Mini-Nukes against Iran?

[katty]

excerpt:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060222&articleId=2032

The distinction between tactical nuclear weapons and the conventional battlefield arsenal has been blurred. America's new nuclear doctrine is based on "a mix of strike capabilities". The latter, which specifically applies to the Pentagon's planned aerial bombing of Iran, envisages the use of nukes in combination with conventional weapons.

As in the case of the first atomic bomb, which in the words of President Harry Truman "was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base", today's "mini-nukes" are heralded as "safe for the surrounding civilian population".

Known in official Washington, as "Joint Publication 3-12", the new nuclear doctrine (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations , (DJNO) (March 2005)) calls for "integrating conventional and nuclear attacks" under a unified and "integrated" Command and Control (C2).

It largely describes war planning as a management decision-making process, where military and strategic objectives are to be achieved, through a mix of instruments, with little concern for the resulting loss of human life.

[Pharaoh]

1. Oh yes,

They made them specifically for Iran.............

[Vincardog]

2. No Acton against Iran PERIOD. Ten years away from maybe having a Nuke is

No reason to attack a Sovereign Nation,

[Pharaoh]

4. Wanna bet?

and I'm not a better, but I'd bet a case of beer they are getting ready to whack these guys.........

[katty]

yup-and this particular article outlines the Euro position

[Bucky]

13. Sucker bet. Of course we're "getting ready." But I bet we don't do it.

We got ready to whack Russia but never did the full Monty. Cooler heads prevailed. I'll take that case of beer (cut off date Jan 2009) that Russia & Nato backs Iran into a deal, using Bush as the bad cop, and compromise heads off this "planned" strike on Iran.

If we ever do hit them, we won't go nuke. But probably we won't even hit 'em.

How can I be so sure? I watch history. When has a Bush ever picked a fight with an opponent who can hit back? Bushies are bullies... they take out Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan. If you're a serious regional contender (like Cuba or Iran or North Korea) they growl and bluff and rattle their scabbards. But they don't fight if it involves risking a real loss.

Paper dragons, the lot of 'em, with glass jaws.

[niallmac]

3. When Generals write these war doctrines using haiku to describe

death...do they not notice the little green scales growing on their skin?

[formercia]

5. Chernobyl was 'safe' for the surrounding population

and nobody kows how many died. A nuclear ground burst is like a mini chernobyl, It throws thousands of tons of highly radioactive debris into the atmosphere. It is the ultimate dirty bomb.

[BattyDem]

6. If we use nukes -

mini or otherwise - on ANY country, we're done. Finished. Kaput. There's no way we can ever bitch about another country obtaining nuclear weapons and becoming a threat to the world because we will have proven, once and for all, that the USA is the greatest threat. After all, we are the ONLY country to ever use a nuke and if we use one again, without ANY legitimate reason or provocation, we will be the number one enemy of the entire civilized world. :-(

[katty]

7. bush&co don't exactly give a damn about their reps or any

consequences of their actions-they have proven that.

[BattyDem]

8. I know they don't. That's what is terrifying about all this.

:scared:

We're all going to pay the price for their apathy and arrogance. :-(



edited: typo :blush:

[katty]

9. yes,indeed-it's 'hard work' running hell-life is utterly expendable

to them-as Katrina is one of the most blatant examples of deliberate, criminal neglect.

[HereSince1628]

14. I believe Cheney and Rumsfeld are stark raving mad on this

Two old men with bunkers to hide in, trying to right the wrongs of the cold war.

I am afraid they feel the world would be much better off if we had just had than thermonuclear war a generation ago, and they aren't going to make the same mistake with Islam.

[sarcasmo]

10. I think, Thanks to our current Dictator we are already the #1 enemy

of most people in the World.

[PATRICK]

11. From other wars

when invisible to dissidents(because certain things DIDN'T happen) things didn't go as bad as the leaders intended, we have points to reach.

When a goal is within reach. When the goal is denied and a huge power is on hand. When truth and an opposition forces the option to be drawn back. When a alternative(however ugly) is adopted. When it fails too and the leader is gone. Or when the leader goes nuts and defies all. And is removed.

If there are no nukes- and it is hard still to contemplate these misbegotten madmen running things to admit defeat- then it is only by our efforts now to fill the world's ears with the truth. These same things came up in the early days of 9/11 and they didn't happen. Maybe the real estate was too valuable but it didn't stop the nuclear contamination from our shells.

The words "small" "mini", targeted, etc. need to be ruined. It is not just the tonnage either. Dynamite doesn't X-ray your whole body and create cancer for decades. It's not just a weapon or WMD. It is an admission of monstrous intent and ultimates because all else is lost and abandoned and a crime against humanity is specifically being done for a hideously venal goal.

The Bushes and their business partners and policy wonks are all about proliferation so long as we are the
gang leaders of the nuclear fear club. They ARE the WMD threat personified without firing a shot. Using it should be presumed to advertise this little talked about plain sight fact. Stepping around and avoiding the possibility not the bluff and bravado of nukem! advocates is what will make this doable. We need to save lives AND get rid of Bush in whatever order it can happen.

[Clara T]

12. U.S. Nuclear Weapons Guidance OPLAN 8044-98

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Guidance

Although often seen as static and slow to change, U.S. nuclear weapons policy is actually subject to frequent updates via guidance documents that change the posture of the weapons and the doctrine that guide their use. This chronology lists the major known nuclear weapons guidance issued by the White House and the military since the Bush administration took office in 2001:

January: U.S. Strategic Command publishes OPLAN 8044-98.

May: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld publishes the Strategic Defense Review (SDR). This document, among other things, sets "requirements for the number and types of weapons in the stockpile."

September 30: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld issues the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Report.

October 1: The updated Single Integrated Operations Plan (SIOP) 02 enters into effect.

December 31: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld forwards the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) report to Congress. Among specifying conditions and capabilities for the future U.S. nuclear posture, the NPR also includes excerpts from other planning documents: FY04 Defense Planning Guidance and FY03-07 Future Years Defense Plan.
   The FY04 DPG will provide guidance to coordinate and deconflict requirements for nuclear and non nuclear systems." The "initiatives reflected in the proposed FY03-07 Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) include:
   (1) Mobile and Relocatable Targets. DoD proposed to develop a systems-level approach, applied across the Services, for holding at risk critical mobile targets.
   (2) Defeating Hard and Deeply-Buried Targets. DoD would implement a program to improve significantly the means to locate, identify, characterize, and target adversarial hard and deeply buried targets.
   (3) Long Range Strike. DoD will pursue a systems level approach to defeat critical fixed and mobile targets at varying ranges, in all terrain and weather conditions, and in denied areas.
   (4) Guided Missile Submarines (SSGNs). DoD has proposed to fund the conversion of four SSBNs, withdrawn from the strategic nuclear service, to SSGN configuration.
   (4) Precision Strike. Effort to increase the number of targets than can be attacked on a single mission. Elements include a 'Multifunction Information Distribution System' to provide 'a jam-resistant, secure, digital network for exchange of critical information for strike capabilities,' a 'Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile,' A 'Small Diameter Bomb,' and the 'Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle.'
   (5) A New Strike System. "DoD will begin in FY03 to explore concepts for a new strike system that might arm the converted SSGNs. Desired capabilities for this new strike weapon include timely arrival on target, precision, and the ability to be retargeted rapidly."

Updates at:
http://www.nukestrat.com/us/guidance.htm
 

[george_hurley]

15. ***PETITION TO SIGN: NO WAR WITH IRAN ***

Hello,

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/



Also, here is another petition you can sign from another group:
http://stopwaroniran.org/statement.shtml




Thanks for your time