« Secession Nostalgia | Main | Half A Friedman »

War Clouds, Plus -- Worst Idea Ever

19 Sep 2006 11:08 am

AEGIS.jpg

Fred Kaplan wonders if the "prepare to deploy" order that's "been sent out to U.S. Navy submarines, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers, and two mine-hunting ships" means we're going to war with Iran. Sam Gardiner, former US Air Force Colonel, concludes that we are in a new report (availble in PDF) for the Century Foundation. Gardiner says the preparations for war "will not be a major CNN event." Instead, they "will involve the quiet deployment of Air Force tankers to staging bases" and "additional Navy assets moved to the region." Gardiner makes the point that while nobody's talking about a land invasion of Iran, significant elements in the government do have more ambitious goals than simple surgical strikes at Iranian nuclear facilities. Such strikes are very unlikely to actually resolve the perceived Iran issue, and there are administration figures who've convinced themselves that a sufficiently wide air target set will prompt regime change in Iran. One should note that the curious thing about air power is that the professionals involved in managing it have a longstanding, cross-national, and incredibly pernicious habit of massively and systematically overstating its efficacy in accomplishing all sorts of implausible things.

At this point, I think I need to bring up what one might call the Craziest Goddamn Thing I've Heard In a Long Time. This story came to me last week from an anonymous individual who I would say is in a position to know about such things. According to this person, the DOD has (naturally) been doing some analysis on airstrikes against Iran. The upshot of the analysis was that conventional bombardment would degrade the Iranian nuclear program by about 50 percent. By contrast, if the arsenal included small nuclear weapons, we could get up to about 80 percent destroying. In response to this, persons inside the Office of the Vice President took the view that we could use the nukes -- in other words, launch an unprovoked nuclear first strike against Iran -- and then simply deny that we'd done so. Detectable radiation in the area of the bombed sites would be attributed to the fact that they were, after all, nuclear facilities we'd just hit.

Now I rather doubt that's going to happen. Typically, Bush dials down the crazy factor a notch or two relative to what comes out of the OVP. Nevertheless, it's a sobering reminder that we have genuine lunatics operating in the highest councils of government at the moment. It's an extremely dangerous situation.

Share This

Comments (121)

Uranium has a fingerprint and it's real persistent. Like the VIN on an engine block. Unless, we've taken to making our bombs from the tiny amount of uranium which Iran has processed, we would be found out.

BTW, go back and edit your post and close that sprawling anchor tag.

Two web things: yeah, close that link. Your entire post is blue. And on Firefox, it's almost impossible to see the input boxes for the comment function. It's like, white on white. I thought that I had to log in or something to post a comment, then accidentally got the cursor in there. Just change the CSS a bit to make the controls a bit gray or blue or something to contrast with the white...

And oh yeah. That's pretty much the Craziest Goddamn Thing I've Heard In a Long Time (CGDTIHIALT?). Every time you think you've sussed out the depths of depravity and lunacy to which Cheney and his minions (and they are minions; every evil genius needs them) will sink, they surprise me by coming up with something even more bat-shit crazy.

As I understand it, our tactical nuclear weapons are all thermonuclear fission / fusion weapons comprised of plutonium and tritium. We're supposedly bombing sites that are enriching uranium, which is a different element. Furthermore, on detonation they create other elements (strontium, I believe) that would also not be found if you just blew up an enrichment facility. Basically, it's the difference between telling if you blew up a dirty bomb or had a nuclear detonation. Now, I know the OVP is not a bunch of nuclear physicists, having had other brilliant thoughts on warfare, but this is pretty fucking dumb.

Jeffrey,

Unless I am mistaken we'd be using plutonium based nukes, I think the U.S. moved past Uranium a while ago. I can't believe I am even thinking this but they might get a few uranium bombs special made to do the job so they can offer the plausible deniability mentioned in the post.

Gods help us all.

Ah, now I see the Sam Gardiner link!

Last night, a comment on the basketball thread pointed us to a statement by the same Sam Gardiner that miltary operations in Iran are already "under way". That statement by Gardiner was in April. I was going to say that this Gardiner sounds as deranged as Sy Hersh, but it turns out he was citing Sy Hersh, at least in part. Way to go Reality-Based Community! Weeeeee!

Let's not let scientific fact get in the way of a good war.

Atrios just linked to this, noting that he doesn't share your optimism about our leadership. What's really, really scary is that his definition actually makes sense, relatively speaking. When optimism is equivalent to "believing our leaders are unlikely to start an unprovoked nuclear war", we, or perhaps I should say the President and the Executive branch beneath him, have rather completely redefined the term.

