groups like the KKK , Peta , Republicans , Libertarians who think they are libertarians , but are realy Neo cons .and so on

I've always felt that a low population state, say, Wyoming, is the best place for folks like you - with fewer people around, the less damage you can inflict on them with your misguided ideology.

Nice cheap shot via lumping me in with the KKK. Now I know how you really "think"...

[W*GS]

Ooops! I guess that invalidates the entire post. Thank you for your response. ;D

Actually, if nukes in possession of anyone are no big deal - we've got thousands; let's put 'em up on EBay...

Waddya say?

[Spider]

I've always felt that a low population state, say, Wyoming, is the best place for folks like you - with fewer people around, the less damage you can inflict on them with your misguided ideology.

Nice cheap shot via lumping me in with the KKK. Now I know how you really "think"...

was it somthing I said ? I didnt name names , didnt lump you with the KKK .... I just said libertarians who think they are libertarians , that are realy Neo cons .....you stated you wasnt that Hilarious! ......... fell guilty about somthing W*GS ?

[Rohirrim]

Actually, if nukes in possession of anyone are no big deal - we've got thousands; let's put 'em up on EBay...

Waddya say?

Hmmm. What is it you said to LABF? Oh yeah, a vast oversimplification, as usual.

[Spider]

Actually, if nukes in possession of anyone are no big deal - we've got thousands; let's put 'em up on EBay...

Waddya say?

Bad Idea .. Bush and Rummy would bid against each other , with tax payers money .......

[W*GS]

We just had a whole thread in which you claimed I was a neo-con in libertarian clothing; what you wrote was no coincidence.

I ain't that dumb.

[W*GS]

Hmmm. What is it you said to LABF? Oh yeah, a vast oversimplification, as usual.

You don't seem to think Iran having a nuke is any sort of problem, since you think they'll be restrained in their possible use of it by others.

Replicate that logic by the 170-odd nations around the globe.

[Spider]

We just had a whole thread in which you claimed I was a neo-con in libertarian clothing; what you wrote was no coincidence.

I ain't that dumb.
But W*GSY my bestest buddy , you claimed you wasnt ......But then I thought you would be more pissed being lumped with Peta :wiggle:

[Rohirrim]

You don't seem to think Iran having a nuke is any sort of problem, since you think they'll be restrained in their possible use of it by others.

Replicate that logic by the 170-odd nations around the globe.

Missed the point, purposefully or otherwise. However many countries have have nukes, and for how long, is besides the point. How many nuclear wars have we had since nukes were invented? Why not? Go ahead and tell us what tactical, strategic or economic threat does Iran pose to the United States, with or without a nuke? Is it more, or less of a threat than Pakistan having a nuke? Than the Russian mob having access to nukes? Does it require an American militarty response? An immediate response? A nuclear response? Should the American population be as terrified as the Bush administration wants them to be? How can Iran or Al Queda, separate or together, gain a strategic or tactical victory over the United States? What is the nature of the threat?

[W*GS]

But W*GSY my bestest buddy , you claimed you wasnt ......But then I thought you would be more pissed being lumped with Peta

You never did prove you were a Democrat - then again, I don't know if the Democrats, even Wyoming ones, want someone who out-Republicans Republicans...

[Mile High Shack]

Missed the point, purposefully or otherwise. However many countries have have nukes, and for how long, is besides the point. How many nuclear wars have we had since nukes were invented? Why not? Go ahead and tell us what tactical, strategic or economic threat does Iran pose to the United States, with or without a nuke? Is it more, or less of a threat than Pakistan having a nuke? Than the Russian mob having access to nukes? Does it require an American militarty response? An immediate response? A nuclear response? Should the American population be as terrified as the Bush administration wants them to be? How can Iran or Al Queda, separate or together, gain a strategic or tactical victory over the United States? What is the nature of the threat?

if you don't think Iran having nukes isn't dangerous, you simply have a very simplistic view of the world.

Iran believes Israel should not exist, they will annhilate Israel if they get them...Israel in turn will do the same..China or Russia won't like that.......so they get involved, obviously we are involved...etc etc

either that or Iran gives some nukes to terroists to take out some of our cities and Israel as well

if you don't view as a major threat with the ability to wipe out cities in their back pockets, you are insane

China and Russia are not a threat to use them because they don't have fanatical Islamic morons at the helm who believe that Islam is the way to go and if you don't convert, they will kill you.

