If Bush nukes the Moon..(Why the Iran thing is crap)

[Pavulon]

This nuke Iran thing is spiraling away from reality at near light speed.

A few facts:

1) The president RELEASES the nuclear arsenal to the Joint Chiefs. The military decides on the use of nuclear weapons. The United States has not used nuclear weapons in a conflict in 60 years. Those were the 2nd and 3rd nuclear bombs ever created by man.

2) A quick search of the US NPR (Nuclear Posture Review) outlines the criteria of the US using nuclear weapons. Attacking Iran under this situation does not meet the conditions.


3) Iran does not warrant the use of nuclear weapons from a strategic point. The US has the capability and manpower to run a full open war in Iran without the use of Nukes. The military is built around the concept of fighting a major two front war. The entire US military is not engaged in Iraq. I have friends stationed with active duty units in asia and europe. They have not been to Iraq and their units have no plans for deployment there. The US naval fleet has a moderate presence in the gulf. The majority of the pacific fleet is not in the area.

4) The pieces are not in place. If you are going to start an open war you put the parts in place to win. There is no staging of military resources to support the aftermath of this FICTIONAL attack. It took time to build up for Iraq, the world could see the machine in motion. The machine is not moving in that direction.

5) Source & Timing. The source is not listed, it comes from a person who is the polar opposite of rupert murdoch. This is "leaking" days after Iran's show of force.

Take a minute to thing rationally about this and you will see it is a JOKE.

[saltpoint]

1. I can almost see Dubya's press conference as he defends his decision to

bomb the moon.

"We bombed the moon because the moon hates freedom." Etc.

[Rocknrule]

41. Like in Austin Powers 2

"Would you miss it?"

[saltpoint]

42. : )

[aden_nak]

43. We're fighting the mooninites there so we don't have to fight 'em here.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. All these things may be entirely true. But you fail to mention that

Bush is barking mad; the fact that something is stupid, insane or illegal doesn't matter. He'll do it anyway if (a) he thinks God told him to; (b) he thinks there's money to be made; (c) it makes him feel bigger, more powerful and more important than everybody else, especially Poppy; or (d) he feels like it.

[Jamnt]

4. Agreed..

The asshat is a fucking religious rightous insane motherfucker. The man needs to be put in JAIL to make up to the world for what he's done.

[Pavulon]

8. Hence the NCA

The president alone can not "nuke" some nation. It takes involvement by many people.
Including the military.

Would he like to maybe, in the real world, the pieces are not in place for a middle east war.

[DBoon]

27. Nixon was barking mad too

but the military had the sense not to do anything Nixon ordered without someone else corroborating the order.

[Bushwick Bill]

40. Solid article from Stan Goff.

BOMBING IRAN?

DON’T COUNT ON IT

UNLESS THE NEOCONS EXCEED THEIR KNOWN CAPACITY FOR STUPIDITY

by
Stan Goff
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012706_bombing_iran.shtml

[Squatch]

3. I honestly think that royal asshole, Bush, is

trying to destroy the world.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Squatch]

37. What did I miss?

:shrug:

Go away for an hour, come back, and there's a deleted message to my reply.

[Pavulon]

38. I missed it...(NT)

[bullimiami]

5. truly, insanity that once would be seen as a joke, now does not.

[baldguy]

6. Since when has Bush followed any accepted procedures?

[Pavulon]

10. You have bore sighted

on bush. Bush can not actuate the process. It takes others. The JCs have no interest in something this stupid.

The reality is that there is no way this is workable right now.

[radwriter0555]

23. That's correct. It would take a REAL attack from iran to put all the

actions into effect needed to launch an attack on iran.

And it isn't going to happen.

[TAPat]

9. In a sane US with a sane "leader"

it would be a joke...
Alas, we have neither. :(

[boobooday]

11. So, we can think rationally all day long

But in the end, we have to ask: does Bush think rationally?

[Pavulon]

13. Who Knows

But the process to launch a nuclear strike is not something he can do alone.

Even if you just took the economic result of this, there is no way that it is workable.

Money has been the driving force behind this administration. This act would fuck that into cocked hat.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

20. But the civilians control the military. Don't forget what happened to

the military people who didn't think the Iraq invasion was a good idea -- they were sacked, like Gen. Shinseki. If Bush really wants to nuke Iran it's likely that Cheney and Rumsfeld were instigators, like they were for Iraq. So Rummy finds enough loony military people who'll go along with the plan -- and there are some high-ranking loons, like Boykin and Miller, who'd be all for it -- and dumps the ones who don't. Promote a wack job like Boykin to head of the JCS, et voila: WWIII.

