PAT BUCHANAN nuclear math: 10,000 US + 200 Israeli nukes= no Iran threat

[yurbud]

In 1992, I listened to Pat Buchanan's speech to the GOP convention as I drove from LA to Portland, and he scared the shit out of me. He came close to calling for an open civil war between conservatives and the rest of us. Fortunately, Papa Bush was embarassed by the excess and lost anyway.

Buchanan has not changed, but the Republicans have moved so far right that he has more in common with the left, largely because he refuses to ignore what he knows about history and math for the sake of agreeing the party.

The basic math on Iran is roughly the same as it was on Iraq:

• We have 10,000 nuclear warheads
  
  
• Israel has 200
  
  
• Iran has none (maybe a handful in a few years to a decade)
  
  
• If Iran uses one on us or Israel, either of us could nuke Iran out of existence and still have plenty to spare.
  

Back in the Cold War, neither we nor the Soviets launched our nukes because of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). It seems hard to believe a smaller country would commit suicide, knowing that at best they injured us, but couldn't take us with them. This should be called a corollary of MAD: OSH-OSAD (One Side Hurt-One Side Assured Destruction).

We have the most powerful military on earth, but are continually being persuaded that some flea on our ass is going to eat us alive. imagine you had a neighbor who collected machine guns and occasionally shot the other neighbors dogs. Would you ever steal his newspaper off the driveway? Or sleep with his wife? Or pick a fight with him?

If you prefer we skip this war, sign this petition that Howard Zinn, Harold Pinter, and George Galloway have already put their names on:

http://stopwaroniran.org/statement.shtml

KEY EXCERPTS:

Churchill, Hitler, and Newt

By Patrick J. Buchanan

02/20/06 "WND"

But are the comparisons of Ahmadinejad with Hitler and Iran with the Third Reich, let alone Newt with Churchill, instructive? Or are they ludicrous? Again, a few facts.

In 1942, Hitler's armies dominated Europe from the Pyrenees to the Urals. Ahmadinejad is the president of a nation whose air and naval forces would be toasted in hours by the United States. Iran has missiles that can hit Israel, but no nuclear warheads. Israel could put scores of atom bombs on Iran. The United States, without losing a plane, could make the country uninhabitable with one B-2 flyover and a few MX and Trident missiles.

Why would Ayatollah Khameinei, who has far more power than Ahmadinejad, permit him to ignite a war that could mean the end of their revolution and country? And if we were not intimidated by a USSR with thousands of nuclear warheads targeted on us, why should Ahmadinejad cause Newt to break out in cold sweats at night?

Currently, the "nuclear program" of Iran consists of trying to run uranium hexafluoride gas through a few centrifuges. There is no hard evidence Iran is within three years of producing enough highly enriched uranium for one bomb.

FULL TEXT:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11991.htm

[Pachamama]

1. Here's the real equation: 10,200 Nukes-(put # here)=Millions Dead

And that includes people here..... :eyes:

:nuke:

[yurbud]

11. point is another country might get off a lucky shot then be annihilated

So on the slim chance that they commit suicide as a nation, we are going to kill thousands of Iranians and steal their oil.

[xultar]

2. Xultar's math... Boot + Pat's ass = Kick in Pat's mouth

[yurbud]

12. why?

[xultar]

31. First, no one in the mid east needs nukes and second Pats ass is his mouth

[ladjf]

3. This is an example of terrible math. The main numbers are

missing.

[yurbud]

13. which numbers would you like to see? bbl of oil under Iran?

How much the dollar will drop if they change to Euro bourse?

[ladjf]

20. I fear that you have misunderstood the meaning of my post.

I meant that if the U.S. and Israel unloaded their nuclear arsenal against Iran, the radiation fallout and the blast would have killed millions in the immediate area, then would contaminate the atmosphere all over the planet, possibly rendering half of the Earth's surface uninhabitable. And even if that didn't happen, the reprisal from the rest of the world would be ten times greater than the initial strikes against Iran.

I don't give one damn about any currency rate. That never entered my mind. I'm just praying the the Bush administration isn't as dumb or as crazy as I fear that it like is. We have got to get some people in office that can see beyond the fat bank accounts. What good is a million dollars if there is no place to live?

[yurbud]

27. that actually supports his point--other countries know that too--

and they know it will be even worse if they are ground zero.

[ladjf]

30. I think that we might be on the same side of this discussion.

[yurbud]

33. I think you saw the name and assumed I was going somewhere I wasn't

the point is not to actually use the nukes, but that everyone knows the math about what would happen if they were used.

At best, nukes serve as the ultimate protection against invasion, but other than that, they are unusable.

[katty]

36. indeed...and bush IS that crazy-they all are

[MemphisTiger]

4. Someone tell this pud that it only takes one from either side

[yurbud]

14. ?

[yurbud]

18. therefore we should kill people on off chance they're a suicidal country?

[MemphisTiger]

45. I just meant that it doesn't matter haw many either side has

if one person launches it's over. Us or them, nobody wins

[rman]

40. ...to start mutual annihilation.

Question is, does that warrant pre-emptive strike on Iran?