They view us as the great satan, and you don't think having a country that believes that and wants to annhilate us as a threat, you are a very simplistic person who thinks too highly of people

[Spider]

You never did prove you were a Democrat - then again, I don't know if the Democrats, even Wyoming ones, want someone who out-Republicans Republicans...

How cute ....... Lashing out .....

[defenseman]

if you don't think Iran having nukes isn't dangerous, you simply have a very simplistic view of the world.

Iran believes Israel should not exist, they will annhilate Israel if they get them...Israel in turn will do the same..China or Russia won't like that.......so they get involved, obviously we are involved...etc etc

either that or Iran gives some nukes to terroists to take out some of our cities and Israel as well

if you don't view as a major threat with the ability to wipe out cities in their back pockets, you are insane

China and Russia are not a threat to use them because they don't have fanatical Islamic morons at the helm who believe that Islam is the way to go and if you don't convert, they will kill you.

They view us as the great satan, and you don't think having a country that believes that and wants to annhilate us as a threat, you are a very simplistic person who thinks too highly of people


Agreed.....and he will use them if he gets them, for annihilation or a ransom of some sort.....gaurantee that terrorists will deploy iranian supplied nukes if iran gets them. Quite simply....they cannot be allowed to obtain any whatsoever...dman

[mhgaffney]

MAD still exists in all its glory, folks. The USSR has changed, but MAD hasn't. The Bushies are pretending it no longer exists, but only for their own, political, gain. The U.S. is under two terror threats. One comes from Al Queda. The other comes every time the GOP wants to win an election.

How I wish you were right. Last spring two professors argued in Foreign Affairs that since entering office Bush has pushed for a first strike nuclear capability; and he may have achieved it. Hence no more MAD.

Russia's early warning system is no longer fully operative since losing its former republics. These profs say that Moscow is blind to the east. US nuclear subs can sit off Kamchatka and lob hundreds of nukes at Russia without being detected. Russia's bombers are vulnerable, concentrated at just a few bases - and its sub force is rusting in port.

China is even more vulnerable -- with only a few hundred ICBMs -- as the man said.

This explains Bush's switch to a policy of nuclear first use -- and why our prez brandishes nukes like a God given right. He's flexing his nuclear supperiority.

All in all -- not a happy situation on the planet just now. Here's that article.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85204-p0/keir-a-lieber-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-u-s-nuclear-primacy.html

[Rohirrim]

if you don't think Iran having nukes isn't dangerous, you simply have a very simplistic view of the world.

Iran believes Israel should not exist, they will annhilate Israel if they get them...Israel in turn will do the same..China or Russia won't like that.......so they get involved, obviously we are involved...etc etc

either that or Iran gives some nukes to terroists to take out some of our cities and Israel as well

if you don't view as a major threat with the ability to wipe out cities in their back pockets, you are insane

China and Russia are not a threat to use them because they don't have fanatical Islamic morons at the helm who believe that Islam is the way to go and if you don't convert, they will kill you.

They view us as the great satan, and you don't think having a country that believes that and wants to annhilate us as a threat, you are a very simplistic person who thinks too highly of people

Yeah, and we believe they are the Axis of Evil. Sure, Iran is dangerous. Dangerous to Israel. Can Israel defend itself? Yep. As always, my point is, why is the U.S. taking the lead here? Why are we the number one target? Is it because of our freedoms, or because of our policies? And if it's because of our policies, what are those policies, and are those policies in the best interests of the people of the United States? Is the policy of propping up tyrannies in order that our oil companies reap unheard of profits in the best interests of TPOTUS (the people of the U.S.) or simply in the best interests of those companies, their CEOs, and the politicians they buy with that wealth? Do these policies best represent the values and the beliefs of TPOTUS? Should the policy of the U.S. be that we prop up tyrants so we can extract wealth and resources abroad, or should we find a way to to rely on our own resources, while adhering to our true values as a people?

Is the U.S. the biggest waster of energy resources on Earth? Yep. Could we conserve to the point where we no longer need oil from the ME? Yep. In less than two years.

You are also ignoring a glaringly obvious difference between Bin Laden and Ahmadjihad. Pragmatism. Bin Laden owes allegiance to no one other than his own crackpot followers. AJ is the head of a state. We may not be able to bomb Bin Laden, but we can sure as hell bomb Iran. No matter what kind of nutjob AJ is, or his mullah string pullers, they all know that. They represent a state. You have been led to believe that the Iranian leadership is suicidal. I don't buy that argument. I think that is manipulation by the neocons for their own purposes. Believe this, Iran is far more afraid of us, and with good reason, than we are of them.

