All This Talk Of A "Nuclear Conflict" Being Set In Place For Iran.....

[global1]

help me here - what are the implications of such a nuclear conflict?

I'm assuming that our military would use non-nuclear weapons to hit the Iranian nuclear facilities. If that be the case - is that the safer way to approach this versus using a nuclear weapon/bomb?

And given the fact that a nuclear weapon(s) might be used - what about fallout? what about radioactivity in Iran and being able to function in that environment after such an event? What about Iran's oil supplies? When would it be safe to access again? What would this do to world supplies/demand/pricing?

Going down a list - what would it do to Iran - it's people and resources? (Even if it is a tactical hit just to the nuclear facilities)

What would it do to our military in the vicinity - those in Iraq and Afghanistan?

What would it do to the Middle East? Israel? Europe?

Would/could fallout spread to the U.S.?

Has *Co considered all this in their plans? Based on how they didn't prepare for Iraq - how can we be sure that they have done any preparation for this such event?

Are they insane? Think about this folks - if they are considering a "Nuclear Conflict" with Iran - it will have to effect their (*Co's) way of life as well. Unless they are prepared to live in a bunker for years.

I just think that even the fact that I am sitting here considering these things - is a sad commentary on this administration.

[sui generis]

1. this administration desperately wants an excuse to exercise

a tactical nuclear strike.

It's the equivalent of beating up a fourth grader with a machete. The other fourth graders will get in line pretty quickly after that, regardless of what they think of you for axe murdering a fourth grader.

These people are the ultimate outcome of electing sociopaths to power.

[Oreo]

2. If (when) they attack...

they would need to hit a lot of deeply buried targets. I think a nuclear bunker buster that Rummy has talked about would probably be similar to an underground test if it works like they want.

That said... the political outrage and possible retaliation for using a nuke would be probably the most damaging thing to ever happen to the US. I think it would more likely be an attack by Israel (covertly aided by the US) and would go down much like the Osirak attack.

Here's a good article I just found that lays out the possible consequences of a nuke attack:
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm (scary stuff!)

At a time when Iraq and the war on terrorism tend to dominate the debate on international affairs, the possibility of an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities has not been a major topic of discussion in the United States. There are reports, however, that the Bush administration has seriously considered this option but opted to put it on the back burner for the time being.<1> Further, on May 6, 2004, the U.S. House of Representatives passed Resolution 398 in a 376-3 vote, calling on the U.S. government "to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."<2> If a similar resolution passes the Senate, it will give President Bush or any future administration the ability to launch a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities whenever this is deemed necessary.
:wow:

In Israel, planning and rhetoric appear to have progressed quite a bit further<3>; it appears that some in Israel are seriously considering a preemptive attack similar to the June 1981 attack on Osirak that destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor.<4> Meir Dagan, the Chief of Mossad, told parliament members in his inaugural appearance before the Israeli Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Iran was close to the "point of no return" and that the specter of Iranian possession of nuclear weapons was the greatest threat to Israel since its inception.<5> On November 11, 2003, Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said that Israel had "no plans to attack nuclear facilities in Iran."<6> Less than two weeks later however, during a visit to the United States, Israel's Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz stated that "under no circumstances would Israel be able to tolerate nuclear weapons in Iranian possession"<7> and just six weeks earlier, Mossad had revealed plans for preemptive attacks by F-16 bombers on Iranian nuclear sites.<8> This report will examine the following: The Iranian nuclear facilities most likely to be targeted and their proliferation risk potential; the likely preemptive scenarios involving Israel or the United States; and the possible consequences of any preemptive action.

-snip-

Contrary to popular belief, it appears that Israel's attack on Osirak in June of 1981 did nothing to hinder Iraq's nuclear aspirations. Although it temporarily set back its capabilities, it served rather to reinforce and increase Saddam's desire for a nuclear arsenal. In fact, Iraqi nuclear scientist Imad Khadduri claims that Israel's preemptive strike against the French-built Tamuz Iraqi nuclear reactor, which was not really suitable for plutonium production anyway, had the exact opposite effect of the one intended: it sent Saddam Hussein's A-bomb program into overdrive and convinced the Iraqi leadership to initiate a full fledged nuclear weapons program immediately afterwards.

[MasonJar]

3. I hope that this is saber-rattling because an attack on Iran will

have disastrous results for the world. Iran is run by a mean bunch and so are we. Oil would go sky high. You talk about terrorists; we would be the center of revenge and with good reason. We are probably encouraging Israel to do it, but they won't; there is noone in charge there. The world council will not sanction such action; Russia will not go along, and why should they? It's not like we do not have a nuclear arsenal with Bushistas planning more and more. With our record in the last 5 years we have nada standing to tell anyone what to do.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Bad assumption...

