US nuclear war planned against Iran

Содержание

background info:
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.iranbodycount.org/">http://www.iranbodycount.org</a>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005-2006_US-Israeli_threats_to_attack_Iran">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005-2006_US-Israeli_threats_to_attack_Iran</a>
</ul>

action:
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.campaigniran.org">http://www.campaigniran.org</a>
<li><a href="http://www.stopwaroniran.org">http://www.stopwaroniran.org</a>
<li><a href="http://www.defendiran.org/">http://www.defendiran.org</a>
<li><a href="http://www.medialens.org/alerts/06/060209_iran_the_media.php">http://www.medialens.org/alerts/06/060209_iran_the_media.php</a>
</ul>


blogs:
<ul>
<li><a href="http://blogsbyiranians.com">http://blogsbyiranians.com</a>
<li><a href="http://endempire.blogspot.com/">http://endempire.blogspot.com</a> - colin buchanan
</ul>

<hr>

America and Iran: At the Brink of the Abyss

<a href="http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/page/p/America_and_Iran_At_the_Brink_of_the_Abyss">www.campaigniran.org</a>

By <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Hirsch">Jorge Hirsch</a> (professor of physics at San Diego University, California, USA), 20 February 2006 (source: <a href="http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=8577">antiwar.com</a>)

Whether <a
href="http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/mar2002/nuk1-m15.shtml">the
U.S. will use nuclear weapons against
Iran </a>if <a
href="http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,392783,00.html">a
military confrontation erupts </a>is in the hands of a single person,
President Bush, as stated
in <a href="http://www.ciaonet.org/book/craig/craig01.html">NSC
30 </a>from 1948:
&quot; <a href="http://www.history.navy.mil/colloquia/cch9b.html">the
decision as to the employment of atomic weapons </a>in the event of
war is to be made by the Chief Executive when he considers such
decision to be required.&quot; Bush will certainly not ask
Congress nor the public permission once hostilities start. Whether or
not tactical nuclear weapons should be deployed and used against Iran
is a matter that <a href="http://www.house.gov/writerep/">needs to be
faced by America right now </a>!

So are U.S. tactical nuclear
weapons deployed in the Persian Gulf, on hair-trigger alert, and ready
to be launched against Iran at a moment&#39;s
notice?

I <a
href="http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=8263">posed the
question in December </a>, arguing that every other element needed for
a nuclear strike on Iran was &quot;deployed&quot; and ready. On
Feb. 3, 2006, an answer was kindly provided by the Chief of Naval
Operations in the form
of <a
href="http://www.nukestrat.com/us/navy/OPNAVINST5721.pdf">OPNAVINST
5721.1F </a>[.pdf], which states:

&quot;Military members and
civilian employees of the Department of the Navy shall not reveal,
purport to reveal, or cause to be revealed any information, rumor, or
speculation with respect to the presence or absence of nuclear weapons
or components on board any specific ship, station or aircraft, either
on their own initiative or in response, direct or indirect, to any
inquiry.&quot;

Oh well then, we don&#39;t know for sure,
and there is no way to know. Really?

We do know. Because it
would be inconsistent with every fiber of the current administration,
and
with <a
href="http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefings/IranConsequences.htm">all
the circumstances surrounding the Iran scenario </a>,
if <a
href="http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=8263">tactical
nuclear weapons were not deployed </a>in the Persian Gulf,
following <a href="http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/">NSPD 35 </a>,
on high alert and ready to be used in a confrontation with Iran. So we
may safely assume they are deployed and they will be used,
and <a href="http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/">make our
choices </a>accordingly. Once it
happens, <a href="http://www.afterhiroshima.org/index.htm">it cannot
be undone </a>.

