*IF* "Iran Nuked a US City, could the US Defeat and Occupy Iran?

[Junkdrawer]

Assume that it was "proved" that al Qaeda did it with a nuke they obtained from Iran.

Second question:
Could the US defeat and occupy Iran without such an event taking place?

Third question:
Can the US maintain its occupation of Iraq without defeating Iran?

Not saying any of this will happen, just curious.

[Atman]

1. There would be nothing left to occupy

If Iran nuked a US city, we'd be dumping planeloads of our nukes on them faster than you can say "duck and cover."

[BlooInBloo]

3. And in the off chance that we didn't, the answer is....

... yes, of course. Given enough time... Recall that it took about 4 years for us to ramp up to get Japan...

Maybe I should qualify that to: as long as people who actually care about the country are in charge. If republicans are running the show, then we're doomed, much like we saw on 9/11.

[Junkdrawer]

9. I Google the total US Troops in WWII:

WORLD WAR II
1941-45
DURATION IN DAYS: 1,365
TOTAL U.S. MILITARY: 16,112,566
U.S. BATTLE DEATHS: 291,557
TOTAL U.S. DEATHS: 405,399

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030330-public-opinion01.htm

For those who say "we don't have enough troops for that".

[BlooInBloo]

20. We don't. That's not the point.

The point is that WE COULD.

All that's needed is a draft, or something similarly extreme.

[Junkdrawer]

30. I wasn't disagreeing with you. But many times in the past...

when the Invasion of Iran was discussed, the sorry state of the all-volunteer army was used to pooh-pooh the idea. I've always maintained it was just a matter of motivation.

[BlooInBloo]

34. I assumed it was implicit in the pooh-poohing....

... that the motivation for anything more than all-volunteer wasn't there. Reading them charitably in that manner seems like the more helpful way to go to me at least...

[pitohui]

23. we defeated japan w. atomic weapons

the entire manhattan project had to be developed first, in the case of iran, no waiting, if they strike us, i don't see what alternative we would have but to either strike them or admit that the billions poured into supposedly stockpiling our own weapons has, hmm, not somehow got to where it was supposed to be

[BlooInBloo]

92. We DID get them to surrender w/ nukes... didn't HAVE to tho....

... They were funtionally defeated before the nukes, and without em, we woulda formally defeated em anyways... No one doubts that...

Most plausible conjecture I've heard is that we ACTUALLY used em primarily to scare the bejeezuz outta Stalin. Which more or less worked, but opened up a whole different can o worms...

But that's more than is completely relevant here... The point is that for Japan's (and Germany's) functional defeat, it took us several years of ramping up. We're *capable* of performing a similar ramping up at any time (ie over any several-year period of time) - the only issue is whether the issue is pressing enough (real or perceived) for the people/sheeple to go along with it. In WWII, they were. In Korea, they were. In Vietnam they were for awhile. In the middle east, thus far, NOT (and rightly so, IMO).

[Junkdrawer]

4. Really? And destroy their oil fields and motivate a general Jihad...

in the remaining oil fields? :shrug:

[Atman]

7. Sure. Oil fields can be re-drilled (by Halliburton).

Anything we do over there generates a "general Jihad." I don't think they'd be motivated to attack us any more than they already are by the realization that we'd incerated everything anywhere near them if they did. I certainly could be mistaken, though. Let's hope we don't get to find out!

[onehandle]

Halliburton would Love It!

The surface would be burned but all that yummy oil would be ours for the taking.

No population would be like Christmas to them.

I'm sure Halliburton is shopping for nukes right now. I suspect that no city in Texas would be "sacrificed".

[karlrschneider]

15. It would be a little tough to drill wells in a highly radioactive

field...

[onehandle]

25. Only the major cities would be nuked.

The oil fields would be fine.

[Solon]

33. Forgot about fallout, hmm? n/t

[Pavulon]

39. Nevada

is still lived in by humans. We nuked to hell and back.. So are hiroshima and nagasaki. Not that fallout is healthy, but not a reason to abandon a state.

[Solon]

41. Some things...

First, Nevada hasn't been nuked in decades, second, Nevada, as much of that area of the country, is sparsely populated, even more so back when surface testing was routine. The nearest major city was Las Vegas, and even then it was out of "line of site" of the nuclear blasts, though still barely close enough to see the flashes over the horizon. Also, the nuclear arsenal back then were less effective than the current arsenal, less powerful, and also, oddly enough, less radiation. Also, when mentioning Hiroshima and Nagasaki please note that it took decades for those two cities to recover from the nuclear blasts and they have been cancer and birth defect hotzones for a long time.

Another note on Nevada and nuclear testing, we tested nuclear weapons on the surface in areas that were not only sparsely populated but also the blasts themselves were not that far spread out from each other. As such, while there have been radiation spikes traced as far as Boston, carried by the Jet Stream, it dissipated to below dangerous levels well before that. This would be far different than let's say Iran, where there would be CONCENTRATED nuclear assaults on major cities, plus on infrastructure. While oil fields would be spared, having nuclear weapons detonated throughout the country would INCREASE the concentration of the fallout to fatal levels in many areas, in addition to this, radiation absorbed into surrounding countryside ensures that many areas of the country will simply not be safe to travel to or live in. The areas wouldn't be abandoned permanently, but we wouldn't be able to recover any oil from the areas affected for at least a decade, maybe longer if the infrastructure is TOO damaged, possibly making the oil itself unrecoverable.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

63. Maybe you ought to read the information in these links....

...before you go too far in the direction you appear to be going:

About Eighty Thousand Cancers in the United States, More Than 15,000 of Them Fatal, Attributable to Fallout from Worldwide Atmospheric Nuclear Testing.........
Hot Spots Occurred Thousands of Miles from Testing Areas, Government Study Shows
<http://www.ieer.org/comments/fallout/pr0202.html>

<http://www.ieer.org/comments/fallout/factsht.html>

<http://www.ieer.org/offdocs/index.html>

[Solon]

32. Redrilled by whom again?

Who would want to go to a radioactive wasteland, in radiation suits at that, to drill for oil? Not to mention that the fields themselves would be heavily damaged, especially if they use nuclear bunker busters nearby, that could make much of the oil unusable and out of reach at the very least.

