[Ace]

A small part of me wants this to happen, and wants the network of Bush's media people to try to frame this in a good light.

...and then he destroys himself and his own party for the 60% or so of Americans who have enough of a brain to realise "holy **** this shrub did a pre-emptive nuclear strike..."

[Nuke]

They may be crazy, malevolent and downright rotten; but those in the US Administration are not going to order the first use of Nuclear Weapons offensively in more than half a century. That would mean having to reset that big-ass timer outside the UN that reads '[61] Years without a Nuclear War', and I doubt anyone wants that job...

can i do it?

[NGTM-1R]

It's strange you quoted bits of the article but missed that key point - they're planning on using nuclear bunker busters.  That is, weapons that penetrate below the hardenened shell of a bunker and then detonate a (in this case low-yield nuclear) warhead.  The US believes that the bunker-aspect of it means fallout would be contained by the bunker structure, although AFAIK this has never been proven.

Because testing it would be a violation of various treaties, which the Bush adminstration won't do...which probably means they won't violate the first-use treaty either.

Also there's the problem of whether or not Bush considers these things nukes, the military still will. And at least some of the safeguards meant to keep some lunatic from launching a nuke at a random country work both ways.

[Turnsky]

I don't see why Bush is so concerned. He could just sit back, gain some points in the oh-so-important "world opinion" by pursuing diplomatic means of halting Iran's nuclear weapons program, and let us deal with Ahmedinejad. We would/will, after all - and probably more effectively than America could.

not surprising, but then bush won't get a good political spin out of it! 

either way, i would be concerned if bush started throwing nukes about like confetti, didn't einstein say something about not knowing how WWIII will be fought, but rather how WWIV will be fought?

surely the US has some viable non-nuclear options if they decided to go "the whole hog" on this.. but of course, i'm forgetting, bush has his forces divided between afghanistan, and iraq, that's two fronts right there, and now shaking a trifoil-emblazoned fist at iran?.. that would make a third front... didn't somebody say that they'd haveta be in a kingdom of idiots to fight a war on several fronts?

i do say, however, that israel would be more than equipped to handle such a thing without clouds of radioactive dust lingering afterwards, i remember hearing how saddam was more afraid of the Israeli army, than the US. (i could be wrong), so they're well and truely capable of handling themselves in a pinch (guess you should know, sandy).

[Ace]

Of course all of the talk show radio hosts are going to be saying: "No, this is not a nuclear war. Tactical nuclear bombs are a completely and totally viable option..."

They won't be saying that when France decides to reclaim the Lousiana purchase and uses neutron bombs

[Turnsky]

Of course all of the talk show radio hosts are going to be saying: "No, this is not a nuclear war. Tactical nuclear bombs are a completely and totally viable option..."

They won't be saying that when France decides to reclaim the Lousiana purchase and uses neutron bombs

well, technically they're right, a nuclear war would convey that we're firing nukes at each other, right now it'd be a conventional war with a nuclear backhand, kinda like WW2

[GodisanAtheist]

The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings among the joint chiefs of staff, and some officers have talked about resigning, Hersh has been told. The military chiefs sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran, without success, a former senior intelligence officer said.

-WTF?! The Military is saying no to nukes, while the civilian leadership is saying yes?! My farts still smell like **** and my dog still hates my cat... so no i didn't wake up "you're ****ing crazy" land...

Despite America's public commitment to diplomacy, there is a growing belief in Washington that the only solution to the crisis is regime change. A senior Pentagon consultant said that Mr Bush believes that he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do," and "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy".

-If any of this is true... wow... just... All I have to say is President Bush is completely god damn insane...

[Grug]

War crimes to be in the future...?

[aldo_14]

It's strange you quoted bits of the article but missed that key point - they're planning on using nuclear bunker busters.  That is, weapons that penetrate below the hardenened shell of a bunker and then detonate a (in this case low-yield nuclear) warhead.  The US believes that the bunker-aspect of it means fallout would be contained by the bunker structure, although AFAIK this has never been proven.

Because testing it would be a violation of various treaties, which the Bush adminstration won't do...which probably means they won't violate the first-use treaty either.

Also there's the problem of whether or not Bush considers these things nukes, the military still will. And at least some of the safeguards meant to keep some lunatic from launching a nuke at a random country work both ways.

There's already a US 'first strike' doctrine for the potential use of nuclear weapons.  IIRC one of the cases is if an enemy nation is preparing WMD that threaten the US or allies.

[TheCaptain]

Is it just me, but isn't it the responsiblity of a government, any government, to consider ALL the options available when dealing with a particularly serious threat to national security? Yeah sure, the US Administration at the moment is considerably hawkish, but preemtive first strikes with nuclear buster bombs against another soverign nation, EVEN Iran, is a long long way off I think. Just a bit of sensationalistic journalism for the most part, methinks

[Ford Prefect]

You know, if the Bush administration ever were to approach Congress and say, "Hey, let us go to war with Iran," and Congress were to say, "You know, that sounds like a good idea," I think I would rather they were more direct about it, and just **** on my face.