The Impending Nuclear Attack

All
the elements have been put in place carefully and methodically for the
U.S. to use tactical nuclear weapons against Iran in a way that will
seem &quot;acceptable&quot; at first
sight, <a href="http://www.antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8359">as
discussed in previous columns </a>:
the <a
href="http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/mar2002/nuk1-m15.shtml">new
nuclear doctrine </a>,
the <a href="http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rwnews/2846">nuclear
hitmen </a>,
the <a
href="http://www.lasg.org/archive/1997/birth-bomb.htm">weapons </a>,
the <a
href="http://www.antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8312">justification </a>,
the <a href="http://www.antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8007">legal
framework </a>,
and <a href="http://www.antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8089">the public
mindset </a>. The <a
href="http://www.iaea.or.at/Publications/Documents/Board/2006/gov2006-14.pdf">IAEA
resolution of Feb. 4 </a>[.pdf]
has <a href="http://www.antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=7431">paved a
smooth road </a>to confrontation, paralleling the events after the
passage of UN Security
Council <a href="http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm">Resolution
1441 </a>of November 2002. The use
of <a
href="http://www.brook.edu/FP/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/lasg.htm">low-yield
earth-penetrating nuclear weapons </a>will appear to be
a <a href="http://www.antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=7649">military
necessity </a>, one that will save thousands of American and Israeli
lives, deter an Iranian response, and achieve
&quot; <a href="http://zfacts.com/p/102.html">rapid and favorable war
termination on U.S. terms. </a>&quot;

The public mindset has
been thoroughly prepared for war by a barrage of untrue propaganda
against
Iran, <a
href="http://www.iht.com/articles/1995/01/25/terr_1.php">extending </a>over <a
href="http://www.fas.org/news/iran/1995/index.html">many
years </a>and <a href="http://www.meforum.org/article/398">gradually
escalating </a>in volume
and <a
href="http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/bm-threat.htm">tone </a>. Iran has
been demonized as the pure incarnation of evil:
the <a
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-5593578,00.html">foremost
sponsor of
terrorism </a>, <a
href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178259,00.html">pursuing
nuclear weapons </a>, intent
on <a
href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051111-1.html">harming
America </a>, <a
href="http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030610-125659-6237r.htm">harboring
al-Qaeda </a>,
hiding <a href="http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/33909.htm">arsenals of
chemical and biological weapons </a>and
their <a
href="http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/cbwprolif.asp">means of
delivery </a>, <a
href="http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4089">oppressing
its own people </a>, intent
on <a
href="http://www.jtf.org/america/america.iranian.dictator.vows.to.destroy.america.htm">destroying
Israel and the West </a>. Max
Boot <a
href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-boot25jan25,0,5533737.column?coll=la-news-columns">just
wrote </a>in the Los Angeles Times , &quot;In sum, a
terrorist-sponsoring state led by an apocalyptic lunatic will soon
have the ability to incinerate Tel Aviv or New York,&quot; which
&quot;leaves only one serious option ? air strikes by Israel or the
U.S.&quot; <a
href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ferguson16ajan16,0,5634157.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions">Niall
Ferguson wrote a few days earlier </a>in the same newspaper that a
U.S. preemptive strike against Iran today would prevent an Iranian
nuclear strike on Israel in 2007, ignoring among other things
the <a
href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101453.html">reality </a>that
it
is <a
href="http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/index.cfm?Page=Article&ID=2480">physically
impossible </a>for Iran to produce a nuclear weapon in a
year. Nicholas Goldberg, who edits the Times &#39; opinion
page, studiously avoids publishing any alternative viewpoints. A
similar approach is taken by the rest of the mainstream media in the
U.S. and Western Europe. Is it surprising that a few days after these
two opinion pieces were published the Los Angeles Times found
that <a
href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-fornpoll27jan27,0,5687029.story?coll=la-home-headlines">57
percent of the U.S. public backs a military strike on
Iran? </a>

Whether Iran has nuclear weapons
today, <a
href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101453.html">10
years from today </a>, or never is not the issue anymore. The U.S. has
declared that Iran will not be allowed to have a
&quot; <a
href="http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive/2006/Feb/08-687695.html">nuclear
weapons capability. </a>&quot; How?
Perhaps <a href="http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010406K.shtml">the
CIA will supply Iran with misleading documents </a>indicating that E=m
2 c rather than E=mc 2 ? Unlikely. The nuclear weapons
&quot;capability&quot; will be defined as broadly as needed, no matter
what Iran agrees to, to justify the military option, which has already
been endorsed
by <a
href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/02/13/hawks/">senators on
both sides of the aisle </a>.

However, neither the media nor
Congress are bringing up the inconvenient little fact that the
military
option <a href="http://www.antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8089">will
necessarily lead </a>to the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. And
they are unwilling to weigh the fact that using nuclear weapons
against a non-nuclear country like Iran will likely
have <a
href="http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/1997/00/00_babst_consequences.htm">disastrous
consequences </a>for the U.S. and the rest of the world.

