Sorry if this is old news. >>

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/nuclear-warplans-101

I appreciate Greenpeace have a political bias but there is nothing to suggest they are lying. Anyone care to comment?

peace

c20



Washington, DC, United States — "Even in an unclassified world this is not the kind of thing you want flying around the Internet," says Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita. He was talking about a document, yanked from a Pentagon website on September 19th, which outlines US nuclear warfighting plans, including the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons and the use of nukes in conventional war.

Sample nuggets of the collective wisdom of the warplanners


"Executing a nuclear option, or even a portion of an option, should send a clear signal of United States' resolve. Hence, options must be selected very carefully and deliberately so that the attack can help ensure the adversary recognizes the "signal" and should therefore not assume the United States has escalated to general nuclear war, although that perception cannot be guaranteed."



"Friendly forces must receive advanced warning of friendly nuclear strikes."

The immediate and prolonged effects of nuclear weapons including blast (overpressure, dynamic pressure, ground shock, and cratering), thermal radiation (fire and other material effects), and nuclear radiation (initial, residual, fallout, blackout, and electromagnetic pulse), impose physical and psychological challenges for combat forces and noncombatant populations alike. These effects also pose significant survivability requirements on military equipment, supporting civilian infrastructure resources, and host-nation/coalition assets. US forces must prepare to survive and perhaps operate in a nuclear/radiological environment.

This has always been policy. If the need arises the option is there, simple as that.

This has always been policy. If the need arises the option is there, simple as that.

So why cant Iran adopt a similiar policy without condemnation? What's so special about the US?

peace

c20

So why cant Iran adopt a similiar policy without condemnation? What's so special about the US?

peace

c20

Simple. Because the Iranian government is often directed by crazies and does NOT exhibit the kind of restraint the U.S. does. Have you noticed the number of times the U.S. has not used the nuclear force at it's disposal? It's hardly likely the same could have been said about Iran over the past 50 years.

Simple. Because the Iranian government is often directed by crazies and does NOT exhibit the kind of restraint the U.S. does.

Is the US the moral judge of all countries/leaders then?

peace

c20

Because the Iranian government is often directed by crazies .And this differs from the US exactly how? ;)

Is the US the moral judge of all countries/leaders then?

peace

c20

Careful - I never implied that at all. Iran's history speaks for it's self with no moral judgement required on anyone's part.

And this differs from the US exactly how? ;)
HA! Point taken. :) Misinformed, perhaps, but not really crazy.

Careful - I never implied that at all. Iran's history speaks for it's self with no moral judgement required on anyone's part.

Well what was President Reagan doing in 1985 then? Oh yeah, making money out of the Iranians by selling them arms. What is China doing now? Oh yeah selling arms to the Iranians. What are the US and British doing now? Oh yeah, getting in bed with China because they know China is going to be a serious economic player.

Iran's history is not as cut and dried as you think.

peace

c20

Simple. Because the Iranian government is often directed by crazies and does NOT exhibit the kind of restraint the U.S. does.
The US shows restraint? *GASP* When? Where?

Have you noticed the number of times the U.S. has not used the nuclear force at it's disposal?
And have you noticed that the US is also the only nation on this planet to have used a nuclear weapon against another country. Hmmm... you were saying about restraint before?

It's hardly likely the same could have been said about Iran over the past 50 years.
Considering that the US used its nuclear force in the past, they should not be pointing the finger at others now should they? And they have hardly showed restraint in the past 50 years either considering the amount of pre-emptive strikes and wars they have become involved in. And maybe if the US did not involve itself in Iranian politics in the past, the "crazies" would not be in power today.

Well what was President Reagan doing in 1985 then? Oh yeah, making money out of the Iranians by selling them arms. What is China doing now? Oh yeah selling arms to the Iranians. What are the US and British doing now? Oh yeah, getting in bed with China because they know China is going to be a serious economic player.

Iran's history is not as cut and dried as you think.

peace

c20

?? You seem pretty confused here. What does China and it's current relations have to do with Iran's history? Perhaps you should do a bit more research and properly gather your thoughts, eh?