[Leopolds Ghost]

55. Actually, Oil fields can be ruined if the pumping is interrupted.

Water injection into the fields can destroy the well if the pumping is interrupted. I Read that right here on DU. I will ask my uncle for more information. He is an oil exploration geologist in Texas. (Yeah, yeah, I know...)

[Redstone]

59. Arr Arr. Shock and Awe! Kill 'em all, even the babies!

We'll show 'em who's the biggest swinging' dicks in town!

Wonderful attitude you got there. Kill the ones who had nothing to do with us being attacked (the everday civilians, including babies).

Gee, your attitude sounds familiar...Iraq, maybe? Yeah, that's right - let's go kill a bunch of people who didn't do a damn thing to us.

Nice thinking, there.

Redstone

[The Magistrate]

2. If, Sir, A Nuclear Attack On a U.S. City

Were definitely traced back to any country, it would be subject of retaliation in kind. Popular outrage would be at such a pitch Gahndi himself would have had to give the order....

[Junkdrawer]

5. I agree. But what of the economic ramifications of such a move...

Could an invasion and occupation be seen as "cooler heads prevailing" in such an instance? :shrug:

[The Magistrate]

8. Hard To Say, Sir

Iranian oil would be off the market for a while: the fields would not be targetted, but doubtless would be fired by militants.

Occupation might well take place after the strike; indeed, it probably would. It would alter things in ways impossible to predict.

[northzax]

11. it is, in fact, the only reasonable response

the nuclear system is fragile, and based on the concept of immediate and total retaliation. If an iranian nuclear weapon was detonated on US soil, Iran would cease to exist. that sort of total and complete annihalation is the only thing that keeps anyone from using nukes, including us. If someone thinks that they can survive the use of nukes, then they might be tempted to use one.

[The Magistrate]

16. Indeed, My Friend

Those are the rules....

"Well, now, be fair, I mean, he had to do it, didn't he: I had transgressed the unwritten law."

[Junkdrawer]

27. Ambiguity could argue for invasion rather than retalliation...

Follow me on this:

Imagine that it was quickly determined that "al Qaeda did it" (for example: Chatter between known al Qaeda operatives in the target city was monitored by the NSA...)

BUT...

NO ONE KNEW WHERE THEY GOT THE BOMB. But we're "pretty sure" Iran was involved.

[northzax]

36. you can fairly easily track nukes

with plutonium signatures. Every production facility is traceable. We simply say "let us in to check, or we will destroy it, and you along with it." such is the price of having nuclear weapons, if you don't control them, you will be annihalated. Under those circumstances, we would have every member of the nuclear club standing next to us, and Iran would face Russia, China, the UK, France, India, Pakistan (and yes, Israel and even North Korea) saying 'show us the information, or you are destroyed.' everyone knows the rules. we are not talking about becoming a pariah state, we are talking about ceasing to exist. Everyone knows that this is the only way to stop the use of nuclear weapons, to make it a no-win game, under any circumstances.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

67. Those rules no longer exist, and they disappeared the....

...day the NeoCon Junta took over.

In fact, we're more likely to be on the receiving end of the nations you mentioned...and that danger grows with each passing day that the NeoCon Junta remains in power.

Oh, and by the way, if the nuclear deal Herr Busch is attempting to strike with India goes through, all pretense of Americans supporting the Non-proliferation Treaty will be gone with the wind.

[northzax]

79. the rules still exist

we have gone from MAD (Mutual assured destruction) to AAD (asymetrical assured destruction) you really think that the UK or France wants a nuclear war with the US? please.

and the India deal is a clear violation, to me at least, of NPT, and should be spiked.

oh, and should I take the "herr" title for Bush (and the germanic spelling of his name) to be an insult to Germans or Austrians? neither of which, as far as I have noticed, support this administration's ideals?

[Redstone]

50. So we murder their children, who did not have anything to do with

what their government did?

I am surprised to hear this from someone such as you. You're generally more levelheaded.

Redsone

[The Magistrate]

60. It Would Happen, Sir

The public outcry for it would be deafening, and irresistible in any democratic polity: a skilled and ruthless totalitarian might be able to ignore it, but even for the likes of Stalin it would have been dangerous to disregard.

The government of Iran surely knows this, and that constitutes the leading check against their succumbing to any adventurism along these lines.

[Redstone]

62. That does not make it right. And it's EXACTLY what's happened in Iraq.

Killing people who didn't do a damn thing to us.

I find the some of the attitudes in this thread utterly disgusting.

I had thought surely that DU would be a bastion of sensibility, but apparently it is not. Some people in this thread seem to be exulting in "yeah, we'd kick their ass" talk.

Redstone

[The Magistrate]

70. Right Or Wrong Has Nothing To Do With It, Sir

It would happen, and necessarily so. It is certainly not a thing to gloat over in the abstract, and doubtless most who express the attitude you are repelled by would, in the actual event, be reduced to stunned silence and disquiet by the horror of it. But it would be done just the same.

[Redstone]

74. Right or wrong doesn't matter, then. OK, time for me to bail out of GD

for a while. You see, I believe in right being right, and wrong being wrong.

