Let's rationally discuss nuclear exchange scenarios...

[Lerkfish]

let's forego labeling anyone as having reynolds wrap headgear. With Sy Hersh's latest article, the specter of nuclear exchange with Iran has arisen in the public arena. Let's have a ranging discussion of how this would come about, what it would mean politically and logistically and what the short term and long term effects would be regarding our place in the world and their attitude towards us.

Please feel free to contribute and speculate. No matter how off the wall your concerns or ideas may be, rest assured you're likely more rational than the chimp now holding the nuclear "football".

I'll start:

1. Assume for now the US truly intends to use nuclear bunkerbuster bombs to take out centrifuge breeders and nuclear reactor sites.
A: How would they achieve this?
1) knocking out anti-aircraft batteries in Iran, probably with a faked defense of "civilian" aircraft.
2) launching bunker busters, which require flyovers, probably from Iraq permanent military bases.
3) under the cover of night, we'll likely find out AFTER the fact.
B: REPERCUSSIONS
1) STRATEGICALLY: all nuclear treaties would be rendered null and void with that one act.
a) any and all nations or groups (including terrorist groups) that posess weapons of nuclear, bio or chem nature could and may declare open season on the US and its private citizens. As this admin has proven with Katrina, and only inspecting 5% of cargo, etc., we would be a porous bordered target nation.
2) HEALTH: The resulting plume of bombing a nuclear plant, even with non nuclear bunker-busting bombs would make chernobyl look like diaper rash in comparison. At least chernobyl could be capped. There is no way to cap a blown crater. The damage will already be done in a matter of minutes.
3) DIPLOMATICALLY: The immediate reduction of our diplomatic influence globally to nothing. We're close to that already, but after this attack, we will not have any fiat to diplomatically achieve ANYTHING. our only actions thereafter will be draconian military solutions to all problems. And the rest of the world will not sit idly by while that happens.

ok, that's my start....what do the rest of you think?

[Atman]

1. I think...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=881285&mesg_id=881285

[Cooley Hurd]

2. You're counting on the rationality of the Bush Admin...

...and they've already proven they're bat-shit-crazy. :crazy:

[ArbustoBuster]

3. Impeachment

I think that if Bush and his cabal of gibbering idiots are really contemplating a first-strike nuclear attack on Iran, they are self-evidently insane and need to be removed immediately by impeachment. A President Hastert, even though he's a complete jackass, would be preferable to a group of goons armed with the nuclear football.

[AlamoDemoc]

4. This whole idea that the US will attack Iran with nuclear weapons

is a horseshit I think. Regardless of Hersh's article, I am still not inclined to believe that Iran will be attacked with "nuclear weapons". I think this is all about Psychological warfare against Iran.

[radio4progressives]

9. Yeah.. Just like invading Iraq was All Psy-Ops... Right...

U.S. Regime are bat shit crazy and threats of nuclear warfare on any level is bat shit crazy. and after what we've done in Afghanistan and in Iraq would actually think this is "horsehit" hasn't been paying attention.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Diplomatically, the Bush regime would become the world's enemy

and that would be far beyond the current situation. There would be an immediate boycott of the US, meaning primarily oil imports, from any country able to afford it (ie find another buyer for its oil) - all Islamic producers (probably therefore including Nigeria - they would risk civil war if they carried on trading with the USA), Russia and Venezuela for sure; I'd think Mexico would be quite likely to join the boycott, and Canada and Norway too. Even the UK might. Only those willing to risk being classed with the US would continue trading with it - at a hugely increased price.

US bases around the world would be under siege from protestors (dangerous sieges, that is - and it they used firepower to defend themselves, things would get ugly), and most countries would stop cooperating militarily with the US. It would be open season on all US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even those in Turkey or the Gulf states might not be much better off.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

6. I think I will go throw up now.

[enigma000]

7. I'm not sure about diplomatic repercussions

Whatever the Arabs and Europeans say in public, privately I think they will be grateful for any setback in Iran's nuclear program. It is they who are most at threat (after Israel).

[radio4progressives]

8. I think the concept of a "Nucelar Exchange" is Insane.

Any "rational discussion" that isn't solely based on complete denouncement is utterly insane, nothing 'rational' about it.

good gawwd.

[Lerkfish]

11. and your point?

is anything verboten to this administration simply because its insane?

or maybe I didn't understand your post?

[radio4progressives]

14. My point is , any rational discussion should be soley based on

denounciation of all nuclear proliferation - but Bush has us and the rest of the world headed on the path of Armageddon ..

the only rational discussion at this juncture is to remove Bush from power immediately for the safety and well being of our nation and the rest of the world.

anything less than that is insane, much less "irrational".

[HereSince1628]

10. ANY form of attack on Iran's nuclear infrastructure will by necessity

include "force protection" measures.

This means that if you go in for an inch you are sucked in for a mile.

I doubt anyone in the military accepts that the notion of getting sucked in for a mile is rational.

[KoKo]

12. The radiation fall out would endanger countries around the globe as it

"drifts." Any country in it's path would surely be against this scenario. (at least one would hope). That's problem number one. Hersh's article seemed to have a couple of scenarious where there would be musroom clouds in many areas and in fact one person he talked to said it would be the kind of decision we had to make in bombing Japan. (I think either this person Hersh talked to was a loony PNACer or maybe someone sincerely pointing out the idiocy of the morality and repercussions if we were to Japan bomb Iraq.)

Number 2, we don't have alot of money to fund this huge operation. I assume the Saudi's which have bankrolled our past efforts would be willing to fork over some more money....but still we have some big problems at home which are just started to be exposed and the Saudi's can't bankroll us forever and I don't see China or Japan stepping in to fund this since they are already holding our national debt.

3. Pressure has to keep coming for Rumsfeld and the Neo-Cons to be taken out of power in our Government. Whistle blowers...whatever it takes have to come forward and be supported. Great Britain has to help by pressuring an earlier departure for Blair...who will do whatever Bush wants even if it's crazy.

4.....I don't have any other ideas.... But, if Hersh is correct we are on a crash coarse to hell here. I have to hope that he's doing a "pre-emptive strike" to get this out there to prevent it. To get a dialog going so that we aren't "fooled again" by "smoking crap evidence" from a lap top computer turned in by another Chalabi pawn. I don't expect our two newspapers of record who still hold huge influence (NYT's and WaPo) since they still seem to be on the "steno payroll" even though time after time their reporters are shown to be stove pipes for the Neo-Cons.

:shrug: whatever....I pray that this is stopped...but we out here can't do much except keep contacting our Dems Senators and Congresspersons just as we have in the past. The "powers that be" ignore our demonstrations along with the media. Perhaps larger demonstrations could occur now that more folks understand what's at stake...but I don't have much hope for that changing Bush's mind or those who still support him.

[Cooley Hurd]

13. I don't believe this is true of limited tactical nukes...

...as far as widespread nuclear fallout is concerned. However (and this is a big "however"), we would be the first nation since 1945 to use nuclear weapons in anger. It would virtually void almost all anti-nuke treaties. My fear is that India and Pakistan would follow suit...:scared:

[KoKo]

15. If we are hitting nuclear reactors they have supposedly built it would

seem that it wouldn't just be our "bunker busters" but whatever they hit that could cause the "musroom clouds" that one of the people Hersh interviewed was talking about. And there was some radiation found in Scotland or Northern GB recently from what were doing in Iraq, supposedly.

I'm hoping that guy was a nut case who was talking about bombing like we did in Japan...but who knows. :-(

[bmbmd]

16. The only way to win

is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?

(edit-quote from "War Games")