?? You seem pretty confused here. What does China and it's current relations have to do with Iran's history? Perhaps you should do a bit more research and properly gather your thoughts, eh?

No confusion here. Just refuting your claim that Iran's history speaks for itself with regards to the US's decision that they cannot arm them selves in a nuclear capacity because of their history. The US has actively supported the alleged Iranian 'crazies' in the past as are China now so how exactly does Iran's history speak for itself? It didnt for Reagan and it doesnt for the Chinese.

Bells makes some excellent points and probably got to the thrust of the argument in a more timely fashion than me.

Tell me how the US can have these weapons and state that they would use them pre-emptively and be 'justified', whereas their old pals the Iranians must conform to the US's wishes else 'action will be taken'.

Tell me how this isn't blatent hypocrisy especially when the US 'has' used nuclear weaponary in the past.

peace

c20

The simple answer is that the US just wants to have the upper hand; nuclear weapons are too much of an equaliser.

Simple. Because the Iranian government is often directed by crazies and does NOT exhibit the kind of restraint the U.S. does.

HahahahahahahHAHAHAHAHAHAH sob sob .....

HahahahahahahHAHAHAHAHAHAH sob sob .....

Laugh and cry all you wish. Two words: Ayatollah Khamenei.

Ayatollah Khamenei.

And that is Iran's entire history? You better hope US history is not also defined by two words, those being 'George Bush'.

peace

c20

And that is Iran's entire history? You better hope US history is not also defined by two words, those being 'George Bush'.

peace

c20

Hardly the point at all. I know a great deal of their history, going back to the Persian Empire. Do you?

I guess (s)he's laughing (just like me) about the word "restraint" in your post too. ;)

Hardly the point at all. I know a great deal of their history, going back to the Persian Empire. Do you?

Why do you even ask if I know the history? Was it not the CIA who helped set up SAVAK? Why didn't Nixon have reservations when in '72 he armed Iran up to the eyeballs?

The US adminstration are total hypocrites. All Iran's governement want to do is to manage its people by its Islamic faith without the US or other Western powers sticking their big hypocritical noses in all the time.

Yes the US and Iran are enemies but why? You know history so well. You tell me what are the root causes for this distrust? Tell me why Bush doesn't want his enemy having a gun as big as his?

peace

c20

Tell me why Bush doesn't want his enemy having a gun as big as his?

peace

c20


you just answered your own question.plus nukes are no fun,far more sporting to send lots of poor people against their poor people and see who are the best.

Hmmm well you dont see any americans dancing through the streets of Washington screaming "Death to Iran! Death to Iran! Death to the Great Satan!"

This thread is pointless. Only a fool would want a crazy religous nut in control of nukes. And dont start with the Bush thing. He cant just start a nuclear war, its not that simple. Besides, we get a new leader every 4-8 years unlike the religous dictators in Iran.

Apples and Oranges.

I guess if Iran has nukes then I should be able to have my own private Nuke! Why not???

Hmmm well you dont see any americans dancing through the streets of Washington screaming "Death to Iran! Death to Iran! Death to the Great Satan!"

Why is Iran so angry with America?

What follows is an excerpt from the statements made by the Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khamenei in a meeting with officials and executives of the Islamic Republic and a large group of people from different social strata on September 2, 2005. (source (http://www.khamenei.ir/EN/Speech/detail.jsp?id=20050902A))

The main objective pursued by arrogant powers is to obliterate the national and religious identity of Muslims in the Islamic world, especially in the Middle East. Unity and solidarity among Muslim nations, adhering to and promoting Islam and standing up to the bullying and blackmail on the part of the United States and other arrogant powers is the only way to foil the enemies.

They are pissed off at being bullied! And when they show anger at being bullied, the bullies say 'See how irrational they are? See how justified we are.'

Hypocrisy of the highest order.

c20

This thread is pointless. Only a fool would want a crazy religous nut in control of nukes.
I guess if Iran has nukes then I should be able to have my own private Nuke! Why not???

Who is argueing that Iran should have nukes??? Only Iran in this case and based upon what logic?

I guess if the US has nukes then we should be able to have our own private Nuke! Why not???

