Reconciling assholes for nearly a decade.

Cheney's Plan: Nuke Iran

The chicken hawks terror plan.

from intelligence analyst Philip Giraldi:

"The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons."

More from Justin Raimondo at:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=6734
Permalink thompson_gunner 
July 25th, 2005
There's no words.

How the Hell can this KEEP getting worse?
Permalink muppet 
July 25th, 2005
What you mean getting worse? Business around the beltway is booming.
Permalink thompson_gunner 
July 25th, 2005
Fuck. Seriously, what is wrong with these morons?
Permalink Mat Hall 
July 25th, 2005
Ah, the Orange Plans. Paranoia that keeps on giving.

The Pentagon has always maintained various contingency plans. In the 1950's they got in trouble because one of them was about invading the UK (in the event the USSR invaded first)

Philo
Permalink Philo 
July 25th, 2005
"Seriously, what is wrong with these morons?"

blame not the beast they be, but those who unleashed their nature...
Permalink Kenny 
July 25th, 2005
If you were running a business and did not plan for as many events as possible, it would be gross irresponsibility and could get you sued by your shareholders in the event of something incredibly obvious occuring that screws your company. Having a plan and the capability to carry it out does not imply intent to do so.

That said, I'd *still* watch these people under a microscope, as I expect them to jump at any available opportunity to wage war and spread fear among our citizens, as well among the rest of the world.
Permalink Aaron F Stanton 
July 25th, 2005
"blame not the beast they be, but those who unleashed their nature"

Er, no, I'll stick with blaming them. Sure, contingency plans are handy, acts of terrorism are bad, but planning to nuke a country out of existence in retaliation is just plain stupid. If people have problems with the US now it's nothing compared to how people will feel if they ever put this plan into action. Heck, even I'd be sorely tempted to go to the US and blow some shit up...
Permalink Mat Hall 
July 25th, 2005
What reasonable contingency plan calls for annihilating an entire nation in response to a criminal act? That's sort of like burning an embezzling employee's neighorhood down.
Permalink muppet 
July 25th, 2005
>> has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. <<

There are whole departments at the Pentagon devoted to creating "what-if" plans. I wouldn't doubt that they have plans on what to do in the event of giant tripods coming up out of the earth.

Seriously, in the military, half the battle is just having and executing a plan. Doesn't really matter what it is, as long as you get people moving in concert towards a goal. You can point them towards the *correct* goal once they're in motion.

So, they stockpile war plans like they were on sale at Wal-Mart.
Permalink example 
July 25th, 2005
example -

It's great to have reasonable plans. Plans which include "wipe Iran from the face of the earth if there is any major terrorist attack, anywhere" is a tiny bit ridiculous.
Permalink muppet 
July 25th, 2005
It would be nice to see the original article at American Conservative.

On one hand, there are all sorts of military plans; I've heard of military planners considering far-out plans like secretly nuking our own cities to cause the citizens to blame some enemy.

On the other, attacking Iran is certainly plausible, and it's hard to think of what's at the boundaries of extremism for our US administrations...
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
July 25th, 2005
"This was back in the early 1983 when Dick Cheney was, at least by appearances, a mere congressman. He was also Congressional point man for the deployment of the MX missile system in our mutual home state of Wyoming.

...

The MX was, and indeed still is, a Very Scary Thing. A single MX missile could hit each of 10 different targets, hundreds of miles apart, with about 600 kilotons of explosive force. For purposes of comparison, Hiroshima was flattened by a 17 kiloton nuclear blast. Thus, each of the MX's warheads could glaze over an area 35 times larger than the original Ground Zero. Furthermore, 100 MX missiles were to lie beneath the Wyoming plains, Doomsday on the Range.

Any one of the 6000 MX warheads would probably incinerate just about every living thing in Moscow. But Cheney's plan &#8212; cooked up with Brent Scowcroft, Don Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, and other familiar suspects &#8212; was not about targeting cities, as had been the accepted practice of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). The MX was to be aimed instead at the other side's missile emplacements."
Permalink MarkTAW 
July 25th, 2005
>> The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons

Insufficient. "NeNo PaKa, MiVai, Abhaayam" "Fire, Disease, Enmity, Debt, Remnant, Dangerous".

Better blast the hell out of them with the Ultra-Smart-Turban-Busters(TM).
Permalink A. Y. Mous 
July 25th, 2005
Militaristic men are emboldened primarily by their own safety and security, not that of their countrymen. What I mean by this is that Dick and George Jr. will happily shoot off the nukes and incite the entire world, so long as their and their close family are secure.

Be fearful when there are contingency plans to protect the safety and security of the people who are responsible for your safety and security.
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
July 25th, 2005
Sometime in what I think was the 14th century the Muslim rulers of Syria begged the kings of Englang and France to protect them from the Mongol armies.

The Bishop of Winchester remarked:

Let the dogs destroy one another and be utterly exterminated and then we shal see the universal Catholic Church founded on their ruins and there will be one fold and one shepherd.



I wonder when people will stop thinking the Solution is to kill everyone else.
Permalink son of parnas 
July 25th, 2005
I'll buck the trend and say that it is a GREAT idea. Iran is one of the major countries involved in material support of global terrorism. Letting them know the consequences in advance of their boys doing a 911 again is a great plan.