It's becoming more fashionable to say this, but I'll add my name to the chorus: our leaders are deeply unserious about the practical workings of international relations. They think they are serious, but they are not, and their supporters are enabling them for pure political gain. It's really frightening.

I detect absolutely no reason for optimism here.

If the bushistas think they can get away with it, they'll do it.

Simple as that.

Who's gonna stop 'em? The Press? the People?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha(gasp)hahahahahahahahahahahaha
.

The problem is that the deniability is barely plausible.

I really don't think that plan passes the giggle test; even if the civilian leadership at DoD might go for it, the soldiers would look at them like they had grown an extra head.

Then again, bombing Iran would be a disaster too, and that, sadly, is far more credible.

Actually, a good friend who lives inside the bubble argued for exactly this sort of attack more than two years ago. As he put it "it wouldn't take more than a day or so. Just cancel flights in and of the region. Jam TV signals and phones, deny everything".

The point I think is: that a nuclear first-strike would be the start, not the end of something far grander. And what's the point of this sort of attack if you claim responsibility (if that's the word) as news filters out.

The plutonium signature is a feature, not a bug.

This is insane. And what's even more insane is that as a rational, self-interested American, I hope the Iranians hurry up and get their bomb, to deter our leaders from taking such a monumentally self-destructive path.

At least going to school in the early sixties we used to have nuclear bomb drills where we hid under our desks in case the Ruskies dropped the big one on the Pennsylvania countryside. It's nice to know that maybe the practice wasn't wasted.

> Unless I am mistaken we'd be using plutonium
> based nukes, I think the U.S. moved past
> Uranium a while ago.

It doesn't really matter except to the Clancy-obsessed, but this is one of the more persistent misunderstandings on the reality-based side of the house. Plutonium can only be used for implosion-type devices (of which a thermonuclear trigger is one variety); it cannot be used for gun-type devices.

Uranium, however, can be used for both gun-type devices (the original use) AND implosion devices. The only modern gun-type devices were the artillary shells, which are now believed to be withdrawn from service. However, there are indications that uranium (and uranium/plutonium alloys) is used in various implosion devices when it is advantageous to do so. What those advantages are is of course utterly secret, but that they exist under certain circumstances is mentioned many times in the open literature.

Or to look at it another way, the stuff is still being enriched in quantities greater than needed for civilian purposes, so someone is using the excess.

Cranky

I keep going back to a quote in Suskind's "The One-Percent Doctrine." Bush: "Sometimes the use of force really clarifies things."

That's the attitude of a bully, someone who only knows how to threaten or destroy. Cheney shares it. Neither of them have any patience for statesmanship or governance, and it is folly to count on appeals to reason reaching either of them.

The one thing they've learned from Iraq is that they can destroy the infrastructure of a modern nation and reduce it to near savagery. It's the only thing they've accomplished, and I'd be surprised if they don't try it again.

Where'd you ever get the idea that "...bush dials down the crazy factor..."? He does no such thing. The process is well understood. Bush is 100% in on the planning for the "crazy" action (even if only as a listener). After the lunatic position is decided, AS PART OF THE MARKETING CAMPAIGN, cheney comes out as Mr. Insane so then bush comes out only slightly less insane and looks like the a moderating voice - our 'father knows best who will protect us'.
.

Regarding the Craziest Goddamn Thing I've Heard In a Long Time, I see no reason to doubt it. But I was under the impression that part of the Generals' Revolt was that they more or less got the White House to take the nuclear option off the table, after the White House got the military to detail the hypotheticals of such a thing. I'm just going by memory here, and I think it is based on a Hersh piece, perhaps the very one that the still-annoying Al cites.

We did tornado drills for the same reason, so it was more or less plausibly denied that a school for a SAC facility was doing the drill. As the kids would note: "Dad says if a nuke hit near here you wouldn't want to live through it..."

Now let's look at the wind patterns and weather for neighboring nukular Pakistan and nukular India. The fallout would effect them drastically. Any vetting by true military brass would have to take this into account.

Meanwhile watch out for flight renditions...Paris and London sound like the best places to tag this tactic with the INC/OSP crew merging interest with the ILF of Paris.
Maybe we could blame it on the internets.

The threat of being caught in a lie has never deterred these people from acting. So nuclear weapons have a signature and denying you've used them would ultimately be found out as a lie? So what? Didn't just about every reason for waging the current war turn out to be a lie? Weren't the circumstances of their construction and presentation inherently false and surely to be exposed? Did it stop them from telling their lies, and waging a war based on those lies? No, nor will it factor into war with Iran. They'll lie about the why, where, when and how of everything they're about to do. And once exposed it'll basically be "Too fucking bad, we had good intentions and the Iranians are bad people. And oh by the way we'd do it all again, so there!". Iran needs a few thousand coffins I'd wager, we'll be filling them.