Your missing my point! No one needs nukes, but if someone decides to step up the ante and actually build one, then what right have they to start bitching when other countries start twitching and want their own nukes?

The US has set itself up as an authority on who can have and who cant have and why? Because the US is a bully and a greedy one at that. Such a bully is not to be trusted with technology that affects everyone.

peace

c20

Why don't we let al-Zarquawi have nukes, too? Wouldn't that be "fair"? I mean, why shouldn't he and his "freedom fighters" be permitted to have nukes? He should be allowed to buy nukes on the open market just like everyone else, right?

The KKK should also be permitted to buy and own nukes, too.

Baron Max

simple - Iran is a country with international rights, Zarquawi is not

(p.s. In Latvian language Zarquawi sounds a bit like "animalslayer" :D)

simple - Iran is a country with international rights, ...

Hmmm, not fully according to the UN, are they? Aren't there sanctions against Iran by the UN? Isn't the UN also against Iran having nuclear weapons?

Baron Max

Why don't we let al-Zarquawi have nukes, too? Wouldn't that be "fair"? I mean, why shouldn't he and his "freedom fighters" be permitted to have nukes? He should be allowed to buy nukes on the open market just like everyone else, right?

The KKK should also be permitted to buy and own nukes, too.

Baron Max

Again, someone misses the thrust of the post. :rolleyes:

How can you determine who will be responsible with such technology? Every human being is fallible, particulary those in power, no matter which 'side' they are on.

Bush backs pre-emptive strikes. So America by default is saying to every other country, we will protect ourselves actively at everyone elses expense based upon 'intelligence' irrespective of whether a percieved enemy has actually stated their intentions through violence or not.

Remember how it was claimed that Sadam had stockpiles of chemical, nuclear and biological weapons that could be launched in 4 minutes? That was based on 'intelligence' alledgedly. Or was it just a lie to justify attacking a country, installing a puppet administration and re-routing oil profits?

I dont trust America any more than I trust any other two bit nation. That is the point!!!

As long as countries get behind America for fear of being America's enemy, they prop up their own doom. America needs to be brought into check and the American people better hope that it is Europe that do the 'checking' rather than China.

peace

c20

Hmmm, not fully according to the UN, are they? Aren't there sanctions against Iran by the UN? Isn't the UN also against Iran having nuclear weapons?

Baron Max
There is nothing that legally (by international law) prohibits them to have nuclear technology.
And the USA has no legal rights to say who can or can't have it.

What kind of moron tells us that this is the kind of information that the Pentagon doesn't want "flying" around the Internet? I remember when the news popped up on Yahoo, so it wasn't secret, and the nuclear deterrent is only useful if it is not a secret.

There is nothing that legally (by international law) prohibits them to have nuclear technology.

Nuclear technology is NOT the same thing as making nuclear weapons. And isn't that what the UN is attempting to curtail? ...including the sanctions?

And the USA has no legal rights to say who can or can't have it.

Legal rights? Who is the determining authority for that legality? Who enforces those laws/rules/or whatever they are?

And if there is such an authority, is it recognized by every nation on Earth? If not, ....?

Baron Max

Former President George Bush senior was tried and convicted by a legitimate war crimes tribunal. Bush II battered and bribed his way to an exemption from this kind of prosecution to prevent himself from gaining the same infamy. From this I would have to say that international law is dead, totally null and void. Yes, he will still drool these words out of his mouth, but these are just words that he uses to excuse himself to the American people, the same as the US Constitution.

Certain allowances have to be made to let a war be fought. Let any war be fought ever.

Ooh, nice language. What's it like to be a lawyer?

I have absolutely no idea, but it probably depends on if you are prosecution or defense. I imagine your bank account would help smother any bad dreams the job may ever get you.

Nuclear technology is NOT the same thing as making nuclear weapons. And isn't that what the UN is attempting to curtail? ...including the sanctions?

If Iran isn't a member of the non-nuclear treaty (and I think it isn't) then it has all the rights it wants to have nuclear weapons as well. Besides if it were a part of it, it's possible to get out of that treaty.
Legal rights? Who is the determining authority for that legality? Who enforces those laws/rules/or whatever they are?
Subjects of international rights.

