- Is this true? Is the US really drawing up plans for a nuclear strike on Iran in the event of another terrorist attack on the American mainland? Anyone seen any verification of this anywhere, or is it just a rumour? I fucking hope so.
Because, let's face it, another terrorist strike on US soil is pretty much inevitable (as our own dear Metropolitan Police keep pointlessly telling us is the case with London). If anything, it's amazing they've got away without another one for nearly four years...
23 Comments:
Not sure I agree with "unnecessary" for Hiroshima and Nagasaki - and at least the Japanese had actually started it in that case... (But then again, as debates here over the weekend attest to, I'm not convinced of the necessity of H & N either. And some historians have argued, fairly convincingly in some cases, that US oil sanctions against Japan were tantamount to a deliberate attempt to provoke war. But let's not get into that one again...)
_Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki Nose Monkey? They were absolutely unnecessary murderous atrocities as well._
Actually, NM, I'd really like to hear the justifications of someone who is so sure of his case that he can make that sort of statement. He must have some as-yet-undisclosed data that should be made available to the rest of mankind.
V1: I'm well aware of that. However, there is also plenty of "publicly available information" that says the exact opposite. Therefore, making the sort of strong assertion you did is, at best, unwise.
I can see it's almost pointless debating this with you... but I suggest you look into jus in bello, among other things. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were clearly acts of war, and therefore not murder. I wouldn't debate that the motives may have been terroristic (though that depends on whether you think terrorism can be carried out by other than non-state actors). And you still haven't provided your killer bit of evidence that makes you so sure that these acts were unnecessary.
In my book, claiming such certainty about something from a distance of 60 years, that necessitates a reading of strategic aims that you couldn't possible have any real knowledge of, when there are plenty of plausible facts to back up multiple interpretations, is (and I'm being charitable) foolish.
Iraq, it turns out, was a strategic error. I supported it, lukewarmly, from the start, so it pains me to say it.
At best, it now looks like we're just going to replace a bloodthirsty but secular tyranny, Saddam, with a democratically elected but deeply unpleasant theocratic regime, arguable more inimical to western interests. And all at the cost of tens of thousands of lives, allied and Iraqi.
I mention this cause I now think Iran should have been the target from the off - which it sounds like the neo-cons are now realising. Iran is much more a sponsor of terrorism, suicide bombs, and now it looks like it's gonna get nukes.
Although I do not support pre-emptive strikes on Iran, yet, if it does come close to nuclear weapons, what are the alternatives? If America doesn't hit it, Israel will.
Any suggestions from anyone for a non pre-emptive strike policy, if they get nukes? It's a lot tougher to work this one out than sitting in your armchair waffling trite, dim and foolish remarks about the immorality of Hiroshima.
Thanks voice! and likewise, I see from your blog that you are a barely literate lefty, obsessed by anti-Americanism, with a crush on George Galloway, and just a hint of anti-Semitism to boot.
Nice psyche you got going there.
If you read my post you would see that I said 'I do not support pre-emptive strikes on Iran, yet'. Note the use of the word 'not'. Nor any mention of 'nuclear strikes' at all.
What I was doing was posing the hypothesis. If Iran is close to nukes, and refuses to disarm, what do we do? If we don't it, Israel will. And then we really will have World War 3.
As for Iraq, I said in my first post that it was a strategic error. But it wasn't an error I made. I believed Blair on WMDs, I also thought there was a moral case for removing Saddam.
Blair lied on the first, the second remains true - what has gone wrong is the strategic handling of Iraq afterwards.
And one should examine the alterntive. The anti-war people would have left Saddam in power, murdering tens of thousands. That doesn't feel better to me. Just different.
Maybe there was no solution, maybe it was lose-lose. Intriguing. But probably beyond your thought processes.
Oh, simmer down. The US has contingencies drawn up to use nukes in just about any given situation, on just about any target. This is hardly 'breaking news'. Do you think the French don't have contingencies drawn up for their nukes? What about the Pakistanis, or the Israelis? If you really think that nuking Iran is a serious, imminent threat, then you're not in touch with reality. Perhaps the US simply *wants* the Iranian regime to wonder if we'll really pull the trigger. If that deters them from engaging in some kind of nefarious behavior (and yes, evil is not limited to the Bush regime...), then it has value. Do you think that 'playing nice' with the mullahs in Iran will really pay dividends? Can you honestly say "I trust their motives, they're just misunderstood."?
You say: "If you condemn one act which involves the killing of tens, hundreds or even thousands of innocent people, then you should also condemn another act which involves the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people."
Textbook moral equivalence! Countless millions of people died in the Second World war. What makes the deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki so special? Would you be as interested if they were wiped out by incendiary bombs? Or if they were slowly starved to death throughout the 1940s as the Allies laid siege to the Home Islands?
What was the ALTERNATIVE? Sue for peace, leaving Hitler and Tojo free to work on their little Lebensraum/Prosperity Sphere projects?
You also conveniently overlook the role played by the Allies (particularly the US) in postwar Japan and Europe. Did we continue to terrorize the Japanese and German people? Did we oppress them, steal their wealth, and leave them groveling in the dirt? No.
The atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis in the death camps also should have taught the world a lesson. Yet we still saw genocide in Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The murder of millions in the Soviet Union should have taught the world a lesson. Every day we're faced with lessons that just don't sink in. To lump the entire history of human conflict into one big morally equivalent pot seems to be just a *bit* on the simplistic side, though.