You ignore my other argument. There actually is an opposition party to the mullahs in Iran. AJ's saber rattling against the U.S. in Iran gains him points in the polls and gives him more political power, that he is using to bash that opposition, just like Bush does here. Think of it as symbiotic stupidity. There's a lot of fear and there's a lot of manipulation of fear for political interest. In fact, I'm willing to bet that once this election is over, the U.S. suddenly finds itself back in dialogue with Iran. The "crisis" will pass once the election passes. As Gomer used to say, "Surprise, suprise, surprise."

[Mile High Shack]

we had problems with Iran during the Carter administration, so a change of presidents won't solve that

besides AJ doesn't answer to his country/constituants like a normal/sane rational person would do

he thinks he only has to answer to Allah and his will and Allah and his will is to destroy all infidels

[alkemical]

I love god's will.

[W*GS]

Last spring two professors argued in Foreign Affairs that since entering office Bush has pushed for a first strike nuclear capability; and he may have achieved it.

The US has never renounced a first-strike ability - this is not new news.

[mhgaffney]

The US has never renounced a first-strike ability - this is not new news.

Sorry W*gs, neither the US nor USSR had a first strike capability during the Cold War. Instead, a condition of MAD existed -- mutually assured destruction. However, MAD may no longer be operative.

In Sept 2002 Bush inaugurated a new policy of nuclear first use. This policy continues and preparations are being made to implement it.

Here is a good summary of where things are at. Do you read, W*gs?

This article appears in the May 27, 2005 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

U.S. Nuclear First Strike Doctrine
Is Operational

by Jeffrey Steinberg

The Bush Administration has quietly put into place contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons in pre-emptive attacks on at least two countries—Iran and North Korea. Confirmation of the new "global strike" plan appeared in the Washington Post on Sunday, May 15, in a column by William Arkin, a former Army Intelligence analyst. EIR has interviewed several senior U.S. intelligence officials, who have confirmed the essential features of Arkin's report. They link the accelerated drive to prepare for offensive nuclear strikes against Iran and North Korea to the failure of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the dismal results of the use of "shock and awe" massive conventional bombings against Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Afghanistan war of 2003 provided the U.S. Air Force with the opportunity to test, under live combat conditions, the conventional "bunker buster" mega-bombs, which were supposed to penetrate and take out deep-underground hardened targets. But one senior U.S. intelligence source told EIR that, when U.S. troops arrived to do damage assessments, they found that the Taliban and Al Qaeda mountain bunkers were still largely intact, after being hit with the bunker busters.

The sources further emphasized that "military strategists see our vulnerabilities, especially after Iraq." U.S. military doctrine, one source said, had previously presumed a capability to engage in two sustained conflicts in two different regions of the world. "Such engagements are no longer possible, as the Iraq occupation shows. So there is now a shift to a doctrine of quick wars. The alternative to this change was to have the U.S. status as the last global superpower exposed as a fraud." The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, noted: "We have 150,000 U.S. troops and thousands of spies—the biggest spy contingent globally—and we can't identify the Iraqi insurgents.... There was a presumption that you could invade and occupy without engaging in any kind of nation-building. And that is an oxymoron."

The source cautioned that the Bush Administration's new global strike plans are premised on the "fantasy" that you can develop a limited nuclear weapons capability that will not radioactively contaminate the area and kill large numbers of people. His final indictment of the new Bush Administration pre-emptive nuclear war doctrine was that, ultimately, when you talk about targetting North Korea, which is the number one target for a possible Bush Administration pre-emptive nuclear strike, you are really talking about war with China.

CONPLAN 8022

The Arkin story in the May 15 Washington Post, which has been picked up by news outlets around the world, offered a chronology of the recent steps taken by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, on the road to pre-emptive nuclear war. This updated a EIR timeline of the Bush-Cheney Administration's drive to pre-emptive nuclear war, which was published on March 7, 2003, and is reprinted below. That original story tagged John Bolton as a pivotal player in the drive to end a quarter-century American policy of no first nuclear strike against any non-nuclear power. It traced the origins of the pre-emptive nuclear war policy to the early 1990s and then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, who launched a plan to include "mini-nukes" in the conventional arsenal.