I have absolutely no idea, but it probably depends on if you are prosecution or defense. I imagine your bank account would help smother any bad dreams the job may ever get you.

At the rate I'm going, a medium size chunk of money could smother a lot of bad dreams.

Where does it say anywhere that Iran has the "right" to have nuclear weapons? Its not just the US that says Iran shouldnt have them. Its also Isreal, England, Germany, France, and the rest of the Civilized world.
Since when did we have to "let them have nukes"??? where do you people come up with this crap?

Wake up and smell the roses people! You are concerned about the US?? Do you think ISREAL is going to allow Iran to have nukes?? They will vaporize Iran. Go ahead, dig your own grave.

Where does it say anywhere that Iran has the "right" to have nuclear weapons?
Each country has the right to arm itself for defensive means.
There is nothing that prohibits Iran to do so.
If it is proven that it has a plan of attacking someone with those, then we have another talk.
Besides Iran has every right for a nuclear power station.
Its not just the US that says Iran shouldnt have them. Its also Isreal, England, Germany, France, and the rest of the Civilized world.
Many people shouldn't have weapons, yet they have a right to own them.
Besides, as stated previously, Iran says it wants nuclear technology for power plants.
Only if it is proven otherwise there is a reason to impose a sanction which in itself would be debatable, because noone imposes sanctions on the USA or France because of the fact that they have nuclear weapons.
They will vaporize Iran.
If they attack Iran firsthand without the sanction of the UN's security council, then they will break ius cogens norms of the International Law and any other country will be free to impose sanctions on those countries and theoretically bring them before the International Court of Justice based on the erga omnes principle.

Each country has the right to arm itself for defensive means.

Not if other, more powerful nations say otherwise!

If it is proven that it has a plan of attacking someone with those, then we have another talk.

There have been many, many OFFICIAL statements about Iranian sentiments to annililate Israel and to kick the USA out of the middle east. What other "proof" are you seeking? ....or would you like to wait until the missiles are on the way toward Israel?

Baron Max

im on baron's side but for different reasons.i desperately dont want anymore nuclear power stations to be built,it is the most short sighted way of getting energy.

Not if other, more powerful nations say otherwise!
That would have no legal base.
or would you like to wait until the missiles are on the way toward Israel?
Statements by who and when?

That would have no legal base.

Who determines all this "legal" shit of which you speak??

Statements by who and when?

If you don't already know that, then I have nothing more to say to you.

Baron Max

Who determines all this "legal" shit of which you speak??
International community, i.e., subjects of international rights,
most common sources of International Law are ius cogens, int. conventions and customary law, rulings of international courts and also national courts on international issues, there are other sources as well.
If a few major countries say something, that doesn't make it a law.
If you don't already know that, then I have nothing more to say to you.
Too bad, then you have stated nothing and retreat from the discussion. A query for information is not an error of discusion.

So what's wrong with a preemptive nuclear strike? An enemy country is an enemy country, period, America has to do whatever it takes to defeat them.

If we go by that then half of the world should declare war to the USA.

Half the world would be signing a death-wish by declaring war on America.

Or they could just stop all trading with it, including oil.

By the way, every night I go to sleep I sing a little song of what a big penis the USA has.

p.s. Nice trolling of you there though. Who's sockpuppet are you?

If the American government wants oil, it will just take it.

Half the world would be signing a death-wish by declaring war on America.
Why? Little Vietnam kicked our ass. We haven't won a war since WWII.

http://piparmetra.net/outer_realms/images/troll.jpg

Hardly the point at all. I know a great deal of their history, going back to the Persian Empire. Do you?

Im sorry, were'nt you speaking of the past 50 years in the earlier posts? can you in this case tell me what the fuck the persian empire has to do with your argument? If this is the way your logic goes, I can just as well point out the slaughter of the native indians by americas ancestors.

By the way, every night I go to sleep I sing a little song of what a big penis the USA has.



haha.,"anyone who doesnt want to go to war is gay"

If we go by that then half of the world should declare war to the USA.

Actually that would be good, damned good, for America and the America economy! And not only would we whip the shit outta' them all, we'd come away with an even more powerful economy and a more powerful nation.

