George Lakoff: The Words None Dare Say: Nuclear War (CommonDreams)

[marmar]

Published on Wednesday, February 28, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
The Words None Dare Say: Nuclear War
by George Lakoff

"The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iran's nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete."
—Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker, April 17, 2006

"The second concern is that if an underground laboratory is deeply buried, that can also confound conventional weapons. But the depth of the Natanz facility - reports place the ceiling roughly 30 feet underground - is not prohibitive. The American GBU-28 weapon - the so-called bunker buster - can pierce about 23 feet of concrete and 100 feet of soil. Unless the cover over the Natanz lab is almost entirely rock, bunker busters should be able to reach it. That said, some chance remains that a single strike would fail."
—Michael Levi, New York Times, April 18, 2006

A familiar means of denying a reality is to refuse to use the words that describe that reality. A common form of propaganda is to keep reality from being described.

In such circumstances, silence and euphemism are forms of complicity both in propaganda and in the denial of reality. And the media, as well as the major presidential candidates, are now complicit.

The stories in the major media suggest that an attack against Iran is a real possibility and that the Natanz nuclear development site is the number one target. As the above quotes from two of our best sources note, military experts say that conventional "bunker-busters" like the GBU-28 might be able to destroy the Natanz facility, especially with repeated bombings. But on the other hand, they also say such iterated use of conventional weapons might not work, e.g., if the rock and earth above the facility becomes liquefied. On that supposition, a "low yield" "tactical" nuclear weapon, say, the B61-11, might be needed.

If the Bush administration, for example, were to insist on a sure "success," then the "attack" would constitute nuclear war. The words in boldface are nuclear war, that's right, nuclear war — a first strike nuclear war.

We don't know what exactly is being planned — conventional GBU-28's or nuclear B61-11's. And that is the point. Discussion needs to be open. Nuclear war is not a minor matter. .....(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0228-28.htm

[Briar]

1. An excellent article

However, I suspect the damage has already been done - acceptance of US first use of nuclear weapons is already engrained in the national psyche. I remember only too well that many first responses to the attacks on September 11th constituted the general idea that Afghanistan should be turned into a parking lot using nukes. That sort of gut reaction is as commonplace as the crass gibe that promises arrested criminals the additional penalty of rape when they reach prison (I've even heard children make reference to that one). The administration may be wasting a lot of effort on this: plenty of citizens are ready to wreak nuclear payback on any country daring to diss the US.

[freedomfries]

2. a must read

[TexasLawyer]

3. a big kick

First Strike Nuclear War!

[marmar]

4. Morning coffee kick!

:kick:

[Locrian]

5. accepted = expected

The right wingers where I work have a picture of a mushroom cloud over Syria. They think its hilarious. They have accepted it as a solution. For them its just push a button, mission accomplished.

I have little hope for the human race. We are only top" of the food chain because of our greediness.