Plans to nuke Iran

[sakuraba]

This seems to be true and it would be a truly horrible act with dire consequences for the world:


http://www.antiwar.com/blog/comments.php?id=P2244_0_1_0

I don't know how reliable it is, but it would unleash WW3 if carried out. I just hope mankind can survive the consequences this act would bring.

[Bill EE]

You do realize that the DOD draws up plans for all type of scenarios? We had plans for invading Canada on the books being refreshed and updated up until the breakout of WWII.

So while I may believe that a mix conventional/nuclear strike package is being developed for IRAN - I doubt there are any immediate plans on using it. I am also sure such a strike package exists for North Korea or any other country that has, or is developing, nuclear weapons. It called being prudent.

[sakuraba]

You do realize that the DOD draws up plans for all type of scenarios? We had plans for invading Canada on the books being refreshed and updated up until the breakout of WWII.

So while I may believe that a mix conventional/nuclear strike package is being developed for IRAN - I doubt there are any immediate plans on using it. I am also sure such a strike package exists for North Korea or any other country that has, or is developing, nuclear weapons. It called being prudent.

This planning is however, to nuke them if there is another 911, regardless if they are to blame or not. How will the world, specially the Russians and Chinese react to this?

[Мастер]

This planning is however, to nuke them if there is another 911, regardless if they are to blame or not.

Not a military person or a politician myself, but it is not clear to me why, when asking military planners to develop an attack plan, the political authorities would specify the exact circumstances which would lead to implementation of the plan. If there is another major terrorist attack on the US, any decision to attack Iran (or anyone else) would be made by politicians after the attack, not by the military acting on autopilot.

How will the world, specially the Russians and Chinese react to this?

They'll make a lot of noise, certainly. What they will do beyond that, I don't know.

It might also be worth considering that this information is being made public deliberately.

Edit - why is this in Candy Land?

[sakuraba]

This planning is however, to nuke them if there is another 911, regardless if they are to blame or not.

Not a military person or a politician myself, but it is not clear to me why, when asking military planners to develop an attack plan, the political authorities would specify the exact circumstances which would lead to implementation of the plan. If there is another major terrorist attack on the US, any decision to attack Iran (or anyone else) would be made by politicians after the attack, not by the military acting on autopilot.

How will the world, specially the Russians and Chinese react to this?

They'll make a lot of noise, certainly. What they will do beyond that, I don't know.

It might also be worth considering that this information is being made public deliberately.

Edit - why is this in Candy Land?

I am sorry if I posted in the wrong forum. Please, tell me which one would be more appropriate?

I have read other articles on this topic saying that Dick Cheney has instructed Stratcom to start working, drawing up this contingency plan to attack Iran with a mix of conventional and nuclear weapons after another 911.

[Мастер]

I guess I think of Candy Land as the place for silly and whimsical topics, but I suppose this is OK.

I have read other articles on this topic saying that Dick Cheney has instructed Stratcom to start working, drawing up this contingency plan to attack Iran with a mix of conventional and nuclear weapons after another 911.

I would be quite surprised if the US military were not drawing up such plans. The part that strikes me as odd about the article cited, though, is that the instructions given included a statement that the plans were to implemented whether or not Iran were implicated. I'm not sure why such a statement would be included. Suppose Dick Cheney gave very stern instructions, "We will only implement this plan only if there is absolute iron-clad proof that Iran sponsored a terrorist attack on the US!" and the military dutifully draws up the plans. Well, the plan exists now, and can be implemented whenever the politicians decide, regardless of what proof of Iranian malfeasance there may or may not be. So any statement included about the circumstances under which such a plan would be implemented seems quite irrelevant to me. A statement of purpose could be included in the original planning instructions, but then the plan can be implemented or not at the will of the politicians, no matter what they originally said.

The other possibility (for which I have no proof, I only throw it out there) is that we are hearing these things because the US administration wants to make sure Iran hears them...

[sakuraba]

I guess I think of Candy Land as the place for silly and whimsical topics, but I suppose this is OK.

I have read other articles on this topic saying that Dick Cheney has instructed Stratcom to start working, drawing up this contingency plan to attack Iran with a mix of conventional and nuclear weapons after another 911.