The
Fallacy of Nuclear &quot;Deterrence&quot;

We are
told over and over that the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear
weapons <a href="http://www.lanl.gov/history/index.shtml">is to
&quot;deter&quot; adversaries </a>, which surely provides some comfort
to <a
href="http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/hr/relations/employees.shtml">otherwise
moral
people </a>who <a
href="http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/djcil/articles/djcil8p23.htm">devote
their efforts </a>to <a href="http://www.lanl.gov/">building up the
U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal </a>. The argument made some sense
before: an adversary like the Soviet Union could arguably be deterred
by the U.S. nuclear arsenal from launching a nuclear attack against
the U.S. or its allies, or even a massive conventional attack against
Western Europe.

However, the &quot;deterrent&quot; role of
U.S. nuclear
weapons <a
href="http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=ma05speed">has
recently been
extended </a>to <a
href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/npr.htm">deter
WMD </a>(e.g., chemical weapons) attacks, and the administration
argues
that <a
href="http://www.nnsa.doe.gov/docs/congressional/2004/2004-Mar-24_SASC_testimony-19Mar04.pdf">&quot;low-yield&quot;
nuclear weapons make deterrence more &quot;credible&quot; </a>[.pdf],
and <a
href="http://www.looksmartlacrosse.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20031108/ai_n14563556">low-yield </a><a
href="http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/B61-11.htm">earth penetrating
weapons
(B61-11) </a>are <a
href="http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/resources/congress-testimony/pdf/020612.pdf">already
in the U.S. nuclear stockpile </a>[.pdf]. Where does this
lead?

As Keith Payne, a proponent of the current U.S. Nuclear
Posture well puts it,
&quot; <a
href="http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=132061024455902">deterrence
is inherently unreliable: prepare for its failure. </a>&quot; This
means that if an adversary undertakes an action that the U.S. nuclear
threat was meant to deter, the U.S. will respond by making good on its
threat and use its nuclear weapons. Couple this with the recently
adopted
preemptive <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html">National
Security Strategy </a>, and the fact
that <a
href="http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/721_reports/jan_jun2003.htm#iran">the
U.S. accuses Iran of having chemical weapons </a>and that it can
&quot; <a
href="http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iran/Chemical/">deploy
chemical warheads on its long-range missiles </a>,&quot; and you are
led to the following scenario: If in response to an aerial attack
on Iran&#39;s facilities, Iran fires or threatens to fire a single
missile against Israel or against U.S. forces in Iraq, the U.S. will
attack Iran with tactical nuclear weapons .

Why is this
a <a href="http://www.antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=7861">realistic
expectation </a>? Because no matter what the political cost, it would
support
the <a href="http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/080303E.shtml">much
broader role desired for the U.S. nuclear arsenal </a>in the
&quot; <a
href="http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/1997/autumn/bkr5-a97.htm">second
nuclear age </a>,&quot; which currently
has <a
href="http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/washington_quarterly/v028/28.3payne.html">no
credibility </a>. According to
the <a
href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/npr.htm">2001
Nuclear Posture Review </a>, the U.S. nuclear arsenal is now also
supposed to &quot;dissuade adversaries from undertaking military
programs or operations that could threaten U.S. interests or those of
allies and friends.&quot; Well, it has already failed in this
regard. Iran is pursuing its nuclear program, undeterred by
all <a
href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4149090.stm">overt </a>and <a
href="http://www.nukestrat.com/us/stratcom/globalstrike.htm">less
overt </a>U.S. threats. Once the U.S. makes good on its nuclear
deterrence threat once and uses its nuclear weapons, the validity of
the nuclear deterrence policy against any action opposed by the
U.S. will be established for future contingencies. There is a good
reason why U.S. documents emphasize that
&quot; <a
href="http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/defense/jp3-12/">there is
no customary or conventional international law to prohibit nations
from employing nuclear weapons in armed
conflict </a>.&quot;

Tactical Nuclear Weapons
Deployment

The Navy
instruction <a
href="http://www.nukestrat.com/us/navy/OPNAVINST5721.pdf">OPNAVINST
5721.1F </a>[.pdf] just released concerning &quot;the release of
information about nuclear weapons and nuclear capabilities of
U.S. forces&quot; is an update of the
earlier <a
href="http://www.nukestrat.com/us/navy/OPNAVINST5721_93.pdf">1993
version </a>[.pdf] with some changes. One is this added
paragraph:

