The Seeds of Nuclear War - a scenario by Michel Chossudovsky

Originally posted by StellarX
I am always surprised to see these oft mentioned references to potential 'accidental' nuclear wars ( especially in reference to Russian equipment somehow malfunctioning due to 'age') when we have had a good 6 decades without the 'accidents' and even serious showdowns resulting in such.

I didn't know that 'accidental' nuclear wars was the topic here. I thought we were talking about nuclear tipped bunker busters being used in a pre-emptive attack on Iran and the change such an action would have on the willingness of other nuclear powers to do the same afterwards. You know, the old "HE used a squirrel gun, but I'VE got a shotgun" thing?

As for the tactical use of nuclear weapons it's going to happen eventually and it wont be the end of the world or necessarily escalate into strategic weapon uses; certainly not with just Iran involved.

Sounds like you're for it. Gonna happen someday, so we might as well do it now? I feel confident you don't have your finger hovering over the big red button. I quite agree the world will go on, though. The only ones to suffer will be flora and fauna (including people).

Why do you suppose only Iran would be involved? Doesn't an attack require an attacker? Perhaps it could be Isreal or America, perhaps both. That would make three involved. Add to that the fact that China might not take it well either and we'd have the opportunity to have four involved. There might even be a few others. Who knows how things go in a bar fight?

There is only one country capable of escalation without inviting near certain defeat and it it's in my opinion no more going to escalate with options in evidence ( or because Iran gets nuked) than Iran is going to use whatever WOMD it may possess on either American troops or American cities.

Ah... obviously you don't see Israel using any of their nuclear devices, only America. No, Iran can't deliver nuclear tipped missiles to America that we know of... true. We'd all be safer if we nuked Iran, wouldn't we? We'd not have to worry about repercussions out of that. Look how difficult it has been for Osama the past 9 years. Nothing to worry about. Besides... more people wanting revenge is no big deal, is it? Look how well NATO has been handling the Taliban. It's a real cakewalk.

Practically everyone has gas in the second world war and the Germans didn't even turn to it when they were being overrun and their cities leveled.

Um... bomber crews didn't need to worry about gas. Besides, gas masks were a lot better during WWII. Even the Russians had them.

In conclusion i think there is plenty to worry about but that the US government are not creating nuclear bunker busters ( really just a means to allow testing outlawed by treaties) to use against third world armies as much as they are making them for the same enemies they plan to fight with the F-22's, Seawolf's ( and new Virginia's ) and like rather expensive platforms.

StellarX... please meet B61-11 which would be a perfect weapon against hard Iranian targets.

The Mod 11 has a special ground impact time delay feature to allow it to penetrate into the earth before detonating.

[...]

The B61-11 has a reported capability to destroy targets at depths of several hundred feet at its highest yield setting.

[...]

Initial manufacture October 1966
Quantity manufacture begins January 1967
Initial deployment 1967
Approximately 3150 B61 bombs of all mods have been manufactured.
Currently in service: 600 tactical bombs (mods 3, 4 and 10) and 750 strategic bombs (mod-7). Mod-7s are currently being converted to Mod-11, which can be used in either a tactical or strategic role.
Of the 12 mods manufactured, 5 remain in service. The oldest bombs are arguably B61-7 bombs (converted B61-1 bombs), manufactured in their original model starting in 2/69, but since rebuilt (starting in 9/85). The oldest mod currently in service is the B61-4 first manufactured in 8/79. The "newest" bombs are the Mod-11, but these are just Mod-7 warheads repackaged in a new body.

It is however great that they have managed to convince so many that their actually afraid of 'terrorist' and 'rogue states' without having to admit that the real enemies can actually , unlike 9-11, kill Americans wholesale

And who are these 'real' enemies that can kill Americans? As far as I know, you are the first to bring the threat to Americans forward in this discussion. All along I thought the Iranian threat to be primarily against Israel, not America.

But, maybe American INTERESTS in the ME are at risk, I won't deny that. A lot of work has gone into pacifying Iraq and a frisky enemy as a neighbour can't be a good thing to have either.