Of course it's unworkable and insane; that's beside the point. So was Iraq. Don't you remember? Our soldiers were going to be greeted as liberators and showered with rose petals, and Iraqi oil was going to pay for the whole thing. They come up with these crazy-ass schemes that they've convinced themselves will save the world and make money, too. I can easily imagine these maniacs convincing themselves that nuking Iran would be a good way to bring peace and oil revenues to the middle east.

[boobooday]

22. Why is that? His friends profit from destruction

But more importantly, from its aftermath, yes?

[Richard D]

12. What would happen . . .

. . . if * gave the orders to bomb Iran and the Joint Chiefs refused? Would we ever know? Would that be considered a coup?

[Pavulon]

14. Don't know

I thing the military would carry out orders to attack iran ( or most any nation) conventionally. Even cause radiological disasters by bombing military reactors.

I do not thing they would use nukes to do it. No need, to much political blowback. Overkill.

[darkmaestro019]

15. Point by point WTF only nicely stated, I hope

1) The president RELEASES the nuclear arsenal to the Joint Chiefs. The military decides on the use of nuclear weapons. The United States has not used nuclear weapons in a conflict in 60 years. Those were the 2nd and 3rd nuclear bombs ever created by man.

The President does what he wants, when he wants. New meme: "unitary executive privilege" remember? If he tells the military to nuke Iran, that's what they'll do.

We haven't used them in 60 years, true. Not relevant. We haven't had a crazy fuck in the Whitehaus who was quite this Armageddon-oriented until now.

2) A quick search of the US NPR (Nuclear Posture Review) outlines the criteria of the US using nuclear weapons. Attacking Iran under this situation does not meet the conditions.

We had no business invading Iraq, either, yet look where we are now.

3) Iran does not warrant the use of nuclear weapons from a strategic point. The US has the capability and manpower to run a full open war in Iran without the use of Nukes. The military is built around the concept of fighting a major two front war. The entire US military is not engaged in Iraq. I have friends stationed with active duty units in asia and europe. They have not been to Iraq and their units have no plans for deployment there. The US naval fleet has a moderate presence in the gulf. The majority of the pacific fleet is not in the area.

Uh...yyyeah. Seems to be about like 2) and I'm gonna have to go with the same reply. You're right, it doesn't make sense to nuke OR invade or anything else, with what's left of our military sprinkled through Iraq and Afghanistan. When has logic or prudence mattered to Bush before?

4) The pieces are not in place. If you are going to start an open war you put the parts in place to win. There is no staging of military resources to support the aftermath of this FICTIONAL attack. It took time to build up for Iraq, the world could see the machine in motion. The machine is not moving in that direction.

You mean like the resources we've got set up for the aftermath of Iraq's invasion, which we were sure would be a cakewalk? Or the resources we had for the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? Are you saying "It'll suck after we get through bombing so we're not gonna bomb." ?

What do you think the murmurings about Iran are if not the machine you are waiting to see in motion?

We KNOW it won't be something we can win--that's why we're all, like, "Dude! Nuking Iran is a terrible idea!" Doesn't matter to Bush. He wants a legacy as, uh, some nice way to say warmonger.

5) Source & Timing. The source is not listed, it comes from a person who is the polar opposite of rupert murdoch. This is "leaking" days after Iran's show of force.

Lots of articles come from anonymous sources. People who tell stories like this one about Bushie are not going to give out business cards afterward. And because this guy is the OPPOSITE of the fascist who brings us Faux News you think that makes him LESS trustworthy?

Is your entire post meant to be sarcastic? Am I utterly missing your point due to lack of sleep? What in the world are you talking about?

Incidentally, I want nothing more in all the wide world for you to be right that we are NOT going to do this. I mean that. I promise.



Peace : )

[Pavulon]

25. I see your points but,

1) The president gives orders. He does not have the ability to personally carry out the act. I don't sit on the JC but believe that this order would not be carried out.

2) Iraq is wrong but was and is funded by the congress. Who has continued to support the price of the war, on majorities that exceed party lines.

3) Bush is a CEO, he may not be smart but not everyone in the entire administration is an idiot. I do not believe the US will start a war without the equipment in place to win.

4) The machine is people and resources. When the pacific fleet sails for the area and we begin staging divisions from asia and europe for an invasion then this is real.