Redstone

[The Magistrate]

75. That Is How The World Is, Sir

The problem is hardly one peculiar to our General Discussion forum here. Most decisions about actions are made by considering, not is it right or wrong, but is it necessary to perceived interest....

[Media_Lies_Daily]

65. The NeoCon Junta has killed tens of thousands of Afghan and....

...Iraqi children with absolutely no sign of remorse. They will also have no remorse for dead Iranian children.

They are totally ruthless. Period.

[Zynx]

90. That is official US policy.

We also on a practical level have to make the consequences of nuking a US city so severe that no one would ever think of it.

[Ufomammut]

6. Define "proved!" LOL

The staging of this psyop incident has been a very dire concern for awhile now. Why do you suppose they're planning on going into Iran with nukes/"bunker busters?" Afterall, there's no ground force, and they don't really want a draft/"people's army," because it's too difficult to quickly brainwash that many average people into mindless, mass murdering sadists in the amount of time it takes for bootcamp.

If they try anything that insane, everything will rest with We The People: either stand up and take the country back, because WE outnumber them, or be controlled pussies and slaves trapped in a literal and psychological prison through time.

[Hubert Flottz]

10. "Mushroom Clouds" is the stuff neocon dreams are made of.

They dream the shit up to scare you into letting them do as they please. How many chances do these liars get? "Oh' I'm sorry it was "Faulty Intelligence," that could happen to anyone!" Just like Hitler, one lie after another, one country after another. These people are liars and criminals. If you're STILL with them, you are just as guilty as they are!

[Ufomammut]

14. Exactly!

I mean the level of denial and ignorance involved here is astonishing, embarrassing...

Although I do believe there are factions within that truly DO want this pseudo-apocalypse as a needed part of a broader geo-political "regime change."

[Hubert Flottz]

19. Welcome to DU Ufomammut and George...

I'll check out your links George.

[Ufomammut]

26. Thanks

[george_hurley]

12. Stupid question in the first place

First name how many countries Iran has a history of invading. Compare that w/ how many the US has invaded in just the last 40 years.

Second: Any invasion attempted by the US would be instant suicide. We're already teetering on one of the biggest financial meltdowns known
to man and any invasion would make this instantaneous. Every country seems to know this except the NeoCon Nazis who have taken
over this country. The president of Iran fully knows this and, no, he does not really believe the Holocaust was a myth - he knows it's
a sure way of sending the US public into their usual "protect Israel no matter what" tizzy. The quicker he gets the US to invade,
the quicker the world is rid of the biggest threat to world peace - the current United States. It's an obvious trap and the US
public eats it up (just like they eat anything that's pumped through their TV set). I'm sorry, but try to make the case that this
case is any more different than the run up to Iraq.

Third: The only people who are saying that Iran is close to getting nukes are the EXACT same people who brought you the last war.
It's just shamefull and mind boggling how many DU'ers are buying this "Iran is a threat". Simply depressing.

Fourth: If ANY country, save Russia and China, attacked the US w/ anything remotely nuclear, it would be the most laughable case of instant
suicide known to man. The entire middle east would be turned into green glass w/in a half an hour.

Fith: If there really was a real weapons program, they would be able to produce less than 10 caveman warheads in the next 5-10 years.
Pea shooters compared to the massive, advanced nuclear program held by Israel. Not even mentioning the US.

Sixth: If nuclear weapons was really the case here, give me one good reason we haven't done one damn thing about North Korea?
Pretty much the ultimate proof that the the case against Iran is about other reasons. Try the Iranian Oil Bourse for one.


About this time next year, when I've lost my job, 30 pounds and am pushing my wheelbarrow full of dollar bills trying to buy a loaf of bread, I will definitely be thanking each and every Joe American that is buying into this Iran insanity and is not doing anything about it.

[Ufomammut]

17. Wow, well put!

[Solo_in_MD]

37. You need to separate historical Persia/Iran from its current Muslim rulers

Islam has a history of "by fire and sword" and a demonstrated willingness to use suicidal tactics. That said, I think they would go after Israel first.

[Bridget Burke]

85. How many of our 20th century wars were begun by Islam?

And how many were begun by "Christian" nations?

[obxhead]

80. That my friend needs to become an LTTE.....

to the NYT or WaPo.

[george_hurley]

13. **AT LEAST IT'S A TRY SIGN THESE PETITIONS:**

Hello,

For the past year, the growing tensions mounting between the US, Israel, and Iran are reaching a point where military action against Iran is w/in months of becoming reality. The repercussions are terrifying as such military action could involve countries such as China and Russia as they share massive energy/economic interests w/ Iran. The most likely scenario we would face would be the collapse of the US economy as the combination of a massive rise in oil prices and a run on the US dollar would surely be the weapon many countries would use to fight back against a preemptive US or Israeli strike.

For a collection of articles and resources on this subject you can visit this link: http://reseaudesign.com/research/iran/iran_summery.html

I'm starting up a petition which I will be sending out to as many members of Congress as possible. I'm asking for help to get this signed by as many people, possible in the next month. Send it to as many people you can.

http://www.petitiononline.com/n0war1rn/



Also, here is another petition you can sign from another group:
http://stopwaroniran.org/statement.shtml




Thanks for your time

[Disturbed]

21. Iranian Oil Bourse

"The terrorists want to control the oil. Our way of life will be at risk". George W. Bush (Nov. 2005)

[george_hurley]

18. And - sorry if my last post was a bit hostile

It's that I'm practically scared shitless of the outcome of this situation and I'm just so appalled at how everyone's seems to be eating up this Iran is going to get us threat.