&quot;The current NCND [neither confirming nor
denying] policy mirrors the original policy taking into account
employment and program policy changes. In general, it is U.S. policy
not to deploy nuclear weapons aboard surface ships, naval aircraft,
attack submarines, or guided missile submarines.&quot;

Note
the &quot;in general&quot; wording, which clearly allows for
exceptions. That phrasing was conspicuously absent in the 1993
version, which instead stated &quot;It is general US policy not to
deploy nuclear weapons?.&quot; Note also that the new statement
explicitly mentions that it is issued in view of &quot;employment and
program policy changes,&quot; which presumably refers to
the <a
href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/npr.htm">2001
Nuclear Posture Review </a>and the associated
&quot; <a
href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/jp3_12fc2_15mar2005.htm">Doctrine
for Joint Nuclear Operations </a>,&quot; which envision the U.S. use
of tactical nuclear weapons
in <a href="http://zfacts.com/p/102.html">vastly expanded
circumstances </a>.

The policy&#39;s purported rationale is
that

&quot; Uncertainty as to the location of nuclear
weapons complicates an adversary&#39;s military planning and reduces
his chances of successful attack thereby increasing the deterrent
value of our forces and the security of the
weapons .&quot;

Perhaps. But it also serves the clear
function of allowing preparations
for <a href="http://www.amconmag.com/2005_08_01/article3.html">a
tactical nuclear strike against Iran </a>without raising public
alarm. The same considerations that were being
made <a href="http://www.ciaonet.org/book/craig/craig01.html">back in
1948 </a>? &quot;The novel nature of atomic war nevertheless made it
advisable to refrain from openly declaring an American atomic
strategy, because that would alarm the American public, triggering a
moral debate?&quot; ? apply
today. <a
href="http://www.lasg.org/PressAdvisory3-31-05.htm">Americans would
vehemently oppose </a>the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons to be
used against Iran if such action was publicly
disclosed.

Blaming the Military

The
principal responsibility for what is about to happen will be assigned
to the military. Linton Brooks, the National Nuclear Security
Administration
director, <a
href="http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040811-055622-5998r.htm">stated
that </a>&quot;recently funded research into earth-penetrating bombs
came at the request of military leaders who have seen potential uses
for them against rogue states that hide sensitive sites deep
underground.&quot; The weapons that will be used
are <a href="http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.htm">B61-11
nuclear earth penetrators </a>, in the U.S. nuclear
stockpile <a
href="http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/resources/congress-testimony/pdf/020612.pdf">since
2001 </a>[.pdf].

The Pentagon draft document
&quot; <a
href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/jp3_12fc2_15mar2005.htm">Doctrine
for Joint Nuclear Operations </a>&quot; provides &quot;guidance for
the employment of U.S. nuclear forces&quot; and states,
&quot;Geographic combatant commanders may request presidential
approval for use of nuclear weapons for a variety of conditions,&quot;
then proceeds to list <a href="http://zfacts.com/p/102.html">several
conditions </a>that will undoubtedly apply in a military confrontation
with Iran: <ul><li>&quot;An adversary using or intending to use
WMD against U.S., multinational, or alliance forces or civilian
populations&quot; </li><li>&quot;Attacks on adversary installations
including WMD, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or
biological weapons&quot; </li><li>&quot;To counter potentially
overwhelming adversary conventional forces&quot; </li><li>&quot;For
rapid and favorable war termination on
U.S. terms&quot; </li><li>&quot;To ensure success of U.S. and
multinational operations&quot; </li><li>&quot;To demonstrate
U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary
use of WMD.&quot; </li></ul>

Bush and Rumsfeld often emphasize that
their decisions on military operations in Iraq rely on recommendations
of military commanders on the
ground. As <a
href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051129-2.html">Bush
recently put it </a>,

&quot;The people don&#39;t want me
making decisions based upon politics; they want me to make decisions
based upon the recommendation from our generals on the ground. And
that&#39;s exactly who I&#39;ll be listening to.&quot;

When
Rumsfeld was accused of overruling advice from Gen. Tommy Franks on
preparations for the war on Iraq,
the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2899823.stm">BBC
reported </a>that he &quot;flatly denied overriding military
commanders,&quot; instead stating,

&quot;You will find, if
you ask anyone who has been involved in the process in the central
command, that every single thing that they [military commanders] have
requested has, in fact, happened.&quot;

This shameful
approach of shifting responsibility from the policymakers to the
commanders on the ground will be an essential element in the nuking of
Iran. The motivation is transparent: the administration&#39;s hope
that the strong American inclination to
&quot; <a
href="http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/americasupportsyou/index.aspx">support
the troops </a>&quot; will blunt criticism of the political decision
to nuke Iran.

