Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Do YOU think Iran is developing nuclear weapons?

Willravel · 05-06-2006, 07:17 AM

Steely, I've had Godwin shouted at me before, so don't hold back. The problem is that we have two Godwin-worthy countries at either end of this: Iran and the US. As much as I don't trust the word of the Iranian government - and I honestly don't trust them - I also don't trust the word of the US agencies that are suggesting that Iran is developing nukes. Back in October of 2005, Jorge Hirsch (New Yorker) wrote that "The strategic decision by the United States to nuke Iran was probably made long ago." Since then more and more evidence has come forward about there being a real possibility of the US using nuclear weapons on a country to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons.

Look at the facts:
-the US pursuit over several years to get an IAEA resolution against Iran, no matter how weak, which it finally achieved in September 2005. It didn't make any sense as a diplomatic move if the goal was to exert pressure on Iran, in view of the clear dissent by Russia and China. It had two purposes: one was to bring the issue eventually to the UN Security Council, even knowing that Russia and China would veto any action against Iran, so that, just as in the case of Iraq, the US could argue that other countries share its concern but not the resolve to act. But more importantly, the US issued a commitment to the UN in 1995 that it wouldn't use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries signatories of the NPT, which however explicitly excluded countries that are in "non-compliance" with the NPT. So by securing the IAEA resolution of September 2005 of Iran's "non-compliance" the US achieved that it can now use nuclear weapons against Iran "legally", i.e. without violating its 1995 commitment. This explains why it was pushing for it so adamantly.
-the US has radically changed its nuclear weapons policies since 2001 to erase the sharp line that traditionally existed between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons. It now "integrates" both types of weapons in its military strategy, and envisions the use of nuclear weapons against underground facilities, preemptively against countries "intending" to use WMD's against US forces, and "for rapid and favorable war termination on US terms". Several scenarios like that, that apply specifically to the Iran scenario, were made public in 2005 in the Pentagon draft document "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations", to prepare the country for what was being planned.
-the administration has been pushing Congress every year to fund new nuclear weapons, "more usable" nuclear weapons, and bunker busting nuclear weapons, to prepare the public mind for the attack. Many are under the mistaken impression that Congress has resisted these efforts, however they forget or don't know that the B61-11, a bunker-buster that can be used against Iranian underground facilities, is in the US arsenal since 2001. Its yield (power) is classified but is likely to include very low yield, to cause "reduced collateral damage" and thus be more "acceptable".
-the administration is stacked with nuclear weapons experts that are hawks and participated in the formulation of the new nuclear weapons policies: National Security advisor (Hadley), deputy national security advisor (Crouch II), undersecretary of defense for intelligence (Cambone), chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Science Board (Schneider), undersecretary of state for arms control and international security (Joseph) and ambassador to the UN (Bolton). Bolton was appointed in the face of very strong bipartisan opposition. None of these positions require specific nuclear weapons expertise, however these "nuclear warriors" are in high positions for a reason: to advise President Bush to use nuclear weapons. And let's not forget Cheney, who was the architect of new nuclear weapons policies back in 1992 to target non-nuclear-weapon countries, and Rumsfeld who advocates a smaller high tech military where nuclear weapons play an essential role.

To me it is the worst kind of insane to establish the credibility of the US nuclear deterrent against non-nuclear countries that pursue courses of action contrary to US interests. This is a real possibility, and is something I fear more than anything in the world. Why? Two reasons:

1) If we begin using nuclear weapons, espically on third world countries, we will see the dawn of nuclear terrorism. I think we can all agree that terrorists do what they do out of desperation, third world means, and retribution. If we nuke, they finally have a reason to buy that rogue nuke on the market - and there are rogue nukes out there thanks to the Russian Federation, China, and yes even the US.

2) If we begin using nuclear weapons, we run an even greater risk of starting a war with the other two big nuke holders: Russian Federation and People's Republic of China. We can beat either of them alone, but if they were to form an alliance with India and Middle Eastern countries, we would lose very badly (think big smoking hole between Canada and Mexico). If the world percieves the US as a great enough threat, they will do everything they can to stop us, and arguably the greatest threat to the world is nuclear war. Ths US is the only nuclear power to use nuclear weapons in a war or conflict.

I'm not trying to paint the US as a horrible bad guy, but the government is clearly makign steps to prep for using nuclear weapons outside of testing, and that is dangerous, irrisponsible, and frightning. I don't want my kids to have to learn to duck and cover in school in case of a nuclear strike like my parents did for the cold war.

Note: some of the information above, mainly 'facts' section, was from an interview of Jorge Hirsch.

