2007/09/07

Kvatch Konsiders: The Day After We Bomb Iran

It comes as no surprise that where Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were concerned, The Decider didn't--in the words of a former CIA agent quoted at Salon--"...give a fuck about the intelligence. He had his mind made up." Which makes the rumors a "3 day bombing campaign" against Iranian nuclear enrichment and military facilities seem all the more likely. But here's the thing that keeps me up nights...

During the Cold War, especially in the 70s and early 80s, NATO military doctrine in Europe was rumored to include a plan for defeating Warsaw Pact ground forces in the event of an attack. The idea was to have NATO troops give ground and then to nuke advancing enemy forces, the only way, it was thought, to stop a force far superior in numbers.

So what happens on day four of the 'Iran Campaign' if they throw all 900,000 of their men under arms at the Iran/Iraq border, presumably in the South where the way would be paved with help from the Shiite militias?

The British are leaving Iraq, withdrawing from their base in Basra just last weekend. Do they know something's up?

Tags: ,

14 Comments:

You answered your own question in the preceding paragraph. Cheney and Co. know the Iranians don't have the ability to retaliate with nukes, so they don't care. Yeah, some other countries might - like, you know, ALL of them - but they don't care about that either. We have more bombs than everyone. And we already beat the commies, so bring it on, Putin! We're kickin' ass!

At least I'll have a legitimate excuse to drink more. :)
I think the question of Iran is when not if we will go in there. Beyond that, I would not be surprised if the US resorted to nukes. I believe that Iran is going to start trading oil with Japan in yen instead of dollars come October. I wonder if we should be expecting some kind of action around that time...
Bush had his mind made up despite the information? That doesn't sound like a self styled cowboy from Texas...oh wait....it does.
George The Commander Guy has had his fingers itching for those nukes since Jan. 20, 2001.

It will surprise me greatly if he leaves office without firing off at least one.

Note the "mistake" of loading up a B52 with them earlier this week...

Practice run?
Randal, Navyswan... I guess I'm most concerned about the use of nukes to kill large numbers of troops. In the not-so-unlikely-event that the Iranians throw everything they have at Basra, what choice would Bu$hCo have?

Would they (we) accept a humiliating retreat? With the precedent of the NATA Cold War strategy available, I don't think so, and this really worries me. Tactical nukes against facilities is one thing, killing 10s of thousands of troops at a time is another.
Octavian... I think that Bush makes up his mind about quite a lot of stuff before he ever gets the accurate information.

Sewmouse... The kind of nukes I'm talking about aren't "strategic" but "tactical". The kind that would be fired off probably by retreating US Army divisions. But you're right, I wouldn't put anything past The Deciderer.
Would they (we) accept a humiliating retreat? With the precedent of the NATA Cold War strategy available, I don't think so, and this really worries me. Tactical nukes against facilities is one thing, killing 10s of thousands of troops at a time is another.

Agreed, but they'll use whatever they have. And nuking facilities is a road I'd never want to see us take, anyway. The next step is so much easier then. Precedent to these clowns only means a bar of lunacy that needs to be passed.

I love hearing from the "serious" types on the left that they'll never use nukes, that it's some tinfoil hat bullshit. Um, really? They've shown restraint in 6+ years? I'll never put anything past them. Not a goddamn thing.

I'm telling ya, I keep coming here for quality laughs and keep on getting depressed. :)
I'm telling ya, I keep coming here for quality laughs and keep on getting depressed. :)

You know, some days the laughter muse strikes, and some days...not so much. But it's always best when a post just writes itself.

So Randal, just for you! ;-)
I am inclined to believe that the British are just fed up with Iraq and want out and that Gordon Brown is taking his responsibility to get the UK out of Iraq seriously unlike Democrats.

But if we do bomb Iran I do worry that Iran's army will attack our troops in Iraq leading to massive casualties.
Day 4: Musharref (who does have nukes) decides to hell with bush & jumps in to protect iran's back.
Day 5: India will not let Paki's nukes go unanswered.
Day 6: ...---...
PoliShifter... Brown knows his constituency much better than Pelosi it seems.

D.K... EEK!
"The kind of nukes I'm talking about aren't "strategic" but "tactical"."

What's the difference? And I am not asking about technical differences (my husband is a nuclear physics major), I am talking about the precedent it would set, the radioactivity it would release, the normalizing of nuclear weapons, etc..

"Tactical nukes against facilities is one thing, killing 10s of thousands of troops at a time is another."

Most of these "facilities" are within miles of highly populated civilian cities. I do not see a difference. A nuke is a nuke and shouldn't be used. How hypocritical, not to mention evil and murderous, would it be of us to use nuclear weapons against a country to supposedly keep them from getting and using a nuclear weapon.
What's the difference? And I am not asking about technical differences (my husband is a nuclear physics major), I am talking about the precedent it would set...

You know Navyswan...that's a good question, and honestly, setting aside the technical details, I'm not sure.

Strategic nuclear weapons won't be used against Iran no matter what. But w.r.t. tactical nukes, I just have the feeling that if we used them against advancing ground forces (basically the sole purpose being to kill large numbers of soldiers quickly), we're going to suffer much more than we would otherwise. But your point about the irony of the situation is well taken. The problem of course is that Bu$hCo is irony impaired and doesn't give a sh*t in any case.
I vaguely remember that a few years ago the DOD underwent a routine Nuclear Posture Review. It was generally uninteresting except for the part where Rummy added one bullet point to the list of reasons for deploying nuclear weapons: a preventative measure against the threat of overwhelming force or to prevent the release of CBR weapons. This was notable for its departure from the historic US position of never being the one to strike first with nukes.

No one seemed to care much back then....

Add a comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link