The executive producer sounds off: People just need to think more positively about the idea of nuclear war, and Jericho aims to help them do just that. It's a "high-concept" TV soap featuring a plucky small town with a biblical name surviving nuclear catastrophe while the big cities apparently burn in hellfire and disappear. In the words of executive producer Jon Turteltaub, "A nuclear bomb is not as bad as everybody thinks." Yeah, right. The propaganda drumbeat is starting. CBS, Wednesday night.

As long as people are offering a CSS critique: it's virtually impossible to see cursor highlighting of your body text (highlighting of blockquotes shows up fine).

You're hard to quote these days, Matthew.

I think it's nonsense that a nuclear strike could be hidden if the targets were ``nuclear facilities''. Gamma spectra of the fallout would reveal fission products unlikely to be present in a facility just doing uranium enrichment. Furthermore, fission products tend to be hot to very hot radioactivity, while unexploded uranium and radionuclides in the uranium decay series have much lower activity. I suppose they could hit reactor waste somewhere too, but that would be be a major crime...

One thing about using nukes is that it would poison our troops. That's the kind of thing that pisses people off.

Any fission nuclear detonation, whether plutonium or uranium based, is going to leave by-products that are the unique signatures of a nuclear detonation, and cannot be ascribed to a destroyed nuclear program. Iran would have to let in outsiders to verify it, though the Bushies can just claim they are lying or salted the evidence. That creates an interesting internal political dilemma in which Bush is lying about the first use of a nuclear weapon -- what will McCain do (snark)?

An underground blast by a penetrating weapon with a small yield would produce very little fallout.

These lunatics are crazy enough to try this. They are certainly foaming at the mouth to try it.

It's interesting that in this election cycle, the war is being postponed apparently because it is believed it won't sell well.

But in 2007, and even if Congress has changed hands at least in part, what checks crazy man Bush from completing his war legacy in this manner? He is gone in two years and apparently thinks dealing with Iran is the most important thing he must do before leaving. So much for being a lame duck.

If Iran removed all the valuable stuff from its facilities and then blew them up themselves, and claimed the US had bombed them, who would the world believe at this point? When you have two coutries pointing guns at each other, all kinds of bad shit can happen.

There was a time - such happy days - when I would have seen the mere suggestion that an American administration would be capable of this action as typical and stupid knee jerk anti-Americanism of the anti-war movement. Now I don't see this kind of speculation as anti-war at all as such, it is completely rational to wonder about these scenarios: one would actually naturally suppose that they would do it if they thought that they would get away with it (and botch it horribly in the process though amidst such ethical horrors it would probably escape notice). Hell, maybe they would get away with it: they have been selling such amazing things to the American public (and the mainstream media) that this would not be at all impossible to imagine. Accountability died some years ago - RIP.

i think you all make the analysis far too easy by assuming individuals in the administration are crazy (which seems like a fairly silly assumption -- it's generally hard to work in a couple administrations, be the CEO of a major corporation, if you're actually a lunatic). further, you have no chance of affecting the debate (if there is any) if you treat them as crazy, rather than attempting to parse what they might be thinking, why someone in good faith would consider such a course of action, what consideration might dissuade them from taking what you consider to be reckless action, etc. otherwise, you're just preaching to fellow believers on the message board.

No, not crazy - simultaneously incredibly unscrupulous (they have made cynicism into an art form) and unimaginably incompetent (the Iraqi occupation is something straight out of Keystone Kops - well, if you don't take into account the thousands and tens of thousands of lives it is costing - then it's markedly less funny).

"The problem is that the deniability is barely plausible"

and that is a problem how? who cares if its plausible or believable? The admin just has to say it and that's good enough for FOX! and the rest of the MSM chorus.

I can see it now .. The president refuted claims that the US used nucklar weapons today. He said '@What the hell do you f88king expect .. it was a WMD lab and that's what you get..'

dj superfalt, I think the reason many of us like blogs is precisely that we don't have to ignore the obvious in order to be accepted into polite conversation.

Perhaps we can regain control of our government by offering Cheney ransom: say 1 milllliyon dollars!!

Bush, Cheney, etc. would obviously be found out by the international community were they to follow through with this plan.

But here in the USofA they have enough power with big media and enough skill at confusing even the simplest questions, that most of the citizenry would eventually just throw up their hands and say, "Well, maybe we did, maybe we didn't." And when the rest of the world is understandably reluctant to have anything to do with any American, the parts of America that revel in us versus them will have another excuse to hate the French, or whoever Bill O'Reilly tells them to hate.

They've done it time and time again for issues big (Katrina, Iraq) and small ("Mission Accomplished" sign, Coretta King funeral).

"I was under the impression that part of the Generals' Revolt was that they more or less got the White House to take the nuclear option off the table."


Hersh's take was that the military planners, who are paid to be completely amoral, had originally put the nuclear option in. There were some at the JCS who wanted to take it back out, but the White House (read: Shotgun Dick) refused. Then, after Sy's story appeared, someone leaked word that the nuke strike HAD been removed.

But we already know how this works. In the end, Cheney and company will make sure the nukes stay in. They're going all -- so that there can be no turning back.

dj superflat,
Either that's incredibly ironic snark or delusional on your part, particularly your lines about being able to "affect the debate." Considering that this administration didn't even listen to their own experts on Iraq and the Mideast (see Maj. Gen. Anthony Zinni and many others), the idea that they would come out of their bubble to listen to any voice of reason is absurd.

> why someone in good faith would consider
> such a course of action

Please name 6 actions of Dick Cheney since November 4th 2000 that were taken in "good faith".

Cranky

Revelevant W quote: I won't leave office with Iran a nuclear threat.

Why?

Seriously, why?

The cover story will be that the Iranians released radiation on themselves - on purpose - to make the United States look bad.

Anyone want in on the betting pool?

Debate?

Talking part is done. Bubble boy didn't even bother to try to make his case at the UN just now. IDF resupplies. US troops pull out of Anwar, get them ditches dug and get ready for the 'next crisis'. Generals are mostly careerists, and they'll want to play their part in history.

The only question is before or after November.

"As I understand it, our tactical nuclear weapons are all thermonuclear fission / fusion weapons comprised of plutonium and tritium. We're supposedly bombing sites that are enriching uranium, which is a different element"

BWAHAHAHAHA. That's just stupid science stuff no one pays attention to. Let me close the sale:

1) Iran must have had more going on than we ever realized - in fact, those elements indicate Iran was just days away from having a weapon.

2) They violated security council resolutions and got what they deserved. They have no one to blame but themselves.

3) It is just crazy to suggest the United States would perform a nuclear first strike. Crazy. Next Question.

4) The US reserves the right to pre-emptively use our nuclear deterent on rogue states that threaten us. We have repeatedly pointed out the US will take nothing off the table with regards to nation defense.

5) Those reports show just how anti-American the press is - they are aiding and abetting a terrorist nation.

6) This show of power will cause the good people of Iran to rise up and throw off their tyranical government and form a democracy.

Some of those are seemingly contradictory. Nevertheless, youw ill hear them in the same day's soundbites, perhaps in the same news conference. If you think that will affect their credibility, you have not been paying attention.

Then there's the possibility that this nuclear option is being floated simiply to make everybody appreciate how restrained and judicious we are in only starting an unprovoked conventional air war on Iran.

Anyone want in on the betting pool?

Nope. That looks like a sucker bet to me.

Ever hear that Confucian curse? "May you live in interesting times." That'd be us.

There are visible, circular craters in New Mexico from the atomic tests in the 40s and 50s. Conventional weapons do not create blast craters like that.

If we nuked a site in Iran and claimed it was a conventional bombing, all kinds of satellites would peer at the target and be able to tell what really happened. They'd have to claim that our conventional bombing somehow caused an Iranian bomb to go off, and that does NOT pass the giggle test.

It's not only the Craziest Goddamn Thing I've Heard, it's also the Stupidest. Masking a nuclear attack will just not work. Period. That's not to say these idiots won't try it...

"Anyone want in on the betting pool?"

... Talk about a "Dead Pool!"


Ed

I've long been worried about the kind of thing Col. Gardiner is talking about. Specifically, I don't see ANY kind of check on "probes" of Iranian territory with our own real-life superheroes, SEAL's and Deltas and such. I think that this is just setting up another Tonkin Gulf episode. There is no issue, not one, that more urgently requires a vocal, effective opposition -- where the hell are the Dems? We like to think that Bush and Cheney have no credibility any more, but I see nothing to indicate that Herman Goering's maxims about governing through crisis are less true than they've ever been.

Frankly, I think liberals need to take the discussion back to the basics. Even if the Iranians are attempting to acquire nuclear weapons (which is almost certainly true), we need to ask the real question, which is, So what? Sadly, the nuclear proliferation cat got out of the bag forever when Pakistan got its bomb. We can't reverse that, any more than we can fix Iran's unfortunate proximity to the world's biggest oil fields. Otherwise, sane people who want to avoid a 1914-style crisis are going to be forever in a sucker's position, forced to quibble over just what balance of carrots 'n' stix Bush ought to use -- while he goes on his merry, oblivious way....

There is no more truth. So what if the Iranians cry, "hey, you attacked us with nuclear weapons without provocation! that's a war crime!"

In this climate, it'll just be neutralized, and my fellow citizens will hear, "U.S. rendered and tortured a Cadanian citizen who was found completely innocent, that's a war crime;" "U.S. operating CIA black sights in foreign countries. That a war crime;" "U.S. proven to have used white phosphorous as a weapon against Iraqis. That's a war crime."

The media will begin the spin, the "he said, she said," yadda yadda yadda.

Just Gimme Some Truth - John Lennon
Im sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocritics
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
Ive had enough of reading things
By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of hope
Money for dope
Money for rope

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of soap
Money for dope
Money for rope

Im sick to death of seeing things
From tight-lipped, condescending, mamas little chauvinists
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth now

Ive had enough of watching scenes
Of schizophrenic, ego-centric, paranoiac, prima-donnas
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of soap
Its money for dope
Money for rope

Ah, Im sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocrites
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now

Ive had enough of reading things
By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now

All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth

Besides craters, the seismic signature of a nuke would be easily recognizable by both the Russians and the non-US geologic community. The fallout would be diagnostic within a few days, and India and China clearly would be able to test that.
My question is, after the nuclear strike, would proposing impeachment be prima facie evidence of treason, or would Congress simply be adjourned sine die?

The point about air power is an excellent one ... but note that there is an exception that provide an excellent test of the rule. Air power advocates tend to downplay the effectiveness of air power in close support of ground forces.

I do not have a reference to this, but I recall reading a decade ago that when war game developers were trying to develop war games for the Italian campaign in WWII, with official assessments of force effectiveness as the starting point, they could not get the scenarios to play realistically until they downgraded the effectiveness of "strategic" bombing and upgraded the effectiveness of air power in close support of ground forces.

``An underground blast by a penetrating weapon with a small yield would produce very little fallout.''

Low-yield earth-penetrating "bunker buster" nukes, like the B61-11 would produce large, deadly fallout fields. A persistent myth in the Congressional debates over the last couple years was that bunker buster nukes could limit ``collateral damage''. If used in populated areas, they won't.

See http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.htm

If true, Dick Cheney = history's greatest monster.

my point is, if you make the reasonable assumption they're not lunatics, then you can better analyze what's likely going on (e.g., all the people correctly pointing out that there would be no way to hide strikes with tactical nukes, so the administration almost certainly will not strike with tactical nukes and then try to hide it). as for liking blogs because you get to assume counterproductive things, godspeed, but it makes much of the "discussion" a joke (because you start drifting into conspiracy theory land where you're as lunatic as the people you're identifying as lunatics).

The comments here on the domestic and media response to a nuclear war are all good, and probably accurate. My real concern is not the shock and concern of this country, or of the international community; my concern is the very real possibility of retaliation, especially from Russia and China, both of which have vested interests in Iran and its oil.

I just can't imagine that they would do nothing if Cheney dropped nukes on Tehran. Let's see, China holds our IOUs, Russia controls the pipeline...and both have their own nukes, as well as armies and navies.

The part about denying it and getting away with that is just ridiculous. We have seven year olds running our government.

Whatever. The world won't tolerate a nuclear attack. No one wants a global recession; but at that point, the rest of the world would have no choice besides pulling the plug on our economy. Poof, no more American century.

An interesting sidebar in this is just how we know where the nuclear plants are so we can bomb them. I've worked in WMD detection, so I know how easy it is to locate nuclear refineries (and how they can be obfuscated). But we didn't know where they were in Iraq -- that's why we invaded.

If they say that they can accurately bomb nuclear refineries in Iran, aren't they admitting that they knew there were no nuclear refineries in Iraq? If they claim they didn't know exactly where the sites in Iraq were, how are we supposed to believe they can bomb the ones in Iran accurately?

In both cases we should either know where the refineries are or we don't. It's nearly the same terrain and nearly the same culture.

Matt,

I don't know if you are aware of this but this blog entry is now #31 on the reddit hot 100, and rising. You think maybe you could put a reddit submission tag into your blog already?

http://reddit.com/buttons

djsuperflat said, "my point is, if you make the reasonable assumption they're not lunatics, then you can better analyze what's likely going on"

My post yesterday referenced Saul Bellow's examples of how mistaken it is to presume that world actors are rational. And yet, reasonable people apparently always discuss events that way. There are all manner of consequences that we (non-world-actors) have on our decisions that make verifying our assumptions a worthwhile thing to do. If we're wrong, we go hungry or our children hate us or our spouses leave us or diseases debillitate us. Etc. People at the top really don't. Hungarians might picket their PM over malfeasance. We don't. There's no torches and pitchforks left in our imaginations.

Collecting jaw from floor. No, I wouldn't put it past them. And a year later, as photos of crippled and maimed Iranian children dominate the newspapers, and environmental teams testing the Iranian countryside shake their heads in disbelief, and the UN debates putting sanctions on the US for a nuclear first strike, someone will ask Cheney why they did it. He'll growl, "Well, we didn't nuke Iran on Sept 11, 2001. And the terrorists hit us anyway."

All you people pointing out that the radiation signature would reveal that we'd done the bombing in the CGTIHILT scenario are probably right.

Which is why you're all under arrest.

We'll come back to the details of the charges later, but right now, I'm thinking we'll just tell the press you had child pornography on your computers.

Thank you for your attention.

Signed,

The "Administration"

Seismic/fallout activity aside, a nuclear explosion generates a very unique burst of radiation visible in space. We (among others) already have satellites in space to detect such explosions (Do a search on "Vela satellite" to see what I'm talking about, although these days Vela is replaced by the GPS system). They could lie all they want about it, but multiple nations will have evidence if this has happened, and this is the kind of issue where they'd be lying in front of Congress, because that is who would be asking about such an attack. I don't even think refusing to answer would cut it when you're talking about a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

> my point is, if you make the reasonable
> assumption they're not lunatics, then
> you can better analyze what's likely
> going on

Uh, dj, have you ever dealt over a long period of time with a person who is actually, doctor-certified insane? In particular, clinically paranoid? I have, and I can assure you that all the rational analysis and discussion in the world will get you exactly nowhere with the person or the situation.

Let me put it this way: suppose you are taking a game theory class as part of your competitive MBA program. Nice, neat, Game Theory World(tm) where all the rules are known and the process will be 100% rational. The professor tells you that over the next three weeks you will be running trials of various games to understand the concept and learn how different strategies work. Quite normal; happens every semester in poli sci and business departments all over the world.

While you are at the library researching your strategy, you learn that one of your classmates is a made man who uses his organization's enforcers to kidnap and torture any classmates who look to be holding him back from a coveted grade of A.

Bit of a problem, eh? And one that you aren't likely to resolve through any clean, open, rational process you can imagine. Not the classroom, not the university grievance process, not the police. You are screwed.

That is the position the average US citizen is in at the moment.

But tell me, if Dick Cheney has rational motives, what ARE they /exactly/?

Cranky

In response to this, persons inside the Office of the Vice President took the view that we could use the nukes -- in other words, launch an unprovoked nuclear first strike against Iran -- and then simply deny that we'd done so.

It certainly raises all sorts of questions about what OVP has already had done in the Middle East.

Minesweepers, guided missile cruisers, subs ... no, it doesn't sound like war. Sounds as if we want to be sure shipping remains open in the Persian Gulf, where the Iranians have great capability to disrupt shipping.

I think Bush and crew are a bag of nuts. But this action is prudent.

Actual war with Iran, of course, would be an act of criminal madness.

There have long been elements within the Pentagon's military-industrial complex establishment that promote periodically starting minor wars for the primary purpose of "testing" (and consuming so they can manufacture and sell more) the latest generation of military hardware. Since it has lately become politically unfashionable to openly test nuclear weapons, it is conceivable that nuclear weapons proponents and manufacturers would adopt this tried and true method as a logical alternative.

Definitely a stupid idea, and can be dismissed quickly. As other commenters point out, US weapons would have a pretty recognizable isotope signature (although I suspect we could drag out a uranium weapon or three if we needed them).

The dead giveaway would be the explosion/crater itself. If we nuked above ground level (or pretty near it), there would be an unmistakeable gamma-ray signal. I'm no space expert, but the Chinese & Russians must have a few satellites pointed at the ground looking for gamma-ray events. (Not to mention high-energy astronomers!) If the nuke event is pretty deep underground, it will leave quite a crater, which would be pretty clear as well... (It's pretty easy to calculate the energy required to make a crater of a given size, and there are other supporting data, such as seismic traces.)

This is probably too stupid even for this bunch of assclowns, but then again...

I made a bet in early January that the U.S. would use such weapons in Iran prior to 11/7/06. Simple equation: the greater the likelihood the repugs will lose in November, the greater the likelihood of a military strike on Iran.

In the earliest posts on this discussion, the question of the radiation "signature" was considered (i.e., it would be possible to detect US-made nukes vs. Iranian uranium).

I would add: are there other countries in the region whose nuclear weapons use uranium? Could countries with cozy ties to the Bush Administration - like Pakistan and India . . . or Israel - be willing to lob a uranium-based nuke at Iran?

Thanks for thank Bellow quote, Jeffrey.

Logic may be a trap, but I think it's also a security blanket for "smart" people.

Let's face it...if Bush is truly crazy, he'll drop a nuke on D.C. while Congress is in session and he, Cheney and Rummy are outta town.

Wouldn't hurt to designate an alternate capital and let every Congressman designate a replacement who would take over for them in the event that, say, 50% or more of Congress is killed in a terrorist atttack.

Not a bad idea even if you don't think Bush is crazy.

One "rational" motive would be to commit this country to a course of action from which there would be no turning back.

Sort of like our invasion of Iraq.

Lots of good points about the nuclear strikes. I want to comment on his other bit of administration insanity: "there are administration figures who've convinced themselves that a sufficiently wide air target set will prompt regime change in Iran."

Can someone give me an example of a country that when bombed turned against its rulers and overthrew them in favor of someone more favorable to the people doing the bombing? Seems to me that bombing naturally turns people against the bombers and if anything makes them rally around their own government even if they weren't too fond of it before. The British didn't exactly turn pro-Hitler during the Blitz. Hell, Americans didn't get more sympathetic to Al Qaida, or anyone Muslim, after 9/11 -- they rallied around Bush, even most of those who disliked him before, and gave him a 90% approval rating. Are the folks in the administration really too stupid to understand that, even after having it demonstrated in Iraq and Lebanon, or is something else going on?

another rational motive: someone honestly believes (perhaps mistakenly) that iran will obtain nukes and (i) itself use said nukes against israel and/or the US or (ii) provide them to terrorists who will, etc. so to the extent there's evidence iran is not close to nuclear capability, there's no imminent threat and thus no justification for attack under what presumably is the administration's standard. or to the extent there's evidence that a first strike is unlikely to take out any or all iranian nuclear capability -- and i think there is, from things read when the same issues were hashed over wrt n. korea -- there's far less justification for a strike, which would seemingly give iran good reason to continue to try to obtain nukes and/or use them against those who did the attacking. focusing on either aspect of the issue that's likely to dissuade the administration seems more productive than just assuming they're paranoid schizophrenics (pretty much absent evidence they are such) and throwing up your hands.

it's a variant of pascal's wager: if the administration isn't composed of rational actors, all bets are off regardless; but if the actors are rational -- and if we're willing to assume that about (e.g.) the mullahs in iran, why not the administration -- then assuming they're not and attacking them as lunatics seemingly undermines the very result you want to reach (a change in their alleged plans, based on your legit concerns, etc.). thought it's admittedly more fun to villify your opponent.

The rational explanation is easy: money and power.

An attack on Iran would send oil prices through the roof. A lot of people Bush genuinely cares about would make a lot of money. It would put us into an even more serious war that contractors could make a lot of money on. It would be a great way to turn the debate one more time to "do you think its safe to give Democrats power in the middle of a new war?"

Oh yes, it would be insane in terms of regular people, but Bush doesn't care about regular people beyond getting them to vote within theft margins in a few states. Fear does that.

Would it matter if the world was thrown into a global recession? No. The people Bush cares about would still have plenty of money - in fact, the rich would end up with an even higher percentage of wealth than they do now. Wealth can protect itself, it will be fine. Suckers working for a living might have to make some sacrifices, but what are they going to do about it?

Does anyone on this thread think here would be a possibility of a "7 Days in May" type overthrow of the current spaced out madmen? Is there no possibility that some of the top military either on active duty or retired (read Powell, Zanni, etc.) to lets say surround the capital on the night of the State of the Union & just lead both Bush & Cheney off in strait jackets. They could appoint an "Interim President" such as Powell who promises to leave office when the next administration is elected in 2 years and then start by replacing the lunatic support staff that have crap for brains?

Why not a coup? It couldn't be any worse so why not roll the dice??

As far as Pascal's Wager goes: I don't know that anyone's saying that Bush/Cheney are clinically demented. I know that I don't think so. However, there's no reason to have faith in their best, "rational" judgement any more, and damn little evidence that they can actually respond intelligently when their pet axioms prove badly flawed. In addition, I think they have ample reason to viscerally fear the results of this next election: My suspicion is that many or most of the people in the upper 2-3 tiers of the executive branch could face, substantial legal bills at least, and possibly imprisonment. I think they're fighting for their lives. Doesn't help them fit into that "rational actor" mode you're talking about, does it?

I can neither believe nor disbelieve that the OVP is seriously considering this idea. All I can do is say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Your anonymous source needs to give someone pointers to where corroboration can be discovered.

File that under: holy cow. There were reports about tactical nuke plans last year, I think.

Free,

The U.S. military can't even control Iraq, a country with 1/12th the population of America.

They could, however, enforce martial law in the U.S. with the backing of a large chunk of the population (the well-armed chunk) of their side.

If you really think Bush is crazy, your main focus should be to ensure he and his pals step down when their term expires in a couple of years...

Anything else we can fix once he's gone.

Does anyone know how many Iranian troops would be available to be deployed in Iraq against our forces there?

I'm only surprised that the neocon lunatics are talking about keeping it secret if they use nukes. I thought the whole point was to show the world what happens when you defy American authoritah. They were talking that way about preemptive nuke attacks even before the Iraq war proved the weakness of their militarist approach. But what else are you going to do if your only dream is to rule the world by force?

Gee, I never realized W's favorite Randy Newman song was "Political Science" ("Let's drop the big one, and see what happens..."). I always figured it was "Rednecks" or "Yellow Man," which Newman once described as "a pinhead's view of China."

Monkeyboy:

Just for the sake of argument (& unfortuanately it could prove to be true) let's suppose that George does take a swan dive into paranoia land or falls hard off the wagon. Is there any possibility of a quicker fix than "wait two + years" for a hopefully saner successor?

If Bush has to be fitted for a suit that ties in the back, would we be any better off with Cheney? Not likely.

That's why I would think a "package deal" would be best for the country. Just to be clear here (so the S.S. will not come knocking at my door), I am not speaking of removal via violent means.

What I do not understand is what is the country's recourse if this should occur (some sort of off the wall breakdown)? With a republican controlled congress, how would any path short of a coup be feasible?

How bout a little spectulation?

I have another scenario: Blame Israel.

"In order to protect itself, the state of Israel today launched a preemptive nuclear strike on Iran. An outraged middle east muslim community vows join action to drive the Israelis into the sea."

The US gets to condone Israel, but then will jump to defend it against the inevitable backlash from islamic countries.
And so the great judeo-islam war starts. Israel and the US proceed to wipe out all islamic nations in the name of 'national security' and break islamic power in the region forever, leaving a few large craters in the process. It's mostly desert anyway, right? Plus is secures all the oil for the rest of time and shows that we're just as crazy as the islamic militants, only better armed.

TCGTIHHIALT! Definitely. Boy, I am sure glad I made my peace with living in a target city a while back. Work halfway between WH and Capitol, and live in the neighborhood of the Pentagon. It's good to be in that inner-ring circle of annihilation.

I pray this is simply disinformation buttressing a madman strategy.

a) I think you underestimating the "fog of war". How long did it take to definitively say there no WMD's in Iraq? And the various forms of chaos will delay indefinitely a determination that would allow Katie Couric or Britt Hume to say it on-air.

b)I think you also underestimating the consequences. The "torture" bills are being passed in part to protect the President from War Crimes. After the Iranian War and Great Depression #2 are in full bloom, would Democratic Senators really want to confront the sitting unimpeachable President on the use of nukes? Watcha gonna do about it?

3) The consequences from a conventional attack would not be so much easier than from a nuclear attack. So I think Bush has less to lose by going nuclear than you think. It is only marginally more crazy.

3)An isolated despised America is good for Republicans.

I still really have no clue about Iran.

As a serious wargamer myself, I will say that the neocons want to bomb Iraq so bad they can taste it. I suspect the lesson they have learned from the recent Lebanese war is that no one in the United States media cares if you destroy all the bridges, airports, pipelines, ports, powerplants, etc. in a county while pursuing your "limited military objectives." Even if they can only damage less than 50% of Iran's nuclear facilities, the economic damage to Iran by attacking its economic infrastructure provides its own justification. What are the odds that Iran's new international oil market in Euros will be closed by collateral damage or its designation as a legitimate target?

Free,

Attacking Iran without Congressional approval seems like a rather large and obvious violation of the Constitution to me.

If Bush does it, then he should be impeached and convicted by Congress.

If Congress is unwilling to do this...we don't have any other option but to wait until his term expires and hope he steps down.

If he doesn't step down, well...we won't be the first democracy that voted in a dictator...

Considering they all know this attack will only set back Iran for 2 to 3 years do they serious think Iran won't be looking for a payback after they've been nukes?

Dick Cheney, before he dicks you!

Actually, as citizens, I believe we really need to think long and hard about what we WILL do in the event of a war with Iran. At that point, I don't think that sitting back and waiting for the next election will be sufficient. Not in a moral sense, anyway. I think it will be time to go to the streets -- to do what, I don't know. Despair and lose our jobs, most likely. But if that war breaks out, we can say goodbye to pretty much every decent American tradition.

Accepting as axiomatic that the Regime doesn't care what happens to the citizenry of the US as long as itself and its buddies come out ahead of the game, doesn't that assume that the res