I would be quite surprised if the US military were not drawing up such plans. The part that strikes me as odd about the article cited, though, is that the instructions given included a statement that the plans were to implemented whether or not Iran were implicated. I'm not sure why such a statement would be included. Suppose Dick Cheney gave very stern instructions, "We will only implement this plan only if there is absolute iron-clad proof that Iran sponsored a terrorist attack on the US!" and the military dutifully draws up the plans. Well, the plan exists now, and can be implemented whenever the politicians decide, regardless of what proof of Iranian malfeasance there may or may not be. So any statement included about the circumstances under which such a plan would be implemented seems quite irrelevant to me. A statement of purpose could be included in the original planning instructions, but then the plan can be implemented or not at the will of the politicians, no matter what they originally said.

The other possibility (for which I have no proof, I only throw it out there) is that we are hearing these things because the US administration wants to make sure Iran hears them...

It might be time to start making some preparations for any eventuality, it never hurts to be prepared.

" walks away to start to plan a fallout shelter and move to a remote area that is not of military interest"

http://www.ki4u.com/

[Lance]

You have a plan on how to get to the gas station/convenience store. That plan probably involves such major steps as entering your car and driving a preconceived route to the desired destination. You probably have some minor things that you'd verify are in order first as well. Like making sure you're properly dressed if you need to go in the middle of the night.

That's your plan. When and why may you implement this plan?

On the way to work if you need gas.

Saturday morning if you need eggs and milk.

Tuesday at midnight if you run out of diapers.

Just having the plan says nothing of how or when it may be used. As a matter of fact, limiting a plan to specific set of circumstances is more likely to limit the effectiveness of the plan.

If you limited the above plan to include the steps required to put the gas pump nozzle into your car, you may never be able to use it (the plan) to pick up chewing gum.

It's likely such a plan exists. The circumstances under which it would likely be used have probably not been discussed with those designing that plan.

[Mr. Manly]

I have no doubt that there plans for attacking every country on the planet in one way or another. What makes me question the credibility of this info is when I start hearing "Cheney asked for this plan to be used whether Iran was involved or not". Do you seriously think that if he did make this statement it would be allowed to leak? Do you think he would make the statement at all knowing that it could leak?

[Bill EE]

Mr. Manly I am assuming the part of attacking Iran "if they were involved or not" was added in. Given the source cited - that is almost a certainty.

Having been on the edge of this stuff it usually goes something like this:

a) Someone comes up with a scenario and requests a strike package (attack plan) but put together.

b) The plan is used as part of a wargame with both military and political partners

c) Plan is revised and back to b until acceptable.

In 1990 (or there about) I was technical consultant on such a wargame for a NEWS (Naval Electronic Wargaming System) scenario. The scenario was IRAN attacking through IRAQ and into Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. US Naval forces were coming to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia's aid via a task force from Diego Garcia headed up by a WASP class baby carrier (part of the wargame was to test the concept of the WASP class). The US CVBG in the Indian Ocean was tied up due to a conflict between Pakistan and India that was possibily going nuclear. Iranian forces had Kilo subs with HARPOONSKI (a theortical Harpoon like missile).

Naval personnel played the commanders of the various naval forces. Political people played the parts of the US government, Iranian government, PRC, and Russian governments.

My input was small, a part of the exercise was to test Autonomous Underwater Vehicle tactics.

I am willing to bet that if such a plan is being develop it is for such a wargame.

[A-hole]

It might be time to start making some preparations for any eventuality, it never hurts to be prepared.

" walks away to start to plan a fallout shelter and move to a remote area that is not of military interest"

http://www.ki4u.com/

I agree these plans are drawn up without thought to the reactions of others.

I would think they'd not Nuke where it would contaminate the oil.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I think some people are just too "eager" to accept the idea that the U.S. will just start dropping nukes willy-nilly. I think any such "eagerness" displays a fair bit of ignorance about a number of subjects related to such an event.

Nukes don't just blow a lot of stuff up real good...

[neocracker]

" walks away to start to plan a fallout shelter and move to a remote area that is not of military interest"

http://www.ki4u.com/

Ooops...why do I always pick places that have significant military interest? Currently, I'm less than ten miles from Hunter Army Air Field and within spitting distance of Ft. Stewart.

[Eroica]

... why is this in Candy Land?

Because there's no forum called Cloud-Cuckoo Land? :D

[Lance]

Would it be more appropriate in HELP: There's a Monster Under my Bed!?

[sakuraba]

I will make sure to post topics like this there, the next time.

[Lance]

I will make sure to post topics like this there, the next time.

Not a problem...

I moved it here.