Suspected Nuking of Suspected Nukes

Stardate 5594.46

Well it would seem that Preznit McChimpy may have let slip the rumor of PRE-EMPTIVE NUCLEAR STRIKES against suspected secret nuclear facilities in Iran. Of course, now, he is "toning down" the entire idea of a military solution to the ever growing Iranian nuclear energy/bomb predicament. Now I would never want to see a country like Iran get nuclear weapons as I have decided earlier, but who the hell is the US to even threaten using them? Got a little itchy trigger finger since it's been over 60 years since the last bombs? Yeah, the US is the only country to ever use weapons like this of any sort on another country, even if it did end WWII.

The way I see it, there are two things to consider here. First, we all know what happened when Bush and his incredibly competent Administration decided to invade another country based on semi-sketchy-if-not-blatantly-made-up intelligence and the aftermath that was never planned for but we also know that they don't want "madmen" like the folks in Iran, Iraq, North Korea, or heck, just about everywhere else in the world having such weapons, yet many would consider McChimpy just as mad if not worse than the others!!! Well, at least *I* think he is out of control, and very nearly a madman.

So does nuking parts of a country that may indeed only want nuclear tech for power (likely not but still, some REAL proof would be nice) seem like a feasible response? Apparently, the US military doesn't think it's a good idea. According to Seymour Hersh from the New Yorker, there may be a lot more to the talk of a military solution (and nukes) than anyone would care to admit...

"He went on, “Nuclear planners go through extensive training and learn the technical details of damage and fallout—we’re talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years. This is not an underground nuclear test, where all you see is the earth raised a little bit. These politicians don’t have a clue, and whenever anybody tries to get it out”—remove the nuclear option—“they’re shouted down.”

The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning. Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran—without success, the former intelligence official said. “The White House said, ‘Why are you challenging this? The option came from you.’ ”

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it “a juggernaut that has to be stopped.” He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. “There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries,” the adviser told me. “This goes to high levels.” The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. “The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks,” the adviser said. “And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.”

Gods I hope Bush isn't this stupid. If there is anything that will make more countries want nuclear weapons faster, it is the threat of another country having and or using them. But then any monkey could figure that out.

Thanks to Doc Laniac for the New Yorker story...

*** UPDATE ***

Wow, this is really very disturbing... CONPLAN 8022