Arkin's article continues the chronology from mid-2004: "Early last summer," Arkin wrote, "Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld approved a top secret 'Interim Global Strike Alert Order' directing the military to assume and maintain readiness to attack hostile countries that are developing weapons of mass destruction, specifically Iran and North Korea.... In the secret world of military planning, global strike has become the term of art to describe a specific pre-emptive attack. When military officials refer to global strike, they stress its conventional elements. Surprisingly, however, global strike also includes a nuclear option, which runs counter to traditional U.S. notions about the defensive role of nuclear weapons."

Arkin traced the Global Strike schema to a January 2003 classified Presidential Directive, in which President Bush defined a "full-spectrum" global strike as "a capability to deliver rapid, extended range, precision kinetic (nuclear and conventional) and non-kinetic (elements of space and information operations) effects in support of theater and national objectives." Along the way, the Strategic Command (Stratcom), headquartered at Offert Air Force Base in Omaha, Nebraska, which formerly had been exclusively responsible for America's nuclear weapons triad, was merged with the Space Command, and given responsibility for global operations involving both nuclear and conventional weapons.

Already, the September 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States, for the first time, had codified the doctrine of pre-emptive war, stating that the U.S. "must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies." Stratcom then established an interim global strike division, to devise plans by the end of 2002.

Arkin reported that "COMPLAN 8022-22 was completed in November 2003, putting in place for the first time a pre-emptive and offensive strike capability, against Iran and North Korea. In January 2004, [Admiral James O.] Ellis certified Stratcom's readiness for global strike to the Defense Secretary and the President."

Arkin warned that "This blurring of the nuclear/conventional line, wittingly or unwittingly, could heighten the risk that the nuclear option will be used." He then detailed elements of CONPLAN 8022, which could involve the use of nuclear bunker busters, to take out hardened command structures and WMD depots in Iran or North Korea. CONPLAN 8022 could be activated if the U.S. determined there was an imminent threat of a nuclear attack, or "for a more generic attack on an adversary's WMD infrastructure."

"The global strike plan," Arkin wrote, "holds the nuclear option in reserve if intelligence suggests an 'imminent' launch of an enemy nuclear strike on the United States or if there is a need to destroy hard-to-reach targets." COMPLAN 8022 does not envision "boots on the ground," he said, but combines precision weapons attacks with commando-style short-term operations, thus vastly reducing the time required to stage and launch an attack.

Nuclear Bunker Busters Already Deployed?

One of the most controversial issues arising from the new Bush-Cheney Global Strike plan effort surrounds the potential use of nuclear bunker busters. The Bush Administration has attempted, in every defense budget, to add funding for research and development of a new generation of mini-nuclear weapons. This year, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has asked for more than $8 million to continue research on Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) weapons.

On April 28, Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) issued a press release, citing a just-released government-mandated study on RNEPs by the National Research Council. The study debunked the fundamental premise of nuclear bunker busters: that they will penetrate so deep below the Earth's surface before detonating that there will be minimal radioactive fallout. Tauscher stated, "In this report, the National Research Council affirmed critical warnings about the deadly effects of nuclear fallout—both in risks posed to the local population and to troops—possibly American or allied forces .... In yesterday's study, they conclude: 'Current experience and empirical predictions indicate that earth-penetrator weapons cannot penetrate to depths required for total containment of the effects of a nuclear explosion,' a sentiment voiced earlier this year by National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) head Linton Brooks."

Tauscher continued, "The report finds that the majority of deeply buried targets lie only 250 meters below the surface. These findings, coupled with the 'Sedan' tests conducted decades ago at the Nevada Test Site, clearly demonstrate that exploding nuclear 'bunker busters' would pose an incredible risk to civilians on the ground and in neighboring areas [with] 'casualties ranging from thousands to more than a million.' "

Beyond the issue of the persistent Bush-Cheney Administration push for more money for R&D on a new generation of bunker busters, it appears that bunker busters are already an integral part of the existing U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal. According to Greg Mello, the head of the Los Alamos Study Group, which closely monitors the U.S. nuclear weapons program, the Pentagon already has a deployable stockpile of B-61 "mod 11" bunker busters. The 1,200-pound bombs, which can be carried on B-2A Stealth bombers and even F-16 fighter jets, had been developed as a "modification" of existing bunker busters, replacing the older B-53 8,900-pound, 9-megaton "City Busters." By claiming that there were no new physical principles introduced with the B-61 "mod 11," the Pentagon sidestepped the Spratt-Furce attachment to the FY 1994 Defense Appropriation Bill, which banned any R&D on low-yield nuclear weapons (under 5 kilotons). The B-61 "mod 11" can carry a nuclear bomb with a payload as small as 300 tons.