Oh, I should mention Afghanistan, Pakistan and a bunch of other 'stans' just east of Iran too. I doubt they'd be overjoyed over the fallout from nuclear weapons. Did you happen to watch the little vid? It's a crappy little animation, but the info is good:

Iran getting nailed with bunker busters and the fallout path.


Nope... I'm not convinced. Nuclear weapons = bad idea. Attacking Iran right now is 'bad idea' enough, no matter who does it, but using nuclear weapons is, imho, too kinky by far.

reply to post by masqua


Interestingly Iran has moved (so it says) it's nuclear material to an above ground location..

Although that would create a perfect target if true, an attacker would no longer have the degree of protection provided by an underground complex to contain the spread of atomic material.

It may create a perfect target in some eyes, but n reality it creates a nuclear contamination nightmare, and turns the site into an impractical target even if conventional weapons are used.

Hence I actually feel the Iranians really have taken this approach, since it makes it impractical/difficult to target this material even with a big target painted on it..

I would assume the real stance as opposed to the MSM stance is that this would be a multi-site approach within the confines of major population centres.

Tho having said that if Iran has a nuclear weapons making industry that would still be underground, but splitting out a proportion of the material and equipment seems a sensible method in maintaining nuclear capability beyond an attack.

Difficulties are mounting to make an attack on the Iranian facilities pointless..

I hope that might push some to enter into dialogue.. I can hope

Hi Masqua

Originally posted by masqua
I didn't know that 'accidental' nuclear wars was the topic here.

I thought we were talking about nuclear tipped bunker busters being used in a pre-emptive attack on Iran and the change such an action would have on the willingness of other nuclear powers to do the same afterwards.

The accidental wars is not the topic but it was mentioned later on and i consider the concept sufficiently uninformed to warrant discussion.. As for nuclear bunker busters Iran has few if any bunkers worth expending nuclear bunker busters on so it would be a utter waste and a massive and pointless escalation against a power that has shown very little capacity to hurt anyone but it's own citizens.

As for what would happen if someone used nukes the USA used two nukes on defenseless cities months after they gained the capability to do so proving that if it ever came to a war were American lives were seriously at risk, and the enemy could not respond in kind, things were going to get nuked. The fact that no one has used them on the battlefield since answers your question but yes, you seemed to have forgotten that their use then didn't lead to them being used since. There would in my opinion be no change to the status quo in real power terms but it would hardly endear the overwhelmingly ignorant citizens of the world to whichever country uses them 'first' today.

You know, the old "HE used a squirrel gun, but I'VE got a shotgun" thing?

War is about using whatever gains you victory at the 'cheapest' cost ( in US terms that's expending as few lives as possible) and if Israel or Iran can keep their enemies at bay by using nukes as most effective recourse they might do so. But essentially low yield nuclear weapons have very similar effects to a couple of batteries firing large calibre H at you ( or B-52'd/ Lancers unloading on you) so the casualty and expected result is just not different enough to warrant their usage in anything but a war for survival. Unless of course your just experimenting on or bombing defenseless people.

Sounds like you're for it. Gonna happen someday, so we might as well do it now? I feel confident you don't have your finger hovering over the big red button.

I quite agree the world will go on, though. The only ones to suffer will be flora and fauna (including people).

I am for national self defense by the most effective means at said nations disposal. Nuclear bunker busters is only going to make the target bunker and it's occupants suffer so again the scare mongering of wide scale destruction and suffering is a bit wasted on those who know how these weapons actually work.

Why do you suppose only Iran would be involved? Doesn't an attack require an attacker?Perhaps it could be Isreal or America, perhaps both. That would make three involved.

Iran does not threaten the US or Israel ( unless you can not translate or read) with much other than words suggesting that they would defend themselves if attacked; a right every nation has under every convention in existence. Iran has no known capacity to deploy WOMD against Israel or the US so all the US and Israeli talk is all aimed at intimidating Iran into keeping Iran as powerless as it currently still is. Again there is no role for Nuclear bunker busters in a attack on Iran as both Israel and the US can lay it waste with conventional arms.

Add to that the fact that China might not take it well either and we'd have the opportunity to have four involved. There might even be a few others. Who knows how things go in a bar fight?