05-06-2006, 07:17 AM	#51 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Steely, I've had Godwin shouted at me before, so don't hold back. The problem is that we have two Godwin-worthy countries at either end of this: Iran and the US. As much as I don't trust the word of the Iranian government - and I honestly don't trust them - I also don't trust the word of the US agencies that are suggesting that Iran is developing nukes. Back in October of 2005, Jorge Hirsch (New Yorker) wrote that "The strategic decision by the United States to nuke Iran was probably made long ago." Since then more and more evidence has come forward about there being a real possibility of the US using nuclear weapons on a country to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons. Look at the facts: -the US pursuit over several years to get an IAEA resolution against Iran, no matter how weak, which it finally achieved in September 2005. It didn't make any sense as a diplomatic move if the goal was to exert pressure on Iran, in view of the clear dissent by Russia and China. It had two purposes: one was to bring the issue eventually to the UN Security Council, even knowing that Russia and China would veto any action against Iran, so that, just as in the case of Iraq, the US could argue that other countries share its concern but not the resolve to act. But more importantly, the US issued a commitment to the UN in 1995 that it wouldn't use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries signatories of the NPT, which however explicitly excluded countries that are in "non-compliance" with the NPT. So by securing the IAEA resolution of September 2005 of Iran's "non-compliance" the US achieved that it can now use nuclear weapons against Iran "legally", i.e. without violating its 1995 commitment. This explains why it was pushing for it so adamantly. -the US has radically changed its nuclear weapons policies since 2001 to erase the sharp line that traditionally existed between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons. It now "integrates" both types of weapons in its military strategy, and envisions the use of nuclear weapons against underground facilities, preemptively against countries "intending" to use WMD's against US forces, and "for rapid and favorable war termination on US terms". Several scenarios like that, that apply specifically to the Iran scenario, were made public in 2005 in the Pentagon draft document "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations", to prepare the country for what was being planned. -the administration has been pushing Congress every year to fund new nuclear weapons, "more usable" nuclear weapons, and bunker busting nuclear weapons, to prepare the public mind for the attack. Many are under the mistaken impression that Congress has resisted these efforts, however they forget or don't know that the B61-11, a bunker-buster that can be used against Iranian underground facilities, is in the US arsenal since 2001. Its yield (power) is classified but is likely to include very low yield, to cause "reduced collateral damage" and thus be more "acceptable". -the administration is stacked with nuclear weapons experts that are hawks and participated in the formulation of the new nuclear weapons policies: National Security advisor (Hadley), deputy national security advisor (Crouch II), undersecretary of defense for intelligence (Cambone), chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Science Board (Schneider), undersecretary of state for arms control and international security (Joseph) and ambassador to the UN (Bolton). Bolton was appointed in the face of very strong bipartisan opposition. None of these positions require specific nuclear weapons expertise, however these "nuclear warriors" are in high positions for a reason: to advise President Bush to use nuclear weapons. And let's not forget Cheney, who was the architect of new nuclear weapons policies back in 1992 to target non-nuclear-weapon countries, and Rumsfeld who advocates a smaller high tech military where nuclear weapons play an essential role. To me it is the worst kind of insane to establish the credibility of the US nuclear deterrent against non-nuclear countries that pursue courses of action contrary to US interests. This is a real possibility, and is something I fear more than anything in the world. Why? Two reasons: 1) If we begin using nuclear weapons, espically on third world countries, we will see the dawn of nuclear terrorism. I think we can all agree that terrorists do what they do out of desperation, third world means, and retribution. If we nuke, they finally have a reason to buy that rogue nuke on the market - and there are rogue nukes out there thanks to the Russian Federation, China, and yes even the US. 2) If we begin using nuclear weapons, we run an even greater risk of starting a war with the other two big nuke holders: Russian Federation and People's Republic of China. We can beat either of them alone, but if they were to form an alliance with India and Middle Eastern countries, we would lose very badly (think big smoking hole between Canada and Mexico). If the world percieves the US as a great enough threat, they will do everything they can to stop us, and arguably the greatest threat to the world is nuclear war. Ths US is the only nuclear power to use nuclear weapons in a war or conflict. I'm not trying to paint the US as a horrible bad guy, but the government is clearly makign steps to prep for using nuclear weapons outside of testing, and that is dangerous, irrisponsible, and frightning. I don't want my kids to have to learn to duck and cover in school in case of a nuclear strike like my parents did for the cold war. Note: some of the information above, mainly 'facts' section, was from an interview of Jorge Hirsch.