"I'm assuming that our military would use non-nuclear weapons to hit the Iranian nuclear facilities."

The administration has floated suggestions that it might use tactical nukes to take out deeply buried facilities in Iran. Using nukes of any sort means that there will be collateral damage both immediate and long term, and since we have little real data to go on, it is anybody's guess what the scope would be.

In terms of nuclear conflict - this is a bit unfair. Iran doesn't have ANY nuclear weapons, and is several years away from having any if indeed it is even trying to build them. So the nuclear part of the conflict would be us blowing up their facilities with either conventional or nuclear weapons. Lots of damage and lots of radiation floating around causing unknown short and long term damage, mostly to Iranians. However, the damage from the Chernobyl incident caused extensive collateral damage far from the original site.

The real long term damage has in part already happened: the NPT is most likely already fatally wounded, and would be dead as a doornail were we to attack Iran. The non-nuclear states have taken a look at the developments of the last three years and have drawn the obvious conclusion: if they wish to be independent they need a credible nuclear deterrent.

I know I hold an unpopular opinion here, but it is my belief that as odious as the Iranian regime is, they have every right to national self defense. As the world exists today, with the loose cannon of American Neocon Hegemony threatening all who will not submit, I cannot fault any nation that decides to 'nuke up'. I think it is a tragedy that this is what we have come to, but it is also the reality.

[bananas]

5. We might use nuclear bunker-busters

I doubt we'll use air burst nukes, that would be harder to justify, but destroying the underground bunkers might be an excuse to use nuclear bunker busters.

"The B61-11, available since 1997, is the current state of the art in the area of nuclear bunker busters."
http://science.howstuffworks.com/bunker-buster4.htm

[sui generis]

6. yes but they still have fallout too

and subject to weather and precipitation patterns I've heard that "collateral" casualties in neighboring countries could be in the high six figures to the millions (think, North Korea with a fan shaped dispersal pattern in any direction).

We shouldn't be playing with this kind of fire, because it WILL burn us sooner or later.

[bananas]

9. I've read that too, I'm trying to be optimistic. nt

[LunaC]

7. Are they insane?

In a word, yes. I'm sure they have their bunkers well-stocked. I recall a news piece years ago about all the construction going on underground at Cheney's residence at all hours of the day and night and how it pissed off the neighbors. (Anybody else remember that?) I'm sure he's all set for whatever happens.

on edit - found a link about the bunker (?) construction...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2559617.stm

[LunaC]

8. This makes it more chilling

Dueling Armageddon’s - Waiting for the rapture in Iran

Two crazed religious fundamentalist leaders who believe in their own version of “democracy” and the Second Coming are pushing their own agendas behind the scenes. Let’s hope that calmer, wiser minds prevail and their twisted dreams don’t come true……


For those who believe, the devotion is real. Tears stream down the cheeks of 2,000 men ripe for the return of the Mahdi, the 12th Imam they expect will soon emerge to bring justice and peace to a corrupt world.

-snip-

As at a Christian revivalist meeting that promises healing and redemption, many weep as they pray for the Shiite Muslim version of the second coming of the Messiah.

-snip-

"Bush said: 'God said to me, attack Afghanistan and attack Iraq.' The mentality of Mr. Bush and (President) Ahmadinejad is the same here - both think God tells them what to do," says Mr. Mohebian, noting that end-of-time beliefs have similar roots in Christian and Muslim theology.

"If you think these are the last days of the world, and Jesus will come , this idea will change all your relations," says Mohebian. "If I think the Mahdi will come in two, three, or four years, why should I be soft? Now is the time to stand strong, to be hard." That mind-set also hearkens back to the missionary ambition of the newly forged Islamic Republic. "What Ahmadinejad believes is that we have to create a model state based on ... Islamic democracy - to be given to the world," says Hamidreza Taraghi, head of the conservative Islamic Coalition Society. "The ... government accepts this role for themselves."

Any possibility of détente with the US may also be in jeopardy, if the US-Iran conflict is cast in Mahdaviat terms. That view holds that the US - with quasireligious declarations of transforming the Middle East with democracy and justice, deploying military forces across the region, and developing a new generation of nuclear weapons - is arrogantly trying to assume the role of Mahdi.

More………

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1221/p01s04-wome.html

[colonel odis]

10. if bush uses nukes it will be time for either the military or the people

to take the government out of his hands.

by any means necessary.