The mere possibility that Iranian missiles
targeting U.S. troops could carry chemical warheads, suggested by
faulty or even true intelligence and
already <a
href="http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iran/Chemical/">assumed
by U.S. officials </a>, could prompt a geographic commander to request
authorization from the president to use low-yield nuclear weapons
against Iran, particularly if such weapons are already deployed in the
theater. Or such a request could be prompted by
&quot;intelligence&quot;
that <a href="http://www.fas.org/faspir/2002/v55n5/fire.htm">chemical
weapons hidden in underground facilities </a>in Iran will
be <a
href="http://wwwc.house.gov/international_relations/109/ros021605.htm">supplied
to
terrorists </a>to <a
href="http://www1.va.gov/vasafety/page.cfm?pg=528">be used against
Americans </a>, and can only be destroyed by nuclear
bunker-busters. It is obviously unconscionable to demand that a
military commander, whose prime concern is the safety of the troops
under command, take into account the long-term consequences for
America of crossing the nuclear threshold.

How will President
Bush respond to such a request? Will he not authorize the use of
tactical nuclear weapons after the military commander has stated that
thousands of soldiers under his/her command could be at risk?
We&#39;re talking about the president whose
&quot; <a
href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/homeland/index.html">top
priority is the safety and security of the American people </a>&quot;
and who has proclaimed that
&quot; <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss5.html">[t]he greater
the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction ? and the more
compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend
ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the
enemy&#39;s attack </a>.&quot; This is the same man
who <a
href="http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=831&issue_id=48">year
after year has requested that Congress </a>lift the ban on research
and development of low-yield nuclear weapons
( <a
href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/securitynet/nuclear-weapons-budget-request-fy-2005.html">he
finally succeeded </a>), who year after year asks Congress to
fund <a href="http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/RS21762.pdf">new,
more &quot;usable&quot; nuclear bunker-busters </a>[.pdf], who has
said that
&quot; <a
href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040914-23.html">[i]f
America shows uncertainty and weakness in the decade, the world will
drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my
watch </a>.&quot;

A decision that will determine the future of
humanity and its possible annihilation lies in the hands, mind and
soul of a geographic combatant commander.

Make No Mistake
About It: Nuking Iran Is Wrong

Attacking Iran with
nuclear weapons, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini-nuke">no
matter how small </a>, is evil for the following
reasons: <ul><li>It will not be the result of military necessity,
but
a <a href="http://www.antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8359">premeditated
act </a>, the circumstances to make it possible having been
methodically put in place by the United States over the course of many
years. </li><li>Iran <a
href="http://www.acronym.org.uk/textonly/cwc/03iran2.htm">does not
have ready-to-use chemical nor biological weapons </a>, just like Iraq
didn&#39;t in 2003,
despite <a href="http://www.acronym.org.uk/bwc/revcon1.htm">identical
U.S. accusations, </a>no matter what
&quot; <a
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1667411,00.html">intelligence </a>&quot;
tells you. Iran is party to international treaties
proscribing <a
href="http://www.opcw.org/html/db/members_ratifyer.html">chemical </a>and <a
href="http://www.opbw.org/">biological </a>weapons
and <a
href="http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1373/i.htm">terrorism </a>. </li><li>Iran <a
href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/42473.htm">is not
pursuing nuclear weapons </a>; it
is <a
href="http://www.antiwar.com/blog/more.php?id=2523_0_1_0_M">pursuing a
civilian nuclear program </a>. Even if it wanted
to, <a
href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke3.htm">it is
many years away </a>from the ability to make nuclear
weapons. </li><li>Iran <a
href="http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/article_1058044.php/Teheran_plays_down_Ahmadinejads_anti-Israeli_remarks">advocates
a political solution </a>to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict;
it does not threaten the use of force against Israel. The
U.S. may not agree with Iran&#39;s advocated political solution
(elimination of the state of Israel), but that does not give the
U.S. the right to attack Iran, just as
the <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputed_status_of_Gibraltar">Spanish
claim over Gibraltar </a>does not entitle Britain to attack
Spain. </li><li>Iran has never attacked nor threatened to attack
another state in modern
times. </li><li><a
href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EJ17Ak02.html">Iran has
no </a>more <a
href="http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1267/1455reportsEng.htm">connection
to al-Qaeda </a>than do the
U.S., <a
href="http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-11/29/content_395737.htm">Spain </a>,
or <a
href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2349195.stm">Germany </a>,
and <a
href="http://www.sptimes.com/2002/09/01/911/Florida__terror_s_lau.shtml">a
lot less than the state of Florida </a>. </li><li>Iran is a signatory
to
the <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty">Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty </a>as a non-nuclear-weapon state, does not
have nuclear weapons, and does not threaten to use
them, <a
href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/14/AR2005051400071_pf.html">unlike
the U.S. </a></li><li>Iran&#39;s missiles serve the purpose
of <a
href="http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/3367_3368.html">deterring
an Israeli attack </a>(like
the <a
href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm">Israeli
attack on Osirak </a>), not an offensive purpose. </li><li>Iran&#39;s
government <a
href="http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/18/iran.ballot/">was
democratically elected </a>and has popular support. Attacking Iran
will not result in Iranians rebelling against their government,
despite <a
href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-luttwak10feb10,0,3661131.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions">the LA
Times&#39; </a>(here
we <a
href="http://www.yuricareport.com/Media/LATimesFiresScheer.html">go
again, Nick </a>) claim to the contrary. </li></ul>