Rumsfeld Lets It All Hang Out

So as to remove any ambiguity from the Bush-Cheney nuclear madness, on March 15, 2005, the Pentagon placed on its public website a draft version of Joint Publication 3-12, "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations." This 69-page report made clear that the Bush Administration has fully integrated nuclear weapons into the conventional war-fighting. The Executive Summary stated: "For many contingencies, existing and emerging conventional capabilities will meet anticipated requirements; however, some contingencies will remain where the most appropriate response may include the use of U.S. nuclear weapons. Integrating conventional and nuclear attacks will ensure the most efficient use of force and provide U.S. leaders with a broader range of strike options to address immediate contingencies. Integration of conventional and nuclear forces is therefore crucial to the success of any comprehensive strategy."

Elsewhere in the Executive Summary, it was declared, "The U.S. does not make positive statements defining the circumstances under which it would use nuclear weapons. Maintaining U.S. ambiguity about when it would use nuclear weapons helps create doubt in the minds of potential adversaries, deterring them from taking hostile action."

For 25 years, up to the inauguration of George W. Bush, U.S. policy was that there would be no American first-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear armed states. George Shultz, Dick Cheney, John Bolton and company have fulfilled their impulse to hold the world hostage to unilateral nuclear weapons use in the hands of a President who shows increasing signs of madness.

[W*GS]

Sorry W*gs, neither the US nor USSR had a first strike capability during the Cold War.

Wrong. With the advent of the MX missile and the Trident SLBM, the US achieved a credible first-strike capability about 20 years ago.

The US has also never pledged a no-first-use policy, ever.

[Hotrod]

No - you're simply illiterate.

LOL your as clueless as the rest of them

[Rohirrim]

How I wish you were right. Last spring two professors argued in Foreign Affairs that since entering office Bush has pushed for a first strike nuclear capability; and he may have achieved it. Hence no more MAD.

Russia's early warning system is no longer fully operative since losing its former republics. These profs say that Moscow is blind to the east. US nuclear subs can sit off Kamchatka and lob hundreds of nukes at Russia without being detected. Russia's bombers are vulnerable, concentrated at just a few bases - and its sub force is rusting in port.

China is even more vulnerable -- with only a few hundred ICBMs -- as the man said.

This explains Bush's switch to a policy of nuclear first use -- and why our prez brandishes nukes like a God given right. He's flexing his nuclear supperiority.

All in all -- not a happy situation on the planet just now. Here's that article.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85204-p0/keir-a-lieber-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-u-s-nuclear-primacy.html

Very interesting piece. Thanks for posting that. I still say your fears, while not unfounded, will not be realized, IMHO. Maybe the neocons would like nothing better than to lob a couple of nukes into Iran. Judging from the previous writings of Wolfowitz, Perle, etc., attacking Iran and Syria have long been on the laundry list. However, you have to incorporate the new wrinkle into the case: Iraq. This administration has screwed the pooch in Iraq. Even those GOP party members who have gone along with the Rovian, neocon gravy train are now distancing themselves from the "Crazies" in the WH. In other words, Bush doesn't have the political cache to attack Iran.

If he took such a proposal to Congress, he'd get voted down. If Gonzales pulled out of the ethers (or more likely, his ass) some lunatic executive prerogative to bomb Iran on his own, there are many (according to Hersh, and others) in the military and elsewhere, who would short circuit such a move and Bush would get impeached. 70% of the American people are already fed up with this administration and its failures. There's no way in hell he launches anything against anybody else. Hell, he can't even push through a bill on SSA, his pet project.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I rather doubt it.
You trust the Rumsfeld / Bush cartel far more than I do.

--------------------------------------------------
washingtonpost.com
Not Just A Last Resort?
A Global Strike Plan, With a Nuclear Option

By William Arkin
Post
Sunday, May 15, 2005; B01

Early last summer, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld approved a top secret "Interim Global Strike Alert Order" directing the military to assume and maintain readiness to attack hostile countries that are developing weapons of mass destruction, specifically Iran and North Korea.

Two months later, Lt. Gen. Bruce Carlson, commander of the 8th Air Force, told a reporter that his fleet of B-2 and B-52 bombers had changed its way of operating so that it could be ready to carry out such missions. "We're now at the point where we are essentially on alert," Carlson said in an interview with the Shreveport (La.) Times. "We have the capacity to plan and execute global strikes." Carlson said his forces were the U.S. Strategic Command's "focal point for global strike" and could execute an attack "in half a day or less."