Me, I wouldn't use tactical nukes (ie: bunkerbusters), which are totally harmless as far as nukes go and just a smaller weighing version that packs the same punch as the daisycutter, already used in iraq. Nor would I use conventional soldiers or an invasion. Me, I would go for a full-on assault with conventional nukes. Hit the three major cities first, flattening them completely, then give them 24 hours to unconditionally surrender. If no surrender, then hit the rest of the cities, towns and villages. I wouldn't limit this to Iran though, but I'd take out Saudi as well at the same time, and also hit the Pakistan/Afghanistan border area where bin Laden was last seen with some low yield high radiation dirty nukes, just to clear the area out.

To make clear, this is ONLY in the event of another 911 style attack on the US. As long as there is no additional attack, then we can continue our nation-building activities without having to resort to any such shock and awe campaigns as I am describing.

So, personally, I think Cheney's a bit of a wuss here.

And before you label me nuts, you should know that the majority of Americans I talk to agree that the administration is wusses. I hear for many many people that nuking Saudi and other terror states is long over due. It's a very popular opinion and those who disagree are the ones out of touch with reality.
Permalink Rich Rogers 
July 25th, 2005
Rich Rogers is the American alter-ego of Dan Denman I think.
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
July 25th, 2005
> And before you label me nuts

Rich, as long as you and *all* your family are carrying guns and fighting then you aren't nuts, you are just strategically limitted.
Permalink son of parnas 
July 25th, 2005
Both alliterative names. Coincidence? I doubt it.
Permalink Aaron F Stanton 
July 25th, 2005
You know, there's quite a lot of Brits are still faintly surprised the response to the first 9/11 wasn't nuclear and messy...
Permalink Katie Lucas 
July 25th, 2005
There are those plans which are never meant to be executed at all, they exist solely threats for motivational purposes.

For instance, I would not find it at all surprising to discover that the 'invade the UK' plan boiled down to our wanting them to implement or do something with their military that they had either initially refused to do, or that we did not simply ask them to do for our own security reasons.

I'm pretty sure nuking Iran would cause at least an attempt by some nation(s) to nuke us back.
Permalink I am Jack's poking plan 
July 25th, 2005
BTW, muppet, they're not talking about eradication:

"The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons"

A tactical nuclear weapon has a "small" yield. This is about basically occupying the entire nation, not exterminating it.

FWIW, I do think the idea is lunacy.

However, I will also venture that knowing one's options, even the extreme ones, is a vital requirement of leadership.

Philo
Permalink Philo 
July 25th, 2005
>> However, I will also venture that knowing one's options, even the extreme ones, is a vital requirement of leadership. <<

As well as letting the other fellow that you're contemplating using them.
Permalink example 
July 25th, 2005
>You know, there's quite a lot of Brits are still faintly
>surprised the response to the first 9/11 wasn't nuclear and
>messy...

You know, I know an AWFUL lot of Brits (mostly because I am one) and I've never come across a single one who thought that America would nuke somewhere in response to 9/11.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
July 25th, 2005
"I've never come across a single one..."

I didn't think they would, but would not have been surprised if they had done.
Permalink Mat Hall 
July 25th, 2005
Here's the details of the plan:

Step 1: Attend yoga lessons
Step 2: Bring out the nukes
Step 3: Practise the yoga position "bend over and kiss thine ass goodbye"

One would hope that the plan went as far as "um, guys, this might actually be counter-productive for the following week's stock price, er, I mean for the good of our citizens" and got shelved. If the plan is being taken seriously, there's a few other nations with nukes that will be disinclined to consider the US to be Allah's gift to humanity, and chances are they'll act accordingly.
Permalink  
July 25th, 2005
"However, I will also venture that knowing one's options, even the extreme ones, is a vital requirement of leadership."

Of course, it's also essential to know which of your options are extreme.
Permalink Now That's More Like It 
July 25th, 2005
Read Rich Rogers post and tell me once more why Iran shouldn't develop nuclear weapons?
Permalink One Trick Pony 
July 26th, 2005
Precisely. Having seen the US back down from N. Korea after they claimed to be nuclear capable, why the hell would any opponent of the US not want to get nukes?
Permalink  
July 26th, 2005
Just don't make the US think that you almost but not quite have them yet, or they'll be all over your ass like...uhhh...something that likes ass a lot.
Permalink Aaron F Stanton 
July 26th, 2005
Cue "Peaceful purposes... *mumble*... Power generation... *mumble*..."

I can't say I blame them at all. I mean it is a pretty scary thought, but it is also the only logical path for them.
Permalink  
July 26th, 2005
So now the whole world goes MAD...
Permalink Aaron F Stanton 
July 26th, 2005
No.

Alot of people are missing the point. This is over 400 sites slated to be nuked with conventional and tactical nukes in the case of a "9/11 style" attack. This attack does not have to come from iran. It could be an oklahoma city bombing and they would launch. They are just loking for an excuse. What time of the year do wars start and escalate? The Guns of August. Why? Everyone is at the beach getting a tan. This is a contingency plan with intent.
Permalink Cusa 
July 31st, 2005
August 1, 2005 Issue
Copyright &#169; 2005 The American Conservative

Hi, this it the entire article fomr american conservativve...In my humble opinon I woder if the writier Phillip Girradi, is spinning this stroy in a way to make a name for himself. This administrations has had a contingency plan to nuke Iran and North Korea shortly after their nuclear posture review in 2002...and this STRATCOM plan was done in 2003...all you have to do is google search it....I work for a peace advocacy group by the way, and this has been talked about for the last 10 months (since I've worked there), to me it doesn't seem like anything new or sudden, though still disturbing.

Deep Background


"In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran. The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney&#8217;s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing&#8212;that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack&#8212;but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. "
Permalink seth long 
August 1st, 2005

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: July, 2005 Other topics: July, 2005 Recent topics Recent topics