This does not rule out a limited conventional strike by the US or Israel. (Although it should)

5) My comment is about the source. It is published for reaction, to get attention, and for possible political reasons.

That does not make it true ( an accurate reflection of the entire situation).

They could publish plans that the us has war plans involving nuclear weapons for russia, turkey, or israel. It would be a true statement. Does it mean we are putting in motion a plan, no.

This is just my opinion. I an not an intelligence analyst.

[DBoon]

28. So a conventional strike is possible or likely

and given the rumors about a nuclear strike, we would breathe a sigh of relief that no nukes were used?

So this might be a set-up to make the second-worst option sound reasonable?

[darkmaestro019]

34. Ugh. Hadn't thought of that. (slams lid back on can of worms)

That's the same dodge on the gas prices--jack them up, let us stew, then drop them a LITTLE but still higher so we're grateful. Good point. Ugly thought, but good point.

[darkmaestro019]

33. Same here--opinion, not an analyst, lol........

I think I get you--basically you're saying he HAS to have people that will follow his crazy-ass orders, and that you're pretty sure this is enough straw for any number of camels to topple.

And I think see your point now about the source, in the sense perhaps of methods being a little similar (between Hersh and Murdoch) but on opposite sides of the aisle.

Again, I really really, deeply hope you are right. : )

[C_U_L8R]

16. yeah but dontcha know EVERYTHING changed after 9-11 ???

woof woof barking mad indeed

[earthside]

17. Destroyed Your Own Argument

To quote:

"Take a minute to thing rationally about this and you will see it is a JOKE."

Ah, there it is. "... thin(k) rationally"

Since when have the Bushites done that?

They will use tactical nuclear weapons if they want to. Period.

Rightwingers from Curtis Lemay to Gen. Boykin have always wanted nukes to be catagorized as just like conventional weapons, just more powerful. Bush would love to be remembered as the first president since Truman to use an atomic bomb to fight a war. These Strangelove-types also believe that using even a small, 'bunker buster' nuclear weapon will scare the whole world into submission to American will.

And, you see, with nukes, you don't have to get ALL the pieces in place, use ten 'deep penetrating' tactical nuclear bombs and the war is over! Abracadabra!

The Bushites and radical Republicans are becoming increasingly desperate ... their political fortunes are crumbling. It is going to take a major, dramatic act to turn their prospects around in 2006. Look for an Iran-Iraq cross border skirmish, or a "defector" claming that Iran has a new, deadly biological weapon, then Bush will order an emergency, preemptive strike on Iran -- no time to go to Congress or the UN.

Saving their own political butts is as "rational" as these hooligans and thugs get.

And, THAT is not a joke.

[darkmaestro019]

18. I shoulda said that. Woulda been faster. : ) nt

[Pavulon]

32. I do not agree

with that. Well parts of it. Yes bush is an idiot.

However there is no way a limited nuclear strike will result in anything other than a war with Iran.

A bunker buster is a minor player. To my knowledge there is no bomb in the arsenal that can do this without creating a massive radiological mess. the b61mk11 is not a bunker buster.

The real nuclear force is designed to kill a nation. If a nuclear war is started that is the outcome.

Nuclear weapons use would still require forces to CONTAIN the shitstorm released by the act.

Those parts are not there.

They do not control the weapons. It is not a straight line to use.

Not only is it unnecessary to use them, but complicates the issue and makes justification more difficult.

The FACT that the same result could be gained without nukes makes their use less probable.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. From the Nuclear Posture Review

U.S. military forces themselves, including nuclear forces will now be used to "dissuade adversaries from undertaking military programs or operations that could threaten U.S. interests or those of allies and friends."
...
Composed of both non-nuclear systems and nuclear weapons, the strike element of the New Triad can provide greater flexibility in the design and conduct of military campaigns to defeat opponents decisively. Non-nuclear strike capabilities may be particularly useful to limit collateral damage and conflict escalation. Nuclear weapons could be employed against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack, (for example, deep underground bunkers or bio-weapon facilities).

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/npr.htm

[radwriter0555]

21. I completely agree... couldn't have said it anywhere nearly as well as you

did.... thanks!

[Festivito]

24. Shooting for the moon, why this Iran thing is NOT crap.

ON EDIT: Bolded some words.
Israel's Sharon will be declared incapacitated by Tuesday. It's just a matter of time until Israel renews its need to defend itself from its Iranian threat and launch a preemptive strike.

1. Hitting Iran with NEEDED nukes opens a precedent for allowing future conventional use of nuclear weapons, and Bush just last week restarted the old, but lucrative, nuke industry for his buddies' profits.