We've already been through this EXACT SAME SHIT. And this time, if it goes through, that's curtains for the life as we all know it.

[Ufomammut]

24. It's like watching a death sentence unfolding before your eyes

And the people could alter the fateful choice if they wanted to ...but they're so propagandized and secure in denial, they choose not to heed warnings. "I'll never be in a car wreck. I'll never get cancer. It'll always be someone else. It'll always be the loaves and the fishes. There's always more time, always another tomorrow. It can't happen here." Plenty of that sad tune over the last five years, but more people are finally waking up. Still, so much uncertainty...and yeah, nuclear war, germ warfare, doesn't get any more dreadful than that.

[pitohui]

22. we could defeat iran w. our nuclear weapons

clearly if we insisted on handicapping ourselves and not responding in kind, we could not defeat the army of iran, we couldn't even defeat the badly equipped army of iraq, come to think of it, we have not even defeated the ludicrously equipped army of afghanistan

if we are attacked by nuclear weapons, we would have no choice but to respond in kind

however i think it's a silly question, neither country has anything to gain from a nuclear exchange

[bluerum]

28. What a BS question - the point is to stop them BEFORE they

do something crazy like that. Give them a reason NOT to want to kill us all.

Saber rattling and public threats and insults are not going give Iran the warm fuzzies.

Neither are leading questions about antagonistic scenarios that plant fear and doubt on both sides.

No one wins in war.

:thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:

[Ufomammut]

35. "They" do something crazy?

You're completely missing the point: to suggest that if they had them they'd use them makes zero sense outside of pro NWO propaganda. Much more likely that our government would stage an incident and in turn place the blame on "Iranian terrorists" in order to justify further pre-emptive aggression.

[Junkdrawer]

40. Not necessarily "our government", how about...

a bunch of desperate, power-mad fools who have friends in Saudi Arabia who know how to get information about rogue ex-Soviet arms merchants to the right guys in al Qaeda...

[bluerum]

49. I see. My point is that our government should be working WITH

the governments (maybe the UN) of other countries to provide for the welfare and well being of the citizens of all countries. To maybe reduce political and economic tensions.

If our government sets Iran up to look like an aggressor, or Iran actually performs an act of aggression is moot. The net result will be that uninformed angry men will scream for blood.

[alfredo]

29. Bush would invade Togo.

[Junkdrawer]

31. LOL

:rofl:

[Leopolds Ghost]

61. Niger would be pulverized into yellowcake. n/t

[Pavulon]

38. No need to occupy

At that point all bets are off.

A response could range from a complete nuclear annihilation to a tactical response (killing cities) and destroying food and water.

VX and Biological weapons could be used to kill or depopulate urban centers leaving infrastructure intact.

Any occupation would be under open war. Like ww2. Towns that were hostile strongholds were shelled flat.

No nation would have an interest in interfering in the process if a us city had been destroyed.

The fallout from nuclear weapons can be traced back to the reactor it was created in.

There is no comparison to the iraqi situation. Force is metered, in the scenario you outlined all options would be on the table.


Your other questions are dependent on the actions of other nations.

However I don't think Iran has any interest in the reality of a strike on the US.

[Redstone]

52. Oh, sure. Let's just kill all of them, including the children.

That's disgusting.

Redstone

[northzax]

83. but it's the fear of that

that keeps nukes on the shelf, and not on the battlefield. As soon as someone thinks that they can survive a nuclear strike, they can be tempted to use one. But no one wants to be responsible for the complete destruction of everything around them. The next country to use a nuclear weapon will vanish from the face of the earth, inhumane and insane, for certain, but then, nuclear weapons are cruel and insane to begin with, and if an inhumane and insane belief in complete destruction is what keeps them from going off, then I can live with that.

[davekriss]

42. A1. YES and NO

Given your scenario, the U.S. as a people would rise up behind whomever is President and attack Iran with all of our considerable traditional nuclear might. An attack as you describe would trigger Containment and Deterrence, the Nitze, et al., military policy that undergird U.S. strategy since WWII. Attacking us with nuclear weapons would not be considered forgivable. I say "yes" and "no" to question 1 as I don't think much would be left to occupy.

I am a pacifist, I would resist, but I acknowledge that in these circumstances my voice would be drowned out by the chorus of cries for bloody revenge.

A2. NO. Without such an event, the U.S. people would say enough is enough, pull the neocons out onto the streets of DC, and tar and feather them as they boot their butts all the way over to the Hague. Or so I dream.

A3. I don't know. But I don't think this is why were rattling sabres toward Iran today. I think, like Iraq, it solves multidimensional problems, but if forced to pick one reason out from all the rest I would think we'll attack Iran, just as we attacked Iraq, to prevent oil from being sold in Euros. The Bush administration will maintain dollar hegemony by brute force (or at least attempt to do so), that seems obvious.

[Junkdrawer]

44. Q3 is the tough one....

All evidence to date seems to point to the neo-cons having their sights on Iraq way before the 2000 election.

And I'm sure that Iran does NOT want a US puppet regime as a neighbor. What I don't understand is why the neo-cons haven't been screaming about Iranian interference from Day One of the occupation. It's almost like they were thinking "we'll get to YOU when we're ready.."

[davekriss]

45. Good point on "way before 2000"

PNAC certainly did have its sights on Iraq before 2000, and PNAC is Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Scooter Libby, Elliot Abrams, Dick Armitage, etc., -- i.e., the Bush administration sans Bush and the architects of our current fiasco. Given that Iraq did not move to price oil in Euros until after Bush was selected, it probably isn't the number one reason for that illegal and immoral invasion (at least not to Bush). More a move on a PNAC version of the Brzezinski Great Game chessboard, probably.