Yes, V1, we all have our own opinions. But some are backed up and revised with reference to known facts, while others are just the repetition of memes, which become no truer in the repetition. If you read what I wrote, you'll discover that I haven't questioned your take on Hiroshima, just the force with which you hold onto it, in the face of as much evidence contradicting as supporting your claim. That is what makes your position foolish.
And this is pure cop out (I assume thrown out there in the absence of anything concrete to say):
If you condemn one act which involves the killing of tens, hundreds or even thousands of innocent people, then you should also condemn another act which involves the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
Just another soft-left-humanist meme, worthy but essentially meaningless. If you can't see the difference between, say, Hiroshima and Halabja/Rwanda/Auschwitz and so on, just that all involve "killing innocent people", then as Sean says, you're doing no more than sitting in your armchair waffling trite, dim and foolish remarks. And believe me, I can scarcely believe I'm aggeeing with Sean.
*pours drink*
*puts feet up*
*settles back in chair*
*remains uninvolved but entertained*
Oooh, it's a bit steamy in here this afternoon, innit?
Hey Voice, here's a paragraph.
And here's another one.
And another!
And, by the way,
you
remain
a
cretin!
See! I can do it!
And thankyou, Jarndyce. Bless.
Talking of pre-emptive strikes...
V1: is that it? Your only response to the substantive points I've made in several posts above? I'm afraid what you have is a (well-intentioned but so universal as to be vacuous) meme not a proper system of morality - morals require engagement with critical thought.
And here's one last one for you: turn your recurrent meme on its head and what you'll come up with is a series of assertions so preposterous that barely any living human being could hold to them. That's what makes them foolish.
[Go on try it, it's fun: I don't condemn the murder of thousands of innocent people; morals are meaningless to me; the murder of a (hypothetical) quarter of a million people is a necessary atrocity; and so on...]
Well said, Jarndyce.
In any case, we all do have something in common. We're all toy soldiers in Nosemonkey's sandbox!!!
I agree. Such a shame he's scarpered. I was all set for a good ding-dong then. To fire me up before I nip to the pub.
Have to say, that strange chap Voice has one of the most tendentiously boring blogs in the history of blogs. And that's saying something.
Oy vay.
Anyway, now that it's all calmed down...
Eric - I have no doubt that the US has plans to nuke anyone and everyone, including the UK. (That whole thing about plans for an invasion of Canada that came out a while back, for example.) It would be silly not to have contingency plans in place for any eventuality.
The thing that triggered alarm bells here was the specific mention of strikes coming after another 9/11 style attack. It sounds like these would be different from the standard "nuke Iran" plans which have doubtless existed for decades.
Naturally the plans would have to shift if/when Iran gets nuclear reactors, as these would obviously become new targets - it's just the direct reference to terrorism which got me concerned. And to using nukes, for that matter. High-powered conventional weapons should be enough to take out any Iranian nuclear plants, surely?
Understood...again, though, I think in large part it's just a revised form of MAD. Essentially it's a message to the mullahs: "If you sell a nuke to Al Qaeda and they detonate it in New York, we will nuke Tehran into a flat, glassy plain."
Harsh? Yes. Lacking nuance? Possibly. Effective? Time will tell.
As for Iranian nuclear facilities, many of them are literally built into the sides of mountains, buried underground, and otherwise hardened to make them very difficult to observe and attack. This is purely hypothetical, of course, but I would suspect that plans would be put in place to use nukes to deny access to entire areas that are known to house nuclear facilities, etc. Instead of attempting to target every hidden entrance and every significant building, simply drop a few nukes in the area and deny access to *everything*. Intact underground facilities aren't much use if you can't approach them for another 500 years...
Again...it's harsh, but it's highly unlikely that such a plan will ever be implemented. There are so many other more tangible things to worry about in the world, like the millions starving in Niger. I wouldn't really put this too high on the list of concerns.
Oh, and regarding Canada...of course we have plans to invade. Don't turn your back, Canada. Once the 80% of Americans who can't find Canada on a globe figure out where you're located, we're coming for you.
I blogged about this a month ago. Well, not about this particular story, but I discussed why Iran should, and would, be a target; I also blogged about why we chose Iraq and Afghanistan instead.
Much of it is pure speculation, but it's starting to look like I may be right...
DK
ot a little but what about the Russia/China issue? The us admin must be have a hissy fit over that!!
Something which may not be appearing in UK media is the Cindy Sheehan story. Check http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Cindy_Sheehan
she just may make a difference!!!!
Mag Australia
Christ, it's like America's answer to Rose Gentil!
I think it's very unfortunate that she misses her son; maybe she should have stopped him joining the army. I mean, surely part of the deal when your son joins the army is the possibility that he will get killed. After all, that's what soldiers do, isn't it; kill or be killed...?
Thanks!
Never had one of my posts linked to before...
I'd agree that if you join the military, you accept that the outcome may be death or incapacity. I've always argued that there is an unwritten agreement between a volunteer military and a democratic government. In return for accepting their fate, the military expect that the politicians won't send them into harm's way unnecessarily. The Iraq adventure wasn't necessary, so Cindy and everyone else has an absolute right to be angry.
WWII wasn't necessary either. Hitler did not want to go to war with Britain.
So, tough...?
Post a Comment