2. Since when does Bush show concern for regulations/conditions.

3. Bunker busters. They'll argue: it's needed. The MSM will report it according the CON framing.

4. Israel/US/planes/bombs/reconnaissance Not a lot of personnel required.

5. Tuesday, Israel works on getting a new government.

In Washington times, to sigh, young moon, a new, clear warrant he, me sigh Ahhh!

[Pavulon]

29. Nuclear development

has never stopped.

[Festivito]

44. It slowed greatly. We reduced stockpiles. True, we upgraded some.

But, that slowdown caused my nuclear engineering buddies to become programmers.

[Orsino]

26. Yeah? The Constitution also says that Congress declares war.

And Iraq didn't warrant an invasion, either. America doesn't have troops to spare for an Iran invasion, so long as it's committed to the occupation of Iraq (as you note, the pieces are not in place). If this president decides to nuke, his Pentagon will probably go along with it. If he takes action against Iran right now, it can only be with air strikes and small troop deployments.

Your facts are accurate, but aren't very relevant to the agenda of an imperial president. Bush isn't running for reelection, and Congress has approved, tacitly or otherwise, nearly every one of his actions so far. If he wants a bigger war in the Middle East, and his corporate contituency like the idea, he'll get it--whether or not nukes are actually employed.

[Pavulon]

30. They did, in effect

by paying for it.

[Individualist]

31. PNAC is no joke.

n/t

[Ms. Clio]

35. According to the article, there is indeed friction with the JCS

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

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it “a juggernaut that has to be stopped.” He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. “There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries,” the adviser told me. “This goes to high levels.” The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. “The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks,” the adviser said. “And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.”

The adviser added, however, that the idea of using tactical nuclear weapons in such situations has gained support from the Defense Science Board, an advisory panel whose members are selected by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. “They’re telling the Pentagon that we can build the B61 with more blast and less radiation,” he said.

The chairman of the Defense Science Board is William Schneider, Jr., an Under-Secretary of State in the Reagan Administration. In January, 2001, as President Bush prepared to take office, Schneider served on an ad-hoc panel on nuclear forces sponsored by the National Institute for Public Policy, a conservative think tank. The panel’s report recommended treating tactical nuclear weapons as an essential part of the U.S. arsenal and noted their suitability “for those occasions when the certain and prompt destruction of high priority targets is essential and beyond the promise of conventional weapons.” Several signers of the report are now prominent members of the Bush Administration, including Stephen Hadley, the national-security adviser; Stephen Cambone, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; and Robert Joseph, the Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.

[LSK]

36. you forgot to mention that the Oil Bourse is delayed

It did not go live on March 20 and is greatly delayed.

[Minnesota Libra]

39. Here is another take on you five discussion points................

........

1) The Pres is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF he can order what he wants, when he wants. The Joint Chiefs follow orders so if idiot boy wants :nuke: dropped he tells the Joint Chiefs and they do it.

2) Since when has idiot boy followed any rules?:think: So who in their right mind would expect him or "shoot em in the face" Cheney to start now?

3) "....The military is built around the concept of fighting a major two front war...." Hello!!! Did you forget about Afghanistan and Iraq?? Let's hope idiot boy doesn't make it a three or four front war.

4) What, you think idiot boy, "shoot em in the face" Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, etc have been setting on their hands worrying about bringing our young people home all this time?? There have been rumblings in the news for quite some time about all this planning but now the rumblings are wider spread and louder.

5) The sources for these articles/claims have been getting much wider spread so no one source need be relied on.

NO, I for one DO NOT think the claims of a war with Iraq is idle talk or a joke.

I TRULY DO HOPE that I'm proved completely wrong and if I am eventually proved wrong I'll be happy to admit that, for once, idiot boy showed he had a sliver of a brain left. I'm not holding my breath waiting though.

[Pavulon]

45. NO

The military can refuse to follow an illegal order. The president RELEASES authority to the military. The military is not just going to start throwing nukes around.

As I said, the pieces needed to fight a regional war are not in place.

The new yorker is enjoyable to read but does present ideas with a slant. It is the ONLY media source claiming the us is planning to use nuclear weapons.

Afghanistan is not a front. Ford is making cars, not tanks. On a real scale the military is not on a true war footing. Of 650k combined ground forces around 200 are in the gulf.

In the real world this problem with Iran will be solved by europe. The french have already threatened nuclear force against Iran.

This is loud mouth diplomacy, on both sides. IMHO