There is a more CT-like theory underlying current events. Bush, Cheney, and Rice are all oilmen and probably well aware of theories like Hubbert's Peak. The James A. Baker Institute at Rice University (yes, that James Baker) had an influential, detailed study out a while back about the timing and consequences of declining world oil supplies. The Bush administration is also the most reactionary in history and thus may be reacting to an understood future age of limits (as in bye-bye middle class! serf, meet your oil masters!).

Invasions of Iraq and (probably) Iran, failed past and future coups in Venezuela, even invasions of Afghanistan (remember the pipeline) may all be geo-political positioning in preparation for a (perceived) violent slide down the backward slope of Hubbert's Peak. Even current fiscal wrecklessness can be perceived in this context as what we're watching might be a circling of the wagons in preparation for the coming onslaught, the wealthy caste steeling their financial fortresses for the hard times to come.

Just speculation, of course. Feel free to substitute your own.

[Marie26]

66. Could be

Your idea does seem to tie in a lot of this Admin's actions. It could also explain why they shrug at N. Korea. And the Hubbert's Peak theory wouldn't even need to be right. We've started wars before based on speculative theories.(Hello, domino theory?) If we'd use an unproven theory to invade Southeast Asia, why wouldn't we use one to invade the Middle East? This crew is certainly deluded enough.

[Marie26]

64. How could we invade Iran?

Let's say the neocons are just itching for another war & decide to invade Iran. How could they do that? We have no troops left - Iraq & Afganistan have completely exhausted the volunteer army. W/Bush's current popularity levels, the public would not support yet another war. With no public support, Bush couldn't reinstitute the draft w/o spawning massive protests, maybe even impeachment. So how are they going to invade Iran? It just doesn't seem feasible to me right now, however much the Bush Admin. might want it.

[davekriss]

77. You're answering question two.

I agree, in the absence of a nuclear 9-11 that can be transparentlty traced back to Iran the American people will literally drag the PNAC critters out of the White House through the streets of DC where they would be tarred and feathered before being booted all the way to the Hague. Again, such is my wish.

But if a nuclear bomb did go off in NYC or Chicago, San Francisco or Los Angeles, I think the pResident would have a fairly easy time manufacturing consent for war. Bush's popularity levels would soar to the 80%+ terrortory and he would have his war. We would engage in a nuclear retalitory strike of emmense proportion against Iran, reinstate the draft (a piece of cake), and we'd see volunteering akin to what was seen in WWII after Perl Harbor.

Depending on the blood lust of the PNAC contingent in the administration, and given the dichtomy above, if we are to have war we will esperience a another terrible Perl Harbor first. Do we have a budding MIHOP here?

[Junkdrawer]

84. THAT, in fact, is my worry. Answering my questions backwards...

A3) The invasion of Iraq makes NO SENSE without a subsequent invasion of Iran.

A2) After a long, bloody, and failed Iraqi occupation, it would take a Nuclear 9-11 to motivate "The most powerful military on the planet" to invade Iran.

A1) Not without fighting and winning a conflict on the scale of WWII.

[Marie26]

89. I think that's the OP's point

Envisioning a possible MIHOP scenario for invading Iran. There's so many real things to get scared about, though, I'm not going to worry too much about a hypothetical. I'm sure the neocons are evil enough, I just don't think they're competant enough. The Bushies couldn't manage Hurricane Katrina, the Iraqi occupation, or eating a pretzel, yet they're going to pull off something this insidious & complex? Not the neocons I know & hate.

[davekriss]

94. I think the Incompetence Theory is highly overvalued (eom)

[Marie26]

95. So you think they're competant?

Or just competant enough?

[davekriss]

96. I think there are no accidents in politics...

...and that what you cite as incompetence, the Katrina response (or lack of it), represents a studied indifference to the plight of the inner-city poor. If Bush cared, Chertoff would have cared, and if Chertoff cared, lives would have been saved. It was just background noise to these men, they had other important issues to attend to (like what dissidents of the week to illegally wiretap).

Another way to illustrate this sociopathic indifference to the suffering of others: Recall, when 50 were dead after a suicide bomber blasted a Jerusalem market, Bush says says "terrible tragedy, horrible loss of life" than turns back to his golf game and says with glee to the reporters present, "now watch this swing!!".