In the secret world of military planning, global strike has become the term of art to describe a specific preemptive attack. When military officials refer to global strike, they stress its conventional elements. Surprisingly, however, global strike also includes a nuclear option, which runs counter to traditional U.S. notions about the defensive role of nuclear weapons.

The official U.S. position on the use of nuclear weapons has not changed. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has taken steps to de-emphasize the importance of its nuclear arsenal. The Bush administration has said it remains committed to reducing our nuclear stockpile while keeping a credible deterrent against other nuclear powers. Administration and military officials have stressed this continuity in testimony over the past several years before various congressional committees.

But a confluence of events, beginning with the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and the president's forthright commitment to the idea of preemptive action to prevent future attacks, has set in motion a process that has led to a fundamental change in how the U.S. military might respond to certain possible threats. Understanding how we got to this point, and what it might mean for U.S. policy, is particularly important now -- with the renewed focus last week on Iran's nuclear intentions and on speculation that North Korea is ready to conduct its first test of a nuclear weapon.

Global strike has become one of the core missions for the Omaha-based Strategic Command, or Stratcom. Once, Stratcom oversaw only the nation's nuclear forces; now it has responsibility for overseeing a global strike plan with both conventional and nuclear options. President Bush spelled out the definition of "full-spectrum" global strike in a January 2003 classified directive, describing it as "a capability to deliver rapid, extended range, precision kinetic (nuclear and conventional) and non-kinetic (elements of space and information operations) effects in support of theater and national objectives."

This blurring of the nuclear/conventional line, wittingly or unwittingly, could heighten the risk that the nuclear option will be used. Exhibit A may be the Stratcom contingency plan for dealing with "imminent" threats from countries such as North Korea or Iran, formally known as CONPLAN 8022-02.

CONPLAN 8022 is different from other war plans in that it posits a small-scale operation and no "boots on the ground." The typical war plan encompasses an amalgam of forces -- air, ground, sea -- and takes into account the logistics and political dimensions needed to sustain those forces in protracted operations. All these elements generally require significant lead time to be effective. (Existing Pentagon war plans, developed for specific regions or "theaters," are essentially defensive responses to invasions or attacks. The global strike plan is offensive, triggered by the perception of an imminent threat and carried out by presidential order.)

CONPLAN 8022 anticipates two different scenarios. The first is a response to a specific and imminent nuclear threat, say in North Korea. A quick-reaction, highly choreographed strike would combine pinpoint bombing with electronic warfare and cyberattacks to disable a North Korean response, with commandos operating deep in enemy territory, perhaps even to take possession of the nuclear device.

The second scenario involves a more generic attack on an adversary's WMD infrastructure. Assume, for argument's sake, that Iran announces it is mounting a crash program to build a nuclear weapon. A multidimensional bombing (kinetic) and cyberwarfare (non-kinetic) attack might seek to destroy Iran's program, and special forces would be deployed to disable or isolate underground facilities.

By employing all of the tricks in the U.S. arsenal to immobilize an enemy country -- turning off the electricity, jamming and spoofing radars and communications, penetrating computer networks and garbling electronic commands -- global strike magnifies the impact of bombing by eliminating the need to physically destroy targets that have been disabled by other means.

The inclusion, therefore, of a nuclear weapons option in CONPLAN 8022 -- a specially configured earth-penetrating bomb to destroy deeply buried facilities, if any exist -- is particularly disconcerting. The global strike plan holds the nuclear option in reserve if intelligence suggests an "imminent" launch of an enemy nuclear strike on the United States or if there is a need to destroy hard-to-reach targets.

CONT (http://tinyurl.com/d3k8s)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

This reporter is certainly not alone in reporting this. Hersh beat him to it some time ago. What surprises me is what chickensh*ts these neocons are. Never have I seen such cowards occupying the WH. Every policy that they put forward they submit from fear. Every announcement they make to the American people is designed to incite more fear. Osama has won the battle as far as this neocon cabal in Washington is concerned; They are collectively peeing their pants. Here we are, the country that laughed in the face of the Depression, of Hitler, of Tojo, suddenly weeping in terror every time some little Islamic nutjob shakes our chain.