[DeepSpace9er]

I agree. The word "nuclear" is a buzz word in the media right now. But holding Iran and the US to the same nuclear standard is crazy. First of all, Tehran is nuts. They will lob the first nuke they get at Isreal because they have this gradiose vision of Universal Islam. Not to mention that its the west who is obsessed with nuclear non-proliferation. Ahh the hell with it... lets just get it over with and blow the world up, itll save of stress from constant worry about the pending Apocalypse. If we dont die from nukes, global warming is going to get us, and if that doesnt, starvation and famine and AIDS.

[TheCaptain]

I agree. The word "nuclear" is a buzz word in the media right now. But holding Iran and the US to the same nuclear standard is crazy. First of all, Tehran is nuts. They will lob the first nuke they get at Isreal because they have this gradiose vision of Universal Islam. Not to mention that its the west who is obsessed with nuclear non-proliferation. Ahh the hell with it... lets just get it over with and blow the world up, itll save of stress from constant worry about the pending Apocalypse. If we dont die from nukes, global warming is going to get us, and if that doesnt, starvation and famine and AIDS.

Yep exactly

Between fear-mongering journalism and real-world dangers, it's a wondrous place, this Earth of ours

[Kosh]

Is it just me, but isn't it the responsiblity of a government, any government, to consider ALL the options available when dealing with a particularly serious threat to national security? Yeah sure, the US Administration at the moment is considerably hawkish, but preemtive first strikes with nuclear buster bombs against another soverign nation, EVEN Iran, is a long long way off I think. Just a bit of sensationalistic journalism for the most part, methinks

Even if it had a nuclear bomb, do you seriously believe that they have the capability to launch it at America? As I understand it their missiles are short range at best.

Even if they did have ICBMs, they know full well that the US has more than enough nukes to flatten them.

[Mefustae]

Even if it had a nuclear bomb, do you seriously believe that they have the capability to launch it at America? As I understand it their missiles are short range at best.

Even if they did have ICBMs, they know full well that the US has more than enough nukes to flatten them.

I've seen the issue about US plans to use nukes crop up on multiple forums, and for some damn reason they all seem to degenerate into 'OMG Iran is going to nuke the US!!! Let's glass 'em first!!'.The idea that they [the US] might use nukes is only half the issue here, the fact of the matter is, Isreal is the one under threat here, and they are more than well equipped to handle anything Iran can throw at them. The US needs to learn to stay the f*** out of problems that neither threaten or concern it.

[TheCaptain]

Is it just me, but isn't it the responsiblity of a government, any government, to consider ALL the options available when dealing with a particularly serious threat to national security? Yeah sure, the US Administration at the moment is considerably hawkish, but preemtive first strikes with nuclear buster bombs against another soverign nation, EVEN Iran, is a long long way off I think. Just a bit of sensationalistic journalism for the most part, methinks

Even if it had a nuclear bomb, do you seriously believe that they have the capability to launch it at America? As I understand it their missiles are short range at best.

Even if they did have ICBMs, they know full well that the US has more than enough nukes to flatten them.

Yep, and right there is the reason why I think it will stay as a plan, and nothing more

Israel might possibly get copped, but honestly I don't even think this would happen right away, if and when Iran succeeds with the bomb. Building a nuke's one thing, making it intercontinental's another, definitely, and I think the few countries that have succeeded with this technology have put a good deal of money into it, probably on the order of billiions of dollars...

I just don't quite think it's fair to get into a ho-ha over a strategic plan, is all. But if the Iranians do make their nuke, which seems to be the popular course of action in their country, then an ally of the US within their range like Israel gets hit for some reason... well, America's going to want to do SOMETHING, that's for sure.

[NGTM-1R]

I made a joke about the Joint Chiefs staging a coup to a friend...apparently it's not so much of a joke anymore. They've threatened to resign en masse unless Bush takes the first-use nuclear option off the table.

As political disaster goes, that's...well, it's really in class of its own. I don't think that kind of threat has ever been made by one member, let alone all of them. It's the functional equivalent of a unianimous vote of no confidence from the armed forces.

[Kosh]

I made a joke about the Joint Chiefs staging a coup to a friend...apparently it's not so much of a joke anymore. They've threatened to resign en masse unless Bush takes the first-use nuclear option off the table.

Where did you hear that?

[WMCoolmon]

I made a joke about the Joint Chiefs staging a coup to a friend...apparently it's not so much of a joke anymore. They've threatened to resign en masse unless Bush takes the first-use nuclear option off the table.

As political disaster goes, that's...well, it's really in class of its own. I don't think that kind of threat has ever been made by one member, let alone all of them. It's the functional equivalent of a unianimous vote of no confidence from the armed forces.

Link?

[TheCaptain]

I made a joke about the Joint Chiefs staging a coup to a friend...apparently it's not so much of a joke anymore. They've threatened to resign en masse unless Bush takes the first-use nuclear option off the table.

As political disaster goes, that's...well, it's really in class of its own. I don't think that kind of threat has ever been made by one member, let alone all of them. It's the functional equivalent of a unianimous vote of no confidence from the armed forces.

Is there any information you could provide on this? I've never heard this development, is all.

It would be one of the hardest things in the world to accomplish, but a dark side of me wonders whether or not staging a military coup would be possible in the US today, and just how violent/costly an actiion like that would be...? It would probably be met with mostly-popular public support atm, if the aim was something like 'get rid of Bush Admin, put in a Democratic one'