Pre-emptive nuclear strike is quite a bit more nutjobby - the repercussions for the U.S. on an international level would be much more profound. Sufficiently profound as to make it very, very unlikely. An invasion on the other hand, of Iraq in particular, is/was reasonably easy to justify. Shitty justifications, perhaps, but still workable and reasonably sane looking ( the have dangerous weapons! they harbor our enemies! they violate agreements! they oppress their people! etc.). Going nuclear is Going Nuclear - it would take a truly extraordinary provocation ( i.e. a nuclear attack ) to trigger it.
To put it in perspective circa, oh, 2006 or thereabouts:
1.) U.S. Air/Missle Strikes on Iran - Unlikely, but not at all nutjobby. Could have happened. Would have been stupid IMO, but not outside the realm of possible.
2.) U.S. Invasion of Iran - A little nutjobby. Very unlikely, just due to the fact that whatever the administration’s desires the military establishment advising them are mostly not that stupid. The assets needed were tied up, the justifications much thinner even than Iraq, the international support much weaker, the strategic problems much tougher. Would not have happened.
3.) U.S. Nuclear Strike on Iran - Pretty darn nutjobby, for all the reasons above.
4.) Bush Suspends Upcoming U.S. Elections, Declares Some Variety of Martial Law - Flat-out whackadoo nutjobbery.
Wasn’t Bush pushing for the development of nuclear bunker-busters for use in Afghanistan? Never mind that he also declared that anyone trying to develop nuclear weapons was a rogue state.
As for a guerrilla-type insurrection against the government, we’ve already seen that several times. The last time it happened, it prompted us to invade Afghanistan and ultimately Iraq, and briefly unified the country and the world around us.
I dunno: I see references to the Bush Administration seeking development of nuclear “bunker buster” weaponseven a couple of years after the initial invasion.
ETA: and if you extend “contemplated their use” to active planning by the President’s immediate advisors, I think you’ll find that the administrations of Truman, Eisenhower and possibly Johnson weren’t quite so virginal on this score as you seem to think.
So CNN would never report on some far left or far night nonsense? Bush was about four blocks right of center for me (I’m military but middle of the road.) But I don’t see for a second he contemplated the use of nukes in Iran. If he was that concerned, why didn’t he just bomb Iran? Oh yeah, that was prediced here too. I must have missed that in the news.
The American civil war was a regional war where the country was split into camps along largely geographical lines, but that’s not typical for a civil war.
While there may be more support for certain factions in certain parts of the country, civil wars usually aren’t so neatly divided.
So what? Administrations (in both parties) seek development of lots of things. I 100% guaran-damn-t that there were new nuclear weapons under “development” in the Carter and Clinton administrations too. Don’t remember them nuking anyone either.
Hundreds if not thousands of new weapons programs and upgