Bush Budget Plans for Iran Attack

[mawilson 2,133]

An item buried in President Bush’s latest request for $190 billion in emergency war

funding offers telling evidence that the U.S. could be preparing an attack on Iran.

The Defense Department has asked for $88 million to retrofit B-2 Stealth bombers

so they can carry a 30,000-pound “bunker buster” bomb called the massive ordnance

penetrator (MOP), which has the capacity to destroy deep underground targets.

The Administration says the request is in response to an “urgent operational need

from theater commanders.”

Some observers might conclude that the Pentagon is seeking weaponry to strike

Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida in their caves in Afghanistan.

But as Gerard Baker, U.S. editor of the Times of London, points out in the New York

Post, that would not require Stealth bombers.

“The Americans own the skies over Afghanistan and Iraq and could, if they wished,

blanket the two countries with all manner of bombardment from a few thousand feet

in broad daylight,” Baker notes.

Instead, the more likely targets are the subterranean nuclear enrichment facilities in

Iran, according to Baker, who writes:

“The debate in Washington about what to do with the increasingly recalcitrant and

self-confident Iranian regime has taken a significant turn in the past few weeks.

And the decision to upgrade the bombing capacity of the military is perhaps the most

powerful indication yet that the debate is reaching a climax.”

The Pentagon request confirms an earlier report that first ran on Newsmax.com in July,

which disclosed that the Pentagon was planning to modify the B-2 Stealth bombers so

they could carry the bunker buster bombs – “a move that could be a prelude to an

attack on Iran and its nuclear facilities.”

The Newsmax report revealed that Northrop Grumman, the Air Force’s prime contractor

on the B-2, would retrofit the bomber to carry the new 30,000-pound MOP.

“The U.S. Air Force’s B-2 Stealth bomber would be able to attack and destroy an

expanded set of hardened, deeply buried military targets” using the MOP, the company

said at the time.

Regarding the likelihood of an American attack on Iran, Baker observes that the U.S.

now “thinks it has the intelligence and the military capacity to undermine the Iranian

threat seriously…

“The only real question about the next phase in this war is whether an escalation by the

U.S., in a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, would further American –

and Western – objectives, or impede them. The evidence is increasingly suggesting that

the costs of not acting are equal to or larger than the costs of acting.”

Source

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'd be curious on what legal terms could the U.S. strategical strike at Iran without violating international treaty laws? What stops us from strategically knocking out N. Korean nuclear facilities?

[mawilson 2,133]

I'd be curious on what legal terms could the U.S. strategical strike at Iran without violating international treaty laws? What stops us from strategically knocking out N. Korean nuclear facilities?

National security supersedes international laws.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'd be curious on what legal terms could the U.S. strategical strike at Iran without violating international treaty laws? What stops us from strategically knocking out N. Korean nuclear facilities?

National security supersedes international laws.

If the mere possession of nuclear armament, which experts say Iran is at least 10 years away from that, we could rationalize a pre-emptive, strategic strike on any country that has nuclear energy that we consider a potential threat.

[mawilson 2,133]

I'd be curious on what legal terms could the U.S. strategical strike at Iran without violating international treaty laws? What stops us from strategically knocking out N. Korean nuclear facilities?

National security supersedes international laws.

If the mere possession of nuclear armament, which experts say Iran is at least 10 years away from that, we could rationalize a pre-emptive, strategic strike on any country that has nuclear energy that we consider a potential threat.

Of course.

[garya505 2]

I'd be curious on what legal terms could the U.S. strategical strike at Iran without violating international treaty laws? What stops us from strategically knocking out N. Korean nuclear facilities?

National security supersedes international laws.

If the mere possession of nuclear armament, which experts say Iran is at least 10 years away from that, we could rationalize a pre-emptive, strategic strike on any country that has nuclear energy that we consider a potential threat.

If the Iranians get the capability to launch a nuke into Israel, either the Israelis or the US will take out that capability. You can count on that.

[Otto 83]

Contingency plans require contingency budgets...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'd be curious on what legal terms could the U.S. strategical strike at Iran without violating international treaty laws? What stops us from strategically knocking out N. Korean nuclear facilities?

National security supersedes international laws.

If the mere possession of nuclear armament, which experts say Iran is at least 10 years away from that, we could rationalize a pre-emptive, strategic strike on any country that has nuclear energy that we consider a potential threat.

Of course.

We haven't done so yet. Iraq was the first pre-emptive strike against another country and look at the fallout internationally. Following that logic, that means any other country could choose to strike at the U.S. because they feel threatened.

[Drew and Tik 0]

While I think the Iranian government is one of the most backwards and oppressive regimes in todays world (executing gay people? That's just sick), I don't know if this is going to make things better for us in America. I think this is something we really have to think about, unless a strike against the US or at least one of our allies is imminent, we really should show some restraint in preemptive strikes. If we tried a little harder at authentic diplomacy and failed and the situation was going to get apocalyptic soon, OK...but this administration hasn't really done jack in the ways of talking to Iran and trying to figure things out, in addition to the fact that I really don't see them as a major threat so long as we keep our defenses sufficient and stay on our toes.

