Saturday, April 08, 2006


Nuke Iran


Seymour Hersh says plans are already in place, and Bush is determined to nuke Iran.

To my shock, when I told my wife about this story, and voiced my concern that we should not use nukes on Iran, her response was,

"But, isn't it the same thing as the Cuban Missile Crisis? We were ready to use nukes then?"

Since when is my wife more hardcore than me?

Her point is very good. And, i had never thought of it this way. However, the difference between the two situations is that

1) we have time with Iran and could, presumably, attack with conventional weapons, and if that didn't work THEN hit them with nukes

2) Ahmadinejad is more dangerous than the Cuban situation all those years ago, because he believes it is his mission to nuke other nations. The Cuban situation was tactical, although, of course, we could not have known that at the time.

My biggest fear is that we won't attack Iran. If we don't, then I believe this world is doomed to tens of millions dead.

The Cranky Insomniac has some good thoughts on the subject of whether we should go that far:


I confess to being highly skeptical of the idea that the Administration is seriously considering using tactical nukes. Even if it makes military sense (which given the suspected underground nature of Iran's nuclear facilities it well might), from a public relations standpoint it is conceivably the worst possible idea in the world.

As a former senior intelligence official tells Hersh, "we’re talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years. This is not an underground nuclear test, where all you see is the earth raised a little bit."

No war has ever required the winning of hearts and minds throughout the world more than the Global War on Terror, and images of mushroom clouds and children with radiation poisoning would damage America's reputation perhaps irreparably. And, maybe even more importantly, nothing would create more jihadists whose only goal would be "death to America."

On the other hand, having senior officials "leak" the "fact" that the use of nukes is being seriously considered is a great piece of psyops if you want to scare the hell out of Iran and bring them to the bargaining table.


Or, maybe this is true (from the Jerusalem Post):


"On Monday, Russia's Novaya Gazeta newspaper reported that part of Ukraine's Soviet-era nuclear arsenal may well have found its way to Iran. With the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Ukrainians agreed to transfer the Soviet nuclear arsenal that remained in Ukraine after its independence to Russia.

According to Novaya Gazeta, some 250 nuclear warheads never made it to Russia and are thought to have been sent to Iran instead. The report further noted that the warheads will remain operational until 2010."Responding to the report, Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, Russia's deputy defense minister and the chief of General Staff, said, 'Russia's General Staff has no information about whether Ukraine has given 250 nuclear warheads to Iran or not.'

"It is impossible to assess the accuracy of the report. The Ukrainian government has dismissed its allegations. Russia may well have invented the story to shift media attention away from the growing awareness that Russian support for Teheran, Damascus and Hamas effectively places it in the enemy camp in the US-led war against global jihad.

"But whether this particular report is true or false, there is no doubt that the danger to Israel and the rest of the Western world emanating from Iran and its allies is growing by the day. In recent testimony before the US Congress, John Negroponte, director of National Intelligence, said that the danger that Teheran 'will acquire a nuclear weapon and the ability to integrate it with ballistic missiles that Iran already possesses' is a cause 'for immediate concern.'


Read the rest. This article is one of the best I have seen in summing up where we are right now in history. These are, indeed, amazing times.