I will be happy never to be proved right ( or wrong) but China won't involve itself in a war over Iran. It just isn't worth it for them unless the the RF chooses to involve itself first. In that case all bets are off but the Chinese power also made redundant by the ample firepower the RF can still deploy. What i can see , and perhaps what you intend to ask, is a inevitable war that happens to be kicked off in the middle east instead of in the Balkans as per recipe.

Ah... obviously you don't see Israel using any of their nuclear devices, only America.

Israel can not afford retaliation in kind as they just don't have many cities to lose or space to really give up to fallout effects. Israel will not in my opinion be using nuclear weapons first and will stick to using conventional weapons, unless they can get assurances from the US authorities for continued backing, to suppress WOMD development in other countries. Failing that i think they might still hold back until they can show that their ABM defenses shot down a nuclear tipped IRBM in which instance i reckon the target country will suddenly find itself discovering just how many nuclear weapons Israel actually managed to construct over the years as they are quickly lose their capacity to wage a modern aggressive war.

No, Iran can't deliver nuclear tipped missiles to America that we know of... true. We'd all be safer if we nuked Iran, wouldn't we? We'd not have to worry about repercussions out of that. Look how difficult it has been for Osama the past 9 years. Nothing to worry about. Besides... more people wanting revenge is no big deal, is it? Look how well NATO has been handling the Taliban. It's a real cakewalk.

What do you mean what we know of? Do you , as some, seriously believe that Iran could have native and secret production capacity that allows for both the construction of ICBM's and the warhead technology required? I would be surprised if they have any nuclear weapons and far more surprised if it turns out that they can Nativity build the ICBM's AND mate warheads to it within the next decade. I am not advocating nuclear weapon usage but then i don't really count the small yield one's as frankly they are not worth the 'fallout' ( politically, overwhelmingly) or the cost and anyone who chooses to use them when they have so many other options probably believes their running the world and probably isn't wrong enough to not get away with it in the most important ways.

Iran should not be attacked even if it wants to and eventually gets nuclear weapons as Israel is more than capable of defending it's 'interest' and itself with the resources the US state department funnels there every year. In fact so is Egypt and both have rather more to lose than to gain from acting without some kind of official US sanction; if iran is currently a 'threat', to Israel, it's mostly that because it suits US interest for Iran to be seen that way.

Um... bomber crews didn't need to worry about gas. Besides, gas masks were a lot better during WWII. Even the Russians had them.

If you had a point with this ( ABM defenses exists, fallout shelters can be built and protecting clothing exists) i do not understand it. Nuclear weapons are no different than (nerve)gas or biological weapons in that those who use them first feel that they have far more to gain than to lose by it's employment.

StellarX... please meet B61-11 which would be a perfect weapon against hard Iranian targets.

Iran has no known 'hard targets' and these weapons were most certainly not designed to fight third world countries.

The Mod 11 has a special ground impact time delay feature to allow it to penetrate into the earth before detonating.

Of the 12 mods manufactured, 5 remain in service. The oldest bombs are arguably B61-7 bombs (converted B61-1 bombs), manufactured in their original model starting in 2/69, but since rebuilt (starting in 9/85). The oldest mod currently in service is the B61-4 first manufactured in 8/79. The "newest" bombs are the Mod-11, but these are just Mod-7 warheads repackaged in a new body.

Which is one of the points i made when i referenced how out of date nuclear warhead research and testing are currently in the USA. That is the main reason why these programs have been restarted but obviously they needed the political cover of 'hard terrorist' ( lol) targets or Iranian deeply buried research stations. This should fool the vast majority but i'm surprised that you seem to be have been taken in by the claim that Iran posseses a threat sufficiently dire to warrant the research and development of these types of weapons.

And who are these 'real' enemies that can kill Americans? As far as I know, you are the first to bring the threat to Americans forward in this discussion. All along I thought the Iranian threat to be primarily against Israel, not America.

The Russian Federation? Who else? The video is entitled "The Seeds of Nuclear War - a scenario by Michel Chossudovsky"? How can you talk about a nuclear war three scenario as if it wont involve the US and it's entire population? You think Americans are not threatened but think Iran is a threat? I do not follow your reasoning so please expound or point out where i managed to lose track of your intent.