Bombing Iran at this point would be about as justified as me shooting and killing a drug dealer because I thought he was trying to get his hands on a gun that he might possibly use against me a few years from now. I'm by no means a liberal pacifist, far from it, but I do think the current administration has shown a major lack of rationality in the past so maybe they should think before adding to that track record.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Bombing Iran at this point would be about as justified as me shooting and killing a drug dealer because I thought he was trying to get his hands on a gun that he might possibly use against me a few years from now.

Kind of like Minority Report.

[Drew and Tik 0]

Bombing Iran at this point would be about as justified as me shooting and killing a drug dealer because I thought he was trying to get his hands on a gun that he might possibly use against me a few years from now.

Kind of like Minority Report.

Haha, yeah, except Bush only thinks he can predict the future!

[GaryC 7]

While I think the Iranian government is one of the most backwards and oppressive regimes in todays world (executing gay people? That's just sick), I don't know if this is going to make things better for us in America. I think this is something we really have to think about, unless a strike against the US or at least one of our allies is imminent, we really should show some restraint in preemptive strikes. If we tried a little harder at authentic diplomacy and failed and the situation was going to get apocalyptic soon, OK...but this administration hasn't really done jack in the ways of talking to Iran and trying to figure things out, in addition to the fact that I really don't see them as a major threat so long as we keep our defenses sufficient and stay on our toes.

Bombing Iran at this point would be about as justified as me shooting and killing a drug dealer because I thought he was trying to get his hands on a gun that he might possibly use against me a few years from now. I'm by no means a liberal pacifist, far from it, but I do think the current administration has shown a major lack of rationality in the past so maybe they should think before adding to that track record.

Name me one time diplomacy had any effect on an oppressive government like Iran. It makes us feel like we did the right thing but in the end does nothing to help cure the situation. It only gives them more time to lay their plans. Power is the only thing that gets countries like Iran's attention. That is a fact of life.

[Drew and Tik 0]

While I'm never one to completely rule out the option of war, there are certain protocols that should be followed by a civilized nation. If anyone could attack another nation because they were doing something that pissed them off then there would be many countries that would be totally justified in attacking us for many reasons.

You may be right, the Iranian government may never listen to reason, but we still have a responsibility to try, we have to be better than that. Like my analogy before, you could say that criminals only understand force and violence so that is the only way to deal with them. This isn't always true though, there are many cases of criminals giving up before resorting to using their weapons...it's only in cases where they're using or very likely to use deadly force that I'm allowed to counteract their actions with deadly force of my own.

What if the cold war was dealt with in the way you're talking? Bomb first, ask questions later. I think none of us would be alive today if that was the policy of either the US or USSR during that time.

[GaryC 7]

While I'm never one to completely rule out the option of war, there are certain protocols that should be followed by a civilized nation. If anyone could attack another nation because they were doing something that pissed them off then there would be many countries that would be totally justified in attacking us for many reasons.

You may be right, the Iranian government may never listen to reason, but we still have a responsibility to try, we have to be better than that. Like my analogy before, you could say that criminals only understand force and violence so that is the only way to deal with them. This isn't always true though, there are many cases of criminals giving up before resorting to using their weapons...it's only in cases where they're using or very likely to use deadly force that I'm allowed to counteract their actions with deadly force of my own.

What if the cold war was dealt with in the way you're talking? Bomb first, ask questions later. I think none of us would be alive today if that was the policy of either the US or USSR during that time.

We won the cold war with strength. For decades we tried diplomacy and it got us no where. Reagan said, "OK, we will just make your nukes useless if you will not back down" and the USSR folded. They simply could not keep up. We won through strength and the threat of making them impotent. It's the greatest example of winning through strength.

Talking is all well and good but it rarely has any benefit.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

While I'm never one to completely rule out the option of war, there are certain protocols that should be followed by a civilized nation. If anyone could attack another nation because they were doing something that pissed them off then there would be many countries that would be totally justified in attacking us for many reasons.

You may be right, the Iranian government may never listen to reason, but we still have a responsibility to try, we have to be better than that. Like my analogy before, you could say that criminals only understand force and violence so that is the only way to deal with them. This isn't always true though, there are many cases of criminals giving up before resorting to using their weapons...it's only in cases where they're using or very likely to use deadly force that I'm allowed to counteract their actions with deadly force of my own.

What if the cold war was dealt with in the way you're talking? Bomb first, ask questions later. I think none of us would be alive today if that was the policy of either the US or USSR during that time.

Exactly. Rationalizing pre-emptive strikes because of 'fear' of danger must apply to all nations or no one....unless of course we believe we have moral authority when it comes to engaging war.