Baron Max

Actually that would be good, damned good, for America and the America economy! And not only would we whip the shit outta' them all, we'd come away with an even more powerful economy and a more powerful nation.

Baron Max

Well no, because if we had a massive nuclear war everything everywhere will be fucked, you might do ok compared to everyone else, until the radiation sickness sets in and you're all dying of cancer and giving birth to mutants.

Well no, because if we had a massive nuclear war everything everywhere will be fucked, you might do ok compared to everyone else, until the radiation sickness sets in and you're all dying of cancer and giving birth to mutants.

...LOL! C'mon, you know better than that! That's just bullshit scare tactics ...nuclear war won't be nearly as bad as everyone likes to fantacize about. ...but it does sound like fun, huh? :)

Baron Max

...LOL! C'mon, you know better than that! That's just bullshit scare tactics ...nuclear war won't be nearly as bad as everyone likes to fantacize about. ...but it does sound like fun, huh? :)

Baron Max

Well i know what to buy you for christmas, a labotomy and straightjacket, and maybe some of that rubber wallpaper stuff.

Well, thank you, Godless, I appreciate your kind, warm thoughts. And at Christmas time, it's especially nice to think that ye're thinkiing kind, Christian thoughts of others.

Baron Max

Well, thank you, Godless, I appreciate your kind, warm thoughts. And at Christmas time, it's especially nice to think that ye're thinkiing kind, Christian thoughts of others.

Baron Max

Were you dropped on your head as a baby?.
Ever get shot in the head, or have any grenades blow up near you?

Either way: YOU NEED TABLETS!

"If they attack Iran firsthand without the sanction of the UN's security council, then they will break ius cogens norms of the International Law and any other country will be free to impose sanctions on those countries and theoretically bring them before the International Court of Justice based on the erga omnes principle."

Ohhhh!!! Not the allmighty wrath of the UN!! Say it aint so! BEing that Isreal has already told the UN to "Blow it out your ass" im sure they could give a rats ass. Isreal cares about its survival nothing else.

And what country would impose sanctions on the US?? That would be economic suicide.

All Iran is doing is stirring up more and more shit and making the Isrealies even more trigger happy. I take it everyone on this board has forgotten the fact that Isreal bombed the shit out of Iraqs nuclear facilities and has STATED that they will do the same in Iran! Iran is going to doom the middle east.

All Iran is doing is stirring up more and more shit and making the Isrealies even more trigger happy. I take it everyone on this board has forgotten the fact that Isreal bombed the shit out of Iraqs nuclear facilities and has STATED that they will do the same in Iran! Iran is going to doom the middle east.

How is, by doing that, Iran the one to doom the Middle East? It's Israel who's gonna doom the Middle East. It's inevitable.

- N

The main problem with Israel is that everybody in the region seems to want it dead.
If the other middle eastern countries could accept it, poof... problem solved.

Actually that would be good, damned good, for America and the America economy! And not only would we whip the shit outta' them all, we'd come away with an even more powerful economy and a more powerful nation.

Baron Max
i know your not serious but the temptation to bite and reply is unbelievable.

I was just wondering .....it would seem evident that all those in favor of Iran's right to have/make nuclear weapons must also support the right of individuals to buy and own personal weapons? Right? I mean, it's exactly the same concept, isn't it?

Baron Max

Actually that would be good, damned good, for America and the America economy! And not only would we whip the shit outta' them all, we'd come away with an even more powerful economy and a more powerful nation.

Baron Max
If that's not violent, I don't know what is.

Originally Posted by Baron Max
Actually that would be good, damned good, for America and the America economy! And not only would we whip the shit outta' them all, we'd come away with an even more powerful economy and a more powerful nation.

RRH: My, my, what a big dick you, granny, have!
W: So I can better fuck you, my dear.
RRH: Ooh, so powerful my granny is!

I was just wondering .....it would seem evident that all those in favor of Iran's right to have/make nuclear weapons must also support the right of individuals to buy and own personal weapons? Right? I mean, it's exactly the same concept, isn't it?