Look at it with a little bit of logic, sans emotion, for a second. What's the big deal if Iran gets a nuke? Who has nukes now? The U.S. has thousands. Russia has thousands. China has thousands. Then you have India, France, Germany, Pakistan, NKorea, even Israel. Japan might want some pretty soon. They're talking about it. So, what's the fear? That Iran will immediately turn one over to Bin Laden? Really? I'd be more afraid that Pakistan will do that. I'd be more afraid that some Russian mobster will do that. Or NKorea. Iran wants nukes to aim at Israel, not to give to Osama. Does Israel have the capacity to deal with this threat on their own? Sure. Maybe Iran wants to aim one at the Saudis. Do the Saudis have the power to smack Iran real hard? Sure. We act like the Saudis are powerless. As if Iran could attack the Saudis with impunity. They have one of the top air forces in the region. Iran's biggest trading partners are the Russians and Chinese. How would they feel about Iran selling a nuke, or firing it off at Israel - knowing full well that the next day after they did such a thing, Iran would be obliterated? Do you really think there are no checks and balances on Iran?

Is this the real deal, or just a bunch of saber rattling on both sides? Bush/Rove/Cheney scare America into voting for them, while the mullahs and their mouthpiece, Ahmadjihad, squelch dissent in their own country - both acting, of course, in the best interests of national security.

MAD still exists in all its glory, folks. The USSR has changed, but MAD hasn't. The Bushies are pretending it no longer exists, but only for their own, political, gain. The U.S. is under two terror threats. One comes from Al Queda. The other comes every time the GOP wants to win an election.


Bingo.

Fear is the only fuel the Corrupt Old Party and the Bush junta have left in the tank.

They're ramping up the propaganda and disinfo re: Iran just like they did during the run-up to their illegal invasion of Iraq.

[W*GS]

Do you really think there are no checks and balances on Iran?

What are you willing to bet that Iran won't use a nuke if it has one?

[W*GS]

Fear is the only fuel the Corrupt Old Party and the Bush junta have left in the tank.

You're using fear as a prop as well...

Why?

[mhgaffney]

Wrong. With the advent of the MX missile and the Trident SLBM, the US achieved a credible first-strike capability about 20 years ago.

The US has also never pledged a no-first-use policy, ever.

Wrong on both counts, W*gs. Before its breakup the USSR had nuclear subs that the US could not track. They alone were a credible deterrent.

Recently Putin announced the upcoming commission of 2 new subs -- to try and reassert that deterrent.

The US never had a first use nuclear policy until September 2002 when Bush installed one. Yet how many Americans even know this happened? You didn't.

Ignorance is bliss -- Americans would rather watch fooooball than pay attention to our world. (I say this as an avid Bronco fan)

[Rohirrim]

What are you willing to bet that Iran won't use a nuke if it has one?

On whom? On us? Via what delivery system? How many warheads? What is the earliest we could expect such an attack from Iran?

[W*GS]

Wrong on both counts, W*gs. Before its breakup the USSR had nuclear subs that the US could not track. They alone were a credible deterrent.

Wrong. Typhoon-class subs were quite eminently trackable.

The US never had a first use nuclear policy until September 2002 when Bush installed one. Yet how many Americans even know this happened? You didn't.

The Bush administration hasn't done anything new. The US has always allowed itself the option of a first strike.

[W*GS]

On whom? On us?

Iran need not attack us directly to create a big problem.

Via what delivery system?

Aircraft, missile, or dinghy.

How many warheads?

One.

What is the earliest we could expect such an attack from Iran?

Several years, at least.

Would you trust Ahmadjihad or the mullahs with a nuke? Why?

[alkemical]

I love it how "we" think that the rest of the world would be willing to interrupt 20% of the world's oil supply.

[Rohirrim]

Would you trust Ahmadjihad or the mullahs with a nuke? Why?

As much as I trust Bush. Or Musharraf. Or Putin.

Like I've pointed out before, I imagine the rest of the world is fully aware of the Kennedy doctrine: An attack by Cuba, anywhere in the Monroe Doctrine region, using a nuclear weapon, will be considered a direct attack on the U.S. by the Soviet Union.

I know the Bush administration is the most incompetent in history, but I feel confident that our intelligence and state dept. operatives have let China, Pakistan, Russia and anyone else who is concerned know, that the U.S. will consider any nuclear attack on the U.S., by a terrorist or Iran, a direct attack on the U.S. by whoever supplied that enemy with a nuclear weapon.

Do you believe that the tactical or strategic threat Iran offers the U.S. is truly worth the level of fear that George Bush is currently spreading around? Or is there (obviously) some ulterior motive to this fear mongering?