I say the Bush Regime (Bush himself is only a cipher) is amazingly competent. They managed to steal the 2000 Presidential election; reliable VNS exit-polling, a technique used to validate elections the world over, has a mysterious computer glitch and fails; Carnahan dies suspiciously in a small plane; Bush pushes through two fat-cat tax cuts that steel the financial fortresses of his class and that tip the projected trillions of Clinton surplus into trillions of Bush deficits, a huge transfer of wealth from the many now and in the future to the fortunate few with large Bond portfolios (made more obtainable by the tax cuts); Bush managed to lie a pork package of a Medicare Drug program that serves his pharma friends very well while elderly die from the confusion and stoppage of critical drugs; the Regime managed to Diebold the Georgia elections in 2002, electing the first Republican Governer there in 135 years despite trailing by 9 points on election eve (don't even get me started on Saxby Chambliss and Max Cleland!); Paul Wellstone dies suspiciously in a small plane, as did Kennedy (ever wonder why no Republicans met a similar fate over the same period of time?); Bush pal Ken Lay is still not in jail despite the billions stolen from California energy consumers and Enron retirees; the Regime possibly orchestrated 9-11 -- whether it was Incompetence, LIHOP, or MIHOP, not one person has been even reprimanded or removed from their jobs (except the occassional whistleblower), while several "stand down" functionaries have been medalled and promoted; Usama Bin Forgotten still at large; antrax arrives at the offices of Democrats and liberal journalists, the anthrax is a known strain produced by the U.S. military yet 5 years later they're still no closer to catching the criminal (do they really want to?); the Regime births a new enemy of the day, Saddam bin Laden, mastermind behind 9-11 and in possession of some of the most dangerous weapons in the world, ready to fly basla wood model airplanes held together with bubble gum and rubber bands to spray anthrax over Kansas, false Yellow Cake, false intelligence reports, falsehood after falsehood, the whole regime in front of the cameras everyday spewing forth disinformation and lies to manufacture lukewarm support for an invasion of Iraq, even though in the summer of 2001 Condi Rice and Powell were all over TV announcing that Saddam remained crushed and weaponless and not pursuing any weapons of sophistication (I guess they just didn't get the memo); the Bush Regime rush the inspectors out, who found nothing, and bring Shock and Awe into our living rooms and a few weeks later pose Bush on a carrier with a boisterous banner announcing Mission Accomplished. Yea, despite the insurgency, the freedom fighters battling illegal occupiers of their land, the mission was accomplished, Halliburton was able to enter to build the four impregnable military garrisons, the objective of the mission, and from which they can radiate imperial power throughout the region. OK, the civil war is an annoyance to them, so they round up the usual suspects -- men, women, and children -- and torture them in order to intimidate the citizenry to accept the will of the USG and abandon all hope of liberal democratic self-determination. Torture a Abu Ghraib, at Bagram, in Afghanistan, in Ubezkistan and several countries in eastern europe, torture in Guantanamo, inflict personality breaking pain and humuliation - not to get information, our CIA/NSA know no useful information is obtainable that way, but only to serve as example to what can happen to those who resist hegemonic will; the Congress gets a little testy, write an anti-torture bill, but that's OK Bush adds a "signing statement", a tool found nowhere in the Constitution, that says the USG won't torture...except when it wants to; the Patriot Act is renewed, which defines as "terrorist" anyone who through intimidation trys to influence the agenda of our Fuhrer. It also creates the Secret Service Uniformed Division (SSUD), an SS who can arrest and detain a citizen perceived for violating even a minor city ordinance at any "Special Event" -- and just in case dissent grows too unruly, those "other programs" of the Haliburton detention center contingency can be triggered to house the 80,000+ subscribers to DU.

Now I know I've forgotten dozens of juicy tidbits, like violation of the 4 admendment against illegal search and siezure, violation of the procedures setup for the FISA courts, when engaging in illegal wiretaps of American citizens. THere's so much more. All this, just the tip of the iceberg. So what's my point: If the Bush Regime is so "incompetent", than why do they still have free reigh to continue their neo-imperial agenda around the world while building the infrastructures and idealogies to exercise increasing repression in the "homeland"? Why hasn't anyone stopped them?

I contend they are achieving against their objectives and that's why they energetically roll forward without pause. This is easy to understand when one recognizes that the Bush Regime has intentionally abandoned vast swaths of the American public and doesn't much care, as long as the noise factor can be kept within reason, what happens. Not a member of Bush's Qaeda (Base)? Not part of the thin sliver of managers and magistrates that serve that Base? Then we are cannon fodder at best; useless eaters at worst. They don't even see us as human beings when they look right past us, just means to their ends or, if not useful as an end, we are invisible to them.

Everyone worries about what will happen to America if the middle class collapses. Easy. Untold misery. But the busy global elite that own and run the large transnationals have expanding markets overseas. We're not as vital to them as we once were. They will continue to stay healthy while the rest of us decline. They jet to the latest ski resort or quail lodge while our families pick over the garbage heaps for scrap wood we can burn for heat. I tell you, that future is coming. And not too far down the road.

[davekriss]

93. If a nuclear bomb went off in an American city...

...and it could be tied back to Iran (remember, this is the hypothetical setup by the OP), then I think the line of volunteers at yer local recruiting station would wrap around a couple of city blocks. I apply the ol' 20-60-20 rule: 20% of us would pause, think things through, and conclude that war is not the answer and seek a peaceful path forward; another 20% cry for war and death and destruction all the time as they have the moral discernment of a schoolyard bully; the other 60% are fence-sitters, passively watching as others lead -- until events of such enormity as 9-11 or the hypothetical nuclear blast, then most of these would rally around the bloodsoaked flag and devolve into bullies themselves. I claim, given a new Pearl Harbor (ahem), the Regime could easily manufacture more than consent for war, it could achieve wild enthusiasm for it.

The risk, or worry, has nothing to do with Iran, it has to do with whether or not this administration would take on the risk of a false flag attack that could dwarf 9-11. I have grown cynical, I now include all in the possible. And so far there have been zero costs to the Regime for any of its miscalculations. (Libby? Expect a stall through 2008 and then a pardon. Some bite, huh?) I envision Bush saying to Darth Cheney, "but what about the American public?", to which Cheney answers with the guttural accent of a John Gotti, "F*ck 'em, what can they do about it?", and off to war we go.

Because it may not matter anymore what votes are cast, just who counts them, I don't think the Bush Regime cares that a percentage of us see through the cold, class-serving actions it takes. Katrina was literally background noise against the greed-rush of their neo-imperial agenda. Then there's Plame, Yellow Cake, 16 words, torture and signing statements, a broken FISA and the NSA wiretaps, dissembling over WMD, maybe even a LIHOPed or MIHOPed 9-11. Impeachment? HA! The only way Bush will be removed before 2008 is if he seriously erodes the balance sheet of the monied classes. He could shoot a friend in the face and get away with it, to him our opinion simply does not matter.