But, maybe American INTERESTS in the ME are at risk, I won't deny that. A lot of work has gone into pacifying Iraq and a frisky enemy as a neighbour can't be a good thing to have either.

The pacification of Iraq has been a grossly mismanaged disaster that frankly could not have been planned much worse if they tried. The only US interest in the ME is the fact that it's the center of world strategic power and thus where you are if you wish to control world events. It has nothing to do with any fundamental interests in the ME; if it were depopulated that would suit the US 'interests' better.

Continued

Oh, I should mention Afghanistan, Pakistan and a bunch of other 'stans' just east of Iran too. I doubt they'd be overjoyed over the fallout from nuclear weapons. Did you happen to watch the little vid? It's a crappy little animation, but the info is good:

Iran getting nailed with bunker busters and the fallout path.

What they think is entirely irrelevant as where shown when Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded despite massive protests in the surrounding countries. The bunker busting fallout effects are hardly worth mentioning given the negligible small number of targets in Iran that could possibly be worthy targets for such weapons. In fact if we are not told we are very unlikely to even know they were used.

Nope... I'm not convinced. Nuclear weapons = bad idea. Attacking Iran right now is 'bad idea' enough, no matter who does it, but using nuclear weapons is, imho, too kinky by far.

I don't think Nuclear weapons is the terrible idea as they allow democratic peaceful nations the opportunity to inflict massive damage on potential enemies without having to turn their own nations into the virtual militarised dictatorships required to match others man for man and machine for machine. The fact that the United States have chosen the imperial path and maintains a vast and tremendously expensive standing army as well as it's nuclear forces and strategic air forces just shows that it's not France, or the UK. As for the actual usage they( meaning the US or Israel) wont use it against Iran because there is absolutely no military or political reason to do so. Of that much i am sure and you can make a note of it for future reference.

In conclusion what i wished to express is the fact that nuclear accidents or the use of nuclear bunker busters are by no means going to be what kicks of world war three and that comparing low yield with high yield nuclear weapons, to say nothing of what their aimed or wether they are airburst or ground bursting, is to miss the point entirely and to succumb to the same fear mongering and misrepresentations that have so damaged the nuclear power industry.

Thanks and regards,

Stellar

Some have mentioned a NATO attack on Iran, why?

NATO is a defensive organisation. As far as I know, no NATO country has been attacked by Iran.

There would be no need for the United States or its allies to invade iran if there intelligence services done they job properly.There are other ways to topple a goverment or stop there nuclear weapons programs.Sabotarge or industrial accidents.Steal important equipment or kidnap Iranian nuclear scientists.Arrange shonky weapon deals with faulty weponory and equipment.Pay off important people in the iranian military and goverment for infomation or spread false infomation.Turn there own citizens against there own goverment with lies and payoffs.The CIA have done this before in many other countries.They should know by now how it works.

[edit on 3-3-2010 by GORGANTHIUM]

Originally posted by Wotan
Some have mentioned a NATO attack on Iran, why?

NATO is a defensive organisation. As far as I know, no NATO country has been attacked by Iran.

If there's one thing that's constant, it's change (sorry about the .pdf links):

The controversial NATO sponsored report entitled “Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World: Renewing Transatlantic Partnership". calls for a first strike use of nuclear weapons. The preemptive use of nukes would also be used to undermine an "increasingly brutal World" as well as a means to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction:

Iran

In much the same terms as the Bush administration, the NATO sponsored report states, without evidence, that Iran constitutes "a major strategic threat":

"An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would pose a major strategic threat – not only to Israel, which it has threatened to destroy, but also to the region as a whole, to Europe and to the United States. Secondly, it could be the beginning of a new multi-polar nuclear arms race in the most volatile region of the world." (Report, op. cit., p. 45)

Careful timing? The controversial NATO sponsored report calling for a preemptive nuclear attack on Iran was released shortly after the publication of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report entitled Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities. The latter denies Iran's nuclear capabilities. The NIE report, based on the assessments of sixteen US intelligence agencies, refutes the Bush administration's main justification for waging a preemptive nuclear war on Iran. The NIE report confirms that Iran “halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003":

www.globalresearch.ca...

Bolding mine.