Please keep in mind, that by most analysts accounts that I've read, Iran is at minimum, four years from getting weapons grade nuclear material (unless someone gives it to them). Other estimates take that out to ten years. Will AJ still be in charge of Iran in four years? Then, they would have to weaponize it. Do they have a missile that can reach the U.S.? Do we have the capacity to intercept a single missile? If they launched a missile at us, at Israel, at the Saudi oil fields, or at our forces in Iraq, what would happen next? I agree that AJ is a nutjob, but can you argue that the entire mullah wing of Iran is suicidal?

Do you accept the idea that because it is possible that Iran might get their hands on nuclear weapons grade material within four years, we should launch a nuclear pre-emptive strike on them now?

[W*GS]

Do you accept the idea that because it is possible that Iran might get their hands on nuclear weapons grade material within four years, we should launch a nuclear pre-emptive strike on them now?

Certainly not.

But we must keep up the pressure on Iran to abandon it's nuclear weapons program.

[Rohirrim]

Certainly not.

But we must keep up the pressure on Iran to abandon it's nuclear weapons program.

That will require that we talk with them, something the Bush administration refuses to do. Nixon went to China, we kept a hotline open with the Soviets for forty years, but now we're unable to manage any dialogue with one little nutjob in Iran? We must really be losing our diplomatic touch. Unless there is some other motive.

[bendog]

The neocons are immobilized. They cannot speak with Iran, as that would impart giving cred.

[W*GS]

That will require that we talk with them, something the Bush administration refuses to do. Nixon went to China, we kept a hotline open with the Soviets for forty years, but now we're unable to manage any dialogue with one little nutjob in Iran? We must really be losing our diplomatic touch. Unless there is some other motive.

The history of the conflict between the US and Iran doesn't start with Bush. Try going back to 1979 or so.

[Rohirrim]

The history of the conflict between the US and Iran doesn't start with Bush. Try going back to 1979 or so.

Why not go back all the way to 1953 when the U.S. and British intelligence agents overthrew a popularly elected prime minister of Iran and replaced him with the Shah Pahlavi in order to control Iran's oil assets?

Among the book's main conclusions is that Iranians and non-Iranians both played crucial parts in the coup's success. The CIA, with help from British intelligence, planned, funded and implemented the operation. When the plot threatened to fall apart entirely at an early point, U.S. agents on the ground took the initiative to jump-start the operation, adapted the plans to fit the new circumstances, and pressed their Iranian collaborators to keep going. Moreover, a British-led oil boycott, supported by the United States, plus a wide range of ongoing political pressures by both governments against Mosaddeq, culminating in a massive covert propaganda campaign in the months leading up to the coup helped create the environment necessary for success.


The "28 Mordad" coup, as it is known by its Persian date, was a watershed for Iran, for the Middle East and for the standing of the United States in the region. The joint U.S.-British operation ended Iran's drive to assert sovereign control over its own resources and helped put an end to a vibrant chapter in the history of the country's nationalist and democratic movements. These consequences resonated with dramatic effect in later years. When the Shah finally fell in 1979, memories of the U.S. intervention in 1953, which made possible the monarch's subsequent, and increasingly unpopular, 25-reign intensified the anti-American character of the revolution in the minds of many Iranians.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB126/index.htm

We're still playing the same old tune, aren't we?

[bendog]

actually I think we were messing around in WWII. When the little hitler says the US doens't stand for countries deciding their own issues, he's actually not far from the truth. We'd made some progress from Reagan through WJC, but it's lost now. 2008 hurry on.

[SteveTensi13]

MHG, you gotta be the most gullible MOFO on the planet! Here's a news flash. The moon is not made of cheese!

[mhgaffney]

washingtonpost.com
Not Just A Last Resort?
A Global Strike Plan, With a Nuclear Option

By William Arkin
Post
Sunday, May 15, 2005; B01


I emailed Arkin the other day. He replied and sent twol links to his recent stuff. He thinks the nuclear threat has actually receded.

I don't agree with him on this. MG


Dear William Arkin,

I finally got around to reading your article in the Post.

As you know Hersh reported earlier this year that the pentagon eventually
managed to get the nukes off the table. Are there indications (in the wake
of Israel's failure in Lebanon) that nukes are once again being considered
as part of a preventive strike plan?

Sincerely for no nukes,

Mark H Gaffney


Mark,

I continue to follow the subject. Hersh put it on the table, and then took
it off, quite the contortion.

William M. Arkin
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning
http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=so06arkin

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

MHG, you gotta be the most gullible MOFO on the planet!

:rofl:

Oh, the irony.

http://www.bartcop.com/cheney-fear-window.jpg

[SteveTensi13]

.