Meanwhile he has been tenaciously putting in the means to exercise repressive control (our "unitary executive"), be it during his tenure or for the next Republicrat steward of elite (global) interest. Think free speech zones were bad? Try protesting during a run-up to an Iranian War, given the already-written-in-to-law Secret Services Uniform Division, who can arrest and detain a citizen they perceive violating a minor city ordinance at any "significant event". Recall the contingency of the Halliburton detention center contract, hundreds of millions just to be ready to provide concentration camps for "other programs" should dissent grow unruly. "Terrorism," note, is now defined as any attempt to effect by intimidation the political agenda of our Fuhrur. So you tell me, are we all Cindy Sheehans now? Each to be carted out to waiting police cars for wearing the wrong colored shirts?

On this, I am with Hunter Thompson when he warned, Big Dark Coming Soon.

There. I've vented. Despite the pessimism (well-earned, I think), I cling to hope. Before the election I warned all who would listen in my circles that 2004 would be a watershed year. All depended on its outcome. I'm forced to say 2006 will be a watershed year, all depends on the outcome. Maybe I'll be proved silly, there will be Democratic sweeps all over the place and we at least regain the House. It will take that much to lift my gloom and pessimism. But I tell you now if nothing changes you'll see me posting (or shouting from my Haliburton detention center cell) that 2008 will be a watershed year! It's always darkest before the dawn.

[name not needed]

43. At that point, Iran would just get nuked into non-existance.

[mmonk]

46. I don't like to deal in hypotheticals

especially the ones where there are terrorists nuking a city from a weapon they got from Iran. It's such a full of it concept.

[tjwash]

47. Perhaps you could tell us what the point you are trying to make is?

Are you trying to deal with possible scenarios that may be invoked to justify an invasion of Iran? Or are you trying to create a suspicion for a Nuclear "MIHOP" on US soil? Because the questions themselves are easily answered, I just want to know what lies behind them.

Assume that it was "proved" that al Qaeda did it with a nuke they obtained from Iran.

It is not possible to for Al-Qaeda to "obtain a nuke from Iran". Not now, not even in five years. It is pretty widely accepted by all the experts that Iran is at least 10 years away from a nuclear bomb. Here ia the world nuclear weapon count as it stands:

United States
10,455

Russia
8,400

China
400

France
350

Israel
250

United Kingdom
200

India
65

Pakistan
40

North Korea
8

TOTAL
20,168

If Al-Qaeda obtained any nukes, my bet would be on the Russian black market selling one to them.


Could the US defeat and occupy Iran without such an event taking place?
No, but as you can see from the above answer, that is not going to happen anyway. Also take into consideration that China, and Russia have very large oil deals with Iran, as well as several other treaties (going into all of this could constitute a thread of its own), and what that would mean to any possible invasion.

Can the US maintain its occupation of Iraq without defeating Iran?

No, see the above two responses.

[Redstone]

48. The FUCK is wrong with you people who say "We'd nuke their cities,

and that would be an appropriate retaliation."

What is wrong with you?

Because their government killed innocent Americans, that would make it OK for us to kill innocent Iranians? So we murder their children because of something their government did?

I am absolutely appalled to hear this coming from DUers. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Two wrongs, people, have NEVER made a right!

Redstone

[savemefromdumbya]

51. an besides you would never know who really 'did it'

I'm sure this Bush admin are chomping st the bit to offload their nuklar arsenal on some poor scapegoat

[Redstone]

54. Ex-fucking-actly. Saying we should retaliate by killing the people who

DIDN'T do it (i.e. the average Iranian on the street and his wife and children) is exactly the fucking same as we did with Iraq: Kill people who did nothing to hurt us.

Glad to see that someone here gets it.

Redstone

[savemefromdumbya]

57. since the enemy is within the gates

and 9/11 was an inside job. I don't recollect Iraq or Iran attacking the United States?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

69. Oddly enough, no Iraqis or Afghans were among the hijackers....

...and certainly no Iranians.

So who gets attacked by the NeoCon Junta? Afghanistan and Iraq. Who's next? Iran.

[savemefromdumbya]

76. I often wonder

if there were any hijackers?

[bluerum]

53. Right. I don't think Iran has any real interest in nuking anyone. But

they do have the right to want to be able to defend themselves.

All this talk about Iran nuking the US is fear mongering designed to garner support for an aggressive middle eastern posture by the US. This is insane.

If we had any real interest in protecting Americans we would be working through the UN and strengthening our diplomatic efforts. Marching troops up to someones national borders is generally interpreted as an act of aggression. And I don't see any Iranian troops in Canada or Mexico.

[Redstone]

56. And their Navy is not likely to be appearing off our coasts

any time soon, either.

Glad to see that you get it. I was getting very disgusted at some of the posts here.

Redstone

[entanglement]

98. Thank you, you are not alone

:hug:

I'm absolutely appalled :puke: at some of the responses. When I read threads like this one I feel principled leftists are all but extinct.

[Marie26]

58. Sure

First, the assumption that this question starts out with is not possible. Iran is not allied w/Al-Queda. Although Iran has ties to terrorism, those ties are with different groups (Hezbollah, etc.) So it's extremely unlikely, to me, that Iran would give weapons to Al-Queda. Secondly, Iran is at least 5-10 years away from ever developing a nuclear weapon. So, the assumption of this question is false, & not possible at this point. If it was "proved" tomorrow that Iran had sold nukes to Al-Queda, that evidence would have to be false, you know?