The
U.S. <a
href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/01/AR2006020102134.html">has
just declared </a>that it will defend Israel militarily against Iran
if needed. Presumably this includes a scenario where Israel would
initiate hostilities by unprovoked bombing of Iranian facilities, as
it did with Iraq&#39;s Osirak, and Iran would respond with missiles
targeting Israel. The U.S. intervention is likely to be further
bombing of Iran&#39;s facilities, including underground installations
that can only be destroyed with low-yield nuclear bunker-busters. Such
nuclear weapons may cause low
casualties, <a href="http://darwin.nap.edu/execsumm_pdf/11282">perhaps
only in the hundreds </a>[.pdf], but the nuclear threshold will have
been crossed.

Iran&#39;s reaction to a U.S. attack with nuclear
weapons, no matter how small, cannot be predicted with
certainty. U.S. planners may hope that it will deter Iran from
responding, thus saving lives. However, just as the U.S. forces in
Iraq were not greeted with flowers, it is likely that such an attack
would provoke a violent reaction from Iran and lead to the severe
escalation of hostilities, which in turn would lead to the use of
larger nuclear weapons by the U.S. and potential casualties in the
hundreds of thousands. Witness the current
uproar <a
href="http://www.arabamericannews.com/newsarticle.php?articleid=4385">over
cartoons </a>and try to imagine the resulting upheaval in the Muslim
world after the U.S. nukes Iran.

The Military&#39;s Moral
Dilemma

Men and women in the military forces,
including civilian employees, may be facing a difficult moral choice
at this very moment and in the coming weeks, akin to the moral choices
faced by Colin Powell and Dan Ellsberg. The paths these two men
followed were radically different.

Colin Powell was an American
hero, widely respected and admired at the time he was appointed
secretary of state in 2001. In February 2003, he chose to follow
orders despite his
own <a
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,968581,00.html">serious
misgivings </a>, and delivered the pivotal UN address
that <a
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1703234,00.html">paved
the way for the U.S. invasion of Iraq </a>the following month. Today,
most Americans believe the Iraq invasion was wrong, and Colin Powell
is <a
href="http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/powell_carreer_as_a_yes_man_pcr.htm">disgraced </a>,
his future destroyed, and his great past achievements
forgotten.

<a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg">Daniel
Ellsberg </a>, a military analyst,
played <a
href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/10/03/ellsberg/index_np.html">a
significant role </a>in ending the Vietnam War by leaking the Pentagon
Papers. He knew that he would face prosecution for breaking the law,
but was convinced it was the correct moral
choice. His <a
href="http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people/Ellsberg/ellsberg98-7.html#courage">courageous </a>and
principled action earned
him <a href="http://www.ellsberg.net/birthday/1.htm">respect and
gratitude </a>.