If so, then why was that not true during the Cold War? The threat of mutual annihilation is what kept the Cold War "cold".

If * would have been president back then and he would have gotten his way, he would have attacked the USSR and we wouldn't be sitting here now.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

5. This is scary

I agree with him

[tatertop]

7. In matters of pure factual analysis he is correct more often than not

[StClone]

8. So do I

Can't believe what else I am reading here.

[havocmom]

10. Happening more often too, isn't it? What a world.

When the US has moved so far right that us old long time lefties nod in agreement with Pat, well, things are pretty extreme.

And since Iran has never seemed particularly suicidal as a nation, one wonders how the hawks think they would ever strike first. Were I an Iranian, I would want my leaders to weapon up considering the aggression of the US.

The junta is so extreme they don't let facts get in their way and the make Pat Buchanan sound like a mainstream moderate! These American Ayatollahs are friggin dangerous.

[yurbud]

15. the hawks don't think Iran will strike first--they need to make an excuse

to strike themselves. First anti-Muslim hysteria (again), followed by a terrorist attack of 9/11 scale or greater, and then they think the public will get on board with the Iran bombing and oil theft.

I hope I'm wrong about the terrorist attack, but without it, they have zero chance of rallying public support--the current 57% would evaporate faster than Iraq approval numbers. Even with a terrorist attack, it's a roll of the dice whether people would respond the way they want.

[havocmom]

19. The hawks are worried about Iran Oil Brouse based on Euro instead of $$

THAT is the 'Iranian Nuke' they fear! As always with these heartless, soulless ghouls, it's about the $$.

[tatertop]

32. Are you certain they need majority public support

Perhaps the loud little bunch
backed by heightened fear and false patriotism,
a draft, and continued endorsement from Congress
will keep the majority impotent, like they are now.
We have no voice. Anywhere.
Bush controls The Government, the army, the police, the prisons
- and he is not afraid to use and abuse them.

[yurbud]

34. It's like the slave revolt in Haiti-- they noticed there were a lot more

slaves than overseers so they rose up and toke over.

We are probably past that critical mass in numbers and things will take an abrupt turn when the Bushies cross some line that I can't predict.

[tatertop]

39. Gonna be a long long time

looooooong time

[tatertop]

6. Pat has a very impressive store of knowledge

Quite often I really enjoy hearing what he has to say.
Doesn't mean I want him running the country but I have to admit he has some insightful analysis.

[ladjf]

22. Are you saying that his implication that we might use our

nuclear arsenal to obliterate Iran is a good piece of political analysis?

[yurbud]

24. If any nation used nukes on us, they would expect to be wiped off the map

just because people have a tan and don't speak English doesn't mean they are retarded.

[rman]

41. Everyone knows the US and Israel have (many) nukes, and Iran has none.

Nothing special about that knowledge.
But Buchanan has what most (R)repubs appear to be lacking: common sense.

[Joe for Clark]

9. Sure hope he is right.

It is a strange world we live in where liberals and conservatives agree on defining issues - maybe a different logic, but the same conclusion.

How is it this administration has been so able to divide the country?

It is just amazing to me.

Joe

[yurbud]

16. The logic isn't different--it's letting the facts influence the conclusion

[yurbud]

17. given initial responses to this, please vote this up--it struck a nerve

with the shills patrolling DU, so they would probably like it do die.

[ladjf]

21. It struck a never with me because if the total stupidity of Buchanan's

remark. I had given him credit for being a bit smarter than that. I think he called himself being smugly cute, bragging about how big our arsenal is. ("Ours is bigger than yours")

At some point, the human race had better start adding up the real numbers about existence and put less emphasis on their current bank balances.

[yurbud]

23. the point was not to brag, but underline who absurd our fear of Iran is

[TallahasseeGrannie]

26. Right.

You said it better than I did. It's a simple concept.

War should be a last resort, not the first action.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

25. Well, there is some of that

but what I hear is why do we need to swat a flea that is annoying us when we have an big case of DDT if we want to use it.

[yurbud]

28. and it terms of threat, it's more like a speck of dust on the flea's ass

[ladjf]

29. I'm sorry. I'm so blown away about any talk of pre-emptive

nuclear strikes that I can hardly think. How in the hell could any rational person view such a move as good strategy.

We may or may not have reason to fear a nuclear strike against the U.S. on U.S. soil. But, I can assure you of this, the Bush is feverishly doing everything in their power to piss off the entire world. There may be plans being developed to hit the U.S. specifically because of the current administrations ruthless, greedy and stupid policies. Bush is not protecting us from terror. He is promoting it.

Now, Buchanan can talk about 10,000 nukes here and 200 there. But, it would only take three or four to reduce the U.S. government into a mindless bowl of blubbering fear. Look what 9-11 attacks did. Multiply that by a million and you be able to imagine how it would be.

The Republican regime must and will end, not by the efforts of the Democrats, but, by the sheer lunacy of their policies. We can only hope that it isn't to late to salvage some survival resources.
The insane are running the asylum.

[yurbud]

35. a nuke going off here, unfortunately, would make it easier for Bush

to do the things they have wanted to do all along.

Buchanan's sole point was that possible annihilation was enough to stay countries hands during the Cold War, not to brag.

[Vidar]

37. Scary that Pat is, by comparison, one of the truth-tellers now.

[paineinthearse]

38. K&R - Please - 3 more to get it in front of more people.

This forum is, unfortunately, a backwater.

Please - 3 more to get it in front of more people.

[yurbud]

42. somebody put it over the top--thanks for asking for the votes

every time these nuke scares come up, someone needs to bring up this issue: why would a country invite certain annihilation by using a nuke on us or giving one to a terrorist group that does? And bring up the issue of MAD.

I'm not sure if Bush would know that is, which would make his answer funny as well as instructive.

[populistdriven]

43. All Iran needs is 20 nukes going off in US cities and we lose

[yurbud]

47. What would they gain from doing that given the certain retaliation?

[enigma000]

48. Depends on their goals

The Iranian president is a religious wacko. If he had some "grand plan" to destroy the Great Satan at the cost of only his nation, perhaps he might see this as acceptable. Yeah, its nuts, but its quite possible so is he.

And there is the issue of nuking Iran into oblivion in retaliation. Is this something we really want to do? How do you feel about the US nuking Japan in WWII?

[yurbud]

49. It isn't something I want to do but rather something other nations

know our country would do.

Has a country intentionally committed suicide in the past? Hitler had a reasonable chance of success in World War II. Japan miscalculated, but their back was against the wall--we cut off their oil and they would have lost all their gains if they just took it. They crazy stuff Mao did at home was to hold onto power, and even though he sent ground troops into Korea, an endeavor that had a reasonable chance of success, he didn't try to bring that war to us, which had no chance of success. Stalin was one of the biggest bastards in history, but played a fairly careful game of chess with us, and knew what he couldn't get away with, and so on.

The Iranian president, like the nazis, Imperial Japan, both secular and religious leaders in the Middle East, and yes the Bushies know how to massage the prejudices of his own people to stay in power. His actions on this nuke stuff have been pretty reasonable, more so than our ally Israel that didn't even sign the non-proliferation treaty.

These arguments against Iran, like the earlier ones against Iraq, seem to assume that Muslims are crazy and their only joy in life is to run in front of our bullets and be killed by us.

[yurbud]

50. whether I would use nukes doesn't matter, BUSH WOULD.

No one in the world doubts that, not even the Bushies.

They have openly talked about using tactical nukes, and Cheney asked for plans to be drawn up to nuke Iran in response to a terrorist attack here whether or not Iran did it.

You are making a subtler argument than the first round of war propaganda, but it is sounding a little thin and desperate.

A nuke goes off here.

The most Iran could gain from doing that is hypothetical spiritual brownie points, a footnote in history and self-inflicted genocide before the mushroom cloud here cleared.

The most the Bushies could gain is an excuse to invade the oil fields of Iran that border Iraq. They have already shown a willingness to lie to start a war and even misuse (at minimum) a tragedy like 9/11 to get what they want. I there was little chance of Iraq being a successfully concluded war, but there is some historical precedents of successful occupations, and our overwhelming advantage in equipment would tempt any leader to under-estimate the human factors of war.

The Iraq War was successful in that Bush secured the oil concessions for American companies and stopped Iraq from trading oil in euros. That would also tempt him to do what it takes to get Americans behind nuking Iran and stealing their oil.

But when you see a mushroom cloud here, you will probably believe a whole country just knowingly committed suicide.

[enigma000]

52. The key is to have a US President who will uphold his end of MAD

or in this case...One side damage, other side destroyed.

I prefer SAD - Selected Assured Destruction

That's some good historical arguments you have there. Leaders tend to be rational (sometimes evil or stupid or both, of course)

I'd rather not see a mushroom cloud looking out my window (I get a southern view from my office, towards the New England States) and I don't entirely trust this administration either.......

I'm no military expert but it would be a good excuse to grab the oil rich southern provinces of Iran. And it has a large Arab population there - people the US military have experience with, language wise etc.

[iconoclastNYC]

44. OSD-OSD

One side damange, other side destroyed.

[yurbud]

51. OSH-OSAD: one side hurt, one side assured destruction

[george_hurley]

46. ***SIGN MY PETITION: NO WAR WITH IRAN!****

Ok on the first posting of this I recieved far more signings from Freepers than anyone on DU. I hope this second time proves to be a bit less depressing.

For the past year, the growing tensions mounting between the US, Israel, and Iran are reaching a point where military action against Iran is w/in months of becoming reality. The repercussions are terrifying as such military action could involve countries such as China and Russia as they share massive energy/economic interests w/ Iran. The most likely scenario we would face would be the collapse of the US economy as the combination of a massive rise in oil prices and a run on the US dollar would surely be the weapon many countries would use to fight back against a preemptive US or Israeli strike.

For a collection of articles and resources on this subject you can visit this link: http://reseaudesign.com/research/iran/iran_summery.html

I'm starting up a petition which I will be sending out to as many members of Congress as possible. I'm asking for help to get this signed by as many people, possible in the next month. Send it to as many people you can.

http://www.petitiononline.com/n0war1rn /

Thanks for your time