If we did invade Iran, I think it's pretty clear that we'd win (assuming there's a draft). Iran's military is stuck in the 1970's because of sanctions, & we're the most powerful military in the world. Actual occupation would be a bigger problem. I guess the success of an invasion mostly depends on the US's ability to re-start the draft. So, a terrorist attack would be a good reason to draft people; w/o an attack, there'd be a lot of popular resistance. But they don't need an attack to defeat Iran, just any event that spurs enough public support for a draft & invasion. And, really, if Iran did ever launch a nuclear attack, I don't think we'd be talking about invasions. The US would launch so many nuclear weapons at Iran that there wouldn't be much left to invade. It's suicide for Iran; that's why they won't do it.

On the third question, I really don't see how defeating Iran would help the Iraqi occupation. Yeah, Iran is influencing events in Iraq & supporting the Shiites. So I guess it creates some instability in that way. But that will always be the case. You can't erase the ethnic identities of countries just by taking them over. The Iraqi Shiites will always be aligning w/the Iranian Shiites, even if we install a perfect democracy in both countries. So what would occupying Iran solve? All in all, the reasons for invading Iran are pretty weak, which is why they'll have a really hard time making a case.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

68. The U.S. is still the most powerful nation in the world, both militarily &

economically.

So, with SUFFICIENT MOTIVATION any of the world powers, individually, could be defeated by the U.S., and, I think, successfully occupied, certainly a country like Iran. Whether using nuclear weapons or not.

But the motivation is the key. There is no national will to succeed in Iraq, aside from that of the Republicans not wishing to be the authors of an embarrassing military failure than can be laid at their feet. There is no request or demand for sacrifice of any kind among Americans, no taxation to fund war, no call for increased military enlistment, energy conservation... nothing. Because it is implicitly acknowledged by the Republican authors of this war in Iraq that legitimate reasons for it do not exist that would lead any but the smallest, most gullible portion of America to support such a demand.

So the only demands made are on those poor souls who happen to have been in the military under shrubco's watch.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

72. Define "successfully occupied". Is that anything like what....

...we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

73. Sufficient motivation is not there. Hence no draft, no general call for

military service, no economic support for the war. That is why we are doomed to fail there, Iraq especially.

[killbotfactory]

71. Yes

Iran would be turned into glass. They would be the biggest idiots on earth to use nukes or supply nukes to terrorists.

I doubt we would even wait for confirmation that any terrorists got their nukes from iran.

[Marie26]

78. You're right about that

Just posting this cause I think it's relevant to the discussion:

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.

"Deep Background" - American Conservative http://www.amconmag.com/2005_08_01/article3.html

If this article is right, any terrorist attack within the US will be seen as sufficient reason to attack Iran. We don't even need to prove that Iran was responsible for the attack.

[harpo]

81. this is bs...this whole thing starts with Assume

[Texacrat]

82. The US could defeat Iran regardless

Now I don't think the US could occupy Iran regardless and here's why.

1. A preemptive war will garner the same result in Iran as it did in Iraq.

2. I doubt anyone would believe us if there were a real attack. Maybe in a Clinton or even McCain administration, but not this one.

[Bridget Burke]

86. A nuked US city would be good for the Bushies....

Of course, the nuke could be blamed on al Qaeda & its Iranian allies--by the same people who were sure that Saddam was hiding WMD. And Bush would once again be a "popular wartime leader."

Smartest move since letting 09/11 happen! If the result were endless, bloody war & further economic ruin here--the rich would never suffer.

[Ufomammut]

87. BIG gamble

I'm sure there are domestic enemies within our gov who are debating how/when to stage the next psyop, including this very scenerio - afterall, the proposition to invade Iran w/nukes is, according to Cheney, contigent on another "terror" attack here.

Logically, unlike the crimes of 9/11, they'd never be able to sell or justify the idea with the public, or world, if the "terror" attack here were significantly less than what catastrophe would be incurred if a nuclear weapon were detinated over a major US city. Do the math.

If it actually gets that crazy, and although there are plenty of signs that they perhaps are considering the "unthinkable," it's a major gamble and they know it. Was Katrina "allowed" as a "dry run?"

At this point though, I don't think the admin, nor the entire gov in general, has enough faithful backing by any substantial percentage of our populace to literally survive such a mess. Confidence in all levels of government is at an all time low. And there simply aren't enough government people, military, police, etc, to even begin dealing with what would likely be a massive uprising against them after a nuke takes out a city.

When faced with such grim consequences, and people instinctively knowing that this is IT, I think many, even those who have been "sitting on the fence," will demand that these elitist thugs be subject to mob justice. How many police officers and military personnel would be willing to lethally turn on their fellow citizens? To protect wealthy mass murderers? I mean, the corporate pirates have no problem selling this country out bit by bit, but unless there are more comprhensive, sinister plans in the offing for complete totalitarianism, I can't see enough crazies in power truly wanting to open this apocalyptic Pandora's box. Who knows? Maybe most people would instead buckle like a belt out of fear, and the final stake will be driven into the heart of our illusory representative form of government.

[Marie26]

91. I don't think so.

Most people are pretty disgusted w/this crew as is. If they tried something like that, it would be the end of them. Can I say, how awful it is that we even have to consider this?

[rpgamerd00d]

88. Iran would become the worlds biggest source of glass. Period.

Yes, we'd nuke them. We'd nuke every military base and supposed enrichment site in Iran. We would not care about killing civilians. That is the entire point of a nuclear weapon - its to say "We'll just kill everyone even innocents, so don't fuck with us, period." You don't deserve to be President of the USA if you are unwilling to nuke millions of innocent civilians. You have to be willing to do it, so that you never have to do it. Because if you are unwilling to do it, you will be put in a position where you have to do it. That is why its called a Deterrant.

[Swamp Rat]

97. How does one occupy the new, humongous Gulf of Iran?