The <a
href="http://www.nukestrat.com/us/navy/OPNAVINST5721.pdf">Navy has
just reminded </a>[.pdf] its members and civilian employees what the
consequences are of violating provisions concerning the release of
information about the nuclear capabilities of U.S. forces. Why right
now, for the <a href="http://www.nukestrat.com/us/navy/ncnd.htm">first
time in 12 years </a>? Because it is well aware of moral choices that
its members may face, and it hopes to deter certain actions. But
courageous men and women are not easily deterred.

To disobey
orders and laws and to leak information are difficult actions that
entail risks. Still,
many <a
href="http://www.counterpunch.org/ellsberg01272004.html">principled
individuals have done it in the past </a>and will continue to do it in
the future (
see <a
href="http://progressiveminds.bloghi.com/2006/01/16/dr-king-s-letter-from-the-birmingham-jail.html">[1] </a>, <a
href="http://www.counterpunch.org/mosqueda02272003.html">[2] </a>, <a
href="http://www.iacenter.org/archive2004/j504_snafu1.htm">[3] </a>, <a
href="http://www.laprensa-sandiego.org/archieve/may21-04/disobey.htm">[4] </a>, <a
href="http://www.brianwillson.com/line.html">[5] </a>, <a
href="http://journals.aol.com/bmiller224/OldHickorysWeblog/entries/1721">[6] </a>, <a
href="http://www.shalomctr.org/node/61">[7] </a>, <a
href="http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=511">[8] </a>, <a
href="http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0421-06.htm">[9] </a>.)
Conscientious objection to the threat and use of nuclear
weapons <a
href="http://www.zero-nukes.org/religiousstatements3.html">is a moral
choice </a>.

Once the American public becomes fully aware that
military action against Iran will include the planned use of nuclear
weapons, <a href="http://www.lasg.org/PressAdvisory3-31-05.htm">public
support for military action will quickly disappear. </a>Anything could
get the ball rolling. A great catastrophe will have been
averted.

Even U.S. military law recognizes that there is no
requirement
to <a
href="http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders_2.htm">obey
orders that are unlawful </a>. The use of nuclear weapons against a
non-nuclear country can be argued to
be <a
href="http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions/isummaries/iunanaummary960708.htm">in
violation of international law </a>, the principle
of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war">just war </a>,
the <a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm">principle of
proportionality </a>, common standards of morality
( <a
href="http://www.iheu.org/node/755">[1] </a>, <a
href="http://www.episcopalpeacefellowship.org/4-Resources/InfoGuides/NA-CbF.htm">[2] </a>, <a
href="http://members.tripod.com/~lutheran_peace/urgentcall.html">[3] </a>, <a
href="http://www.ccnr.org/pax_chri">[4] </a>, <a
href="http://www.icpj.net/dwg/jewish_sermon.htm">[5] </a>), and
customs that make up
the <a href="http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac.htm">law of
armed conflict </a>. Even if the nuclear weapons used are small,
because they are likely to cause escalation of the conflict they
violate the principle of proportionality and will
cause <a
href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/war/conventions.shtml">unnecessary
suffering </a>.

The <a
href="http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-nurem.htm">Nuremberg Tribunal </a>, which
the United States helped to create, established that &quot;The fact
that a person acted pursuant to order of his government or of a
superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international
law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to
him.&quot;

To follow orders or to disobey orders, to keep
information secret or to leak it, are choices for each individual to
make ? extremely difficult choices that have consequences. But not
choosing is not an option.

America&#39;s Collective
Responsibility

Blaming the administration or the
military for crossing the nuclear threshold is easy, but
responsibility will be shared by all
Americans.

All <a
href="http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0312-02.htm">Americans
knew </a>,
or <a
href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053.html">should
have known </a>, that using nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear
country like Iran was a possibility given
the <a
href="http://go.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/page.cfm?pageID=1106">Bush
administration&#39;s new policies </a>. All Americans could have
voiced their opposition to these policies and demand that they be
reversed.

The media will carry a heavy burden of
responsibility. The mainstream media could have effectively raised
public awareness of the possibility that the U.S. would use nuclear
weapons against Iran. So far, they have chosen
to <a
href="http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060103/news_mz1e3hirsch.html">almost </a>completely
hide the issue, which is being
increasingly <a
href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=KEE20060210&articleId=1936">addressed
in non-mainstream media </a>.