How do we go from a country to country type thing to a country to civilian type thing? Civilians aren't in charge of our nukes in America so civilians shouldn't be in charge of nukes in Iran. Various countries' military and government are in charge of their nukes around the world so the same applies to Iran. Now hey, if for some crazy reason, all the nukes from all the superpowers of the world were in the hands of ordinary people, then hey sure, let Iran's civilians have em too.

Gotta love how you change the subject to some dramatic instance to avoid questions. What next, are you gonna ask what we think about babies being allowed to carry around weapons and nukes too? What about normal civilians being able to own nuclear submarines and carriers, or modern tanks and stealth bombers? I mean, hey, allowing Iran to have a military must mean our civilians should be able to as well! I mean, it's the same thing, isn't it? :rolleyes:

- N

It's called the strawman fallacy in critical thinking. Used against unatentive or overheated persons.

Would be good to own your own nuke, nobody will fuck with you, that is until they get one too.

Same with guns, everythings great IF you're the only fucker with one.
I think ALL weapons should be banned and when you go to war you just fight with your fists and feet, that would fucking rule!

You imagine thousands of people having the equilivent of a bar room brawl match all at the same time, thats a proper war.
Everyone would sign up for the army then.

Various countries' military and government are in charge of their nukes around the world so the same applies to Iran.

Yeah, and how many different types of "governments" has Iran had in the last few decades? And what were they like as rulers?

The private ownership of guns is not such a stretch of the imagination in a discussion like this. The principle is exactly the same ...we're dealing with human nature in both instances. You should think about it some. If you think Iran should have nukes just because the USA has them, then you must also have the same type of thinking for private gun ownership ...the principes are exactly the same.

Baron Max

Would be good to own your own nuke, nobody will fuck with you, that is until they get one too.

Same with guns, everythings great IF you're the only fucker with one.
I think ALL weapons should be banned and when you go to war you just fight with your fists and feet, that would fucking rule!

No, everything is great until the other side has better technology. When both sides are equal in terms of technology, whether it's guns or nukes, then nobody will get screwed with. Once someone has an edge on others, that's when they start abusing power. Once a country has the means to disable nukes on whim, that's when everyone needs to watch out. You only gotta worry when one side gets too unbalanced.

The same would apply to fighting with fists in your utopian scenario. What, are you gonna start complaining about 6 foot tall or bigger guys on steroids not playing fair when having brawls with more lil guys? Time to tweak those rules of warfare now too, eh? Or how about some trained in martial arts and others not? Liberrraaaal Dreeeeeamwooooorld.

Yeah, and how many different types of "governments" has Iran had in the last few decades? And what were they like as rulers?

Iran was quite fine until we started meddling in the affairs of the Middle East. Before Israel was a state, the Middle East LOVED us. Anything wrong with Iran is OUR fault. Hell, we've overthrown their government in the past.. we stopped them from becoming a democracy. We're the ones that put those crazy leaders in charge in the first place! We don't want the Middle East united, we want them in turmoil. The more conflict that happens there, the more in charge we get to be. Give them nukes so we stop fucking with em. But hey, we don't want another Persian or Ottoman Empire. We gotta kick people when they're down and continue to stomp on em at any chance of them getting back up. We gotta keep em down and play the bully so we'll always be on top.. until a bigger fish comes along to teach us a lesson.. and one ALWAYS does come around.

The private ownership of guns is not such a stretch of the imagination in a discussion like this. The principle is exactly the same ...we're dealing with human nature in both instances. You should think about it some. If you think Iran should have nukes just because the USA has them, then you must also have the same type of thinking for private gun ownership ...the principes are exactly the same.

How'd you jump to private ownership of guns? You were talking about private ownership of NUKES. Quit changing the subject.

Me? Hell, I'm all for private ownership of guns. I wish everyone owned a gun so crime rates would be ultra low. Only those without a gun would be the victims just as they are today. I also wish the idiotic "cosmetic" assault weapons ban would be removed from California and the couple other fascist liberal states. That and I wish people knew the difference between SEMI-automatic and automatic weapons and also didn't ban guns by random pictures in magazines by how they looked so those stupid laws wouldn't be in effect. I mean hey, at least be knowlegable about something before restricting or banning whatever it may be.

- N