Members of Congress could have
raised the question forcefully, calling for public hearings, demanding
public discussion of the administration&#39;s plans, and passing new
laws
or <a
href="http://www.prop1.org/2000/99woolsey.htm">resolutions </a>. So
far they have failed to do so and are derelict in their responsibility
to their constituents. Letters to the president from some in
Congress <a
href="http://www.basicint.org/nuclear/NPT/2003prepcom/10SenatorsLetter.htm">[1] </a>, <a
href="http://www.house.gov/tauscher/Press2005/12-05-05.htm">[2] </a>are
a start, but are not likely to elicit a meaningful response or a
change in plans and are a far cry from forceful
action.

Scientific organizations and organizations dealing with
arms control and nuclear weapons could have warned of the dangers
associated with the Iran situation. So far, they have not done so
( <a
href="http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp">[1] </a>, <a
href="http://www.ucsusa.org/">[2] </a>, <a
href="http://www.thebulletin.org/index.htm">[3] </a>, <a
href="http://www.clw.org/">[4] </a>, <a
href="http://www.nti.org/">[5] </a>, <a
href="http://www.lasg.org/who.htm">[6] </a>, <a
href="http://www.aps.org/statements/">[7] </a>, <a
href="http://www.nas.edu/">[8] </a>).

Scientists and
engineers <a href="http://www.lanl.gov/worklife/">responsible for the
development of nuclear weapons </a>could
have <a
href="http://www.trivalleycares.org/open_letter_to_weapfinalweb.pdf">voiced
concern </a>[.pdf] when the new U.S. nuclear weapons policies became
known, policies that directly involve the fruits of their labor. Their
voices have not been heard.

Those who contribute their labor to
the scientific and technical infrastructure that makes nuclear weapons
and their means of delivery possible bear
a <a
href="http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/infodocs/people/pp-einstein4.html">particularly
heavy burden of moral responsibility </a>. Their voices
have <a
href="http://www-tech.mit.edu/V125/N52/52petition.html">barely </a>been
heard.

The Nuclear Abyss

T he United
States is preparing to enter a new era: an era in which it will
enforce nuclear nonproliferation by the threat and use of nuclear
weapons. The use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran will usher
in a new world order. The ultimate goal is that no nation other than
the U.S. should have a nuclear weapons arsenal.

A telltale sign
that this is the plan is the recent change in the stated mission of
Los Alamos National Laboratory, where nuclear weapons are
developed. The mission of LANL used to be described officially as
&quot; <a
href="http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/Director/inside020597.html">Los
Alamos National Laboratory&#39;s central mission is to reduce the
global nuclear
danger </a>&quot; <a
href="http://www.airquality.lanl.gov/pdf/ESR/LALP-00-213.pdf">[1] </a>[.pdf], <a
href="http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/Reflections/0298.pdf">[2] </a>[.pdf], <a
href="http://library.lanl.gov/cgi-bin/getfile?00418570.pdf">[3] </a>[.pdf]. That
will sound ridiculous once the U.S. starts throwing mini-nukes
around. In anticipation of it, the Los Alamos mission statement has
been recently changed to
&quot; <a href="http://www.lanl.gov/natlsecurity/index.shtml">prevent
the spread of weapons of mass destruction and to protect our homeland
from terrorist attack. </a>&quot; That is the present and future role
of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, to be achieved through threat
(deterrence) and use of nuclear weapons. References to the old
mission are nowhere to be found in the current Los Alamos documents,
indicating that the change was deliberate and thorough.

It is
not impossible that the U.S. will succeed in its goal. But it is
utterly improbable. This is a big world. Once the U.S. crosses the
nuclear threshold against a non-nuclear country, many more countries
will strive to acquire nuclear weapons, and many will
succeed.

The <a
href="http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/1985/physicians-lecture.html">nuclear
abyss </a>may turn out to be a steep precipice or a gentle
slope. Either way, it will be a one-way downhill slide toward a
bottomless pit. We will have entered a path of no return, leading in a
few months or a few decades to global nuclear war and unimaginable
destruction.

But there are still choices to be made. Up to the
moment the first U.S. nuclear bomb explodes, the fall into the abyss
can be averted
by <a href="http://www.trivalleycares.org/aamay03.asp">choices
made </a>by each and every one of us. We may never know which choices
prevented it if it doesn&#39;t happen. But if we make the wrong
choices, we will know what they were. And so will future generations,
even in a world
where <a
href="http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/action/urgent-actions/einstein/">wars
are fought with sticks and stones </a>.

Powered by Free Software, including Ruby programming language, PostgreSQL database. Samizdat engine is free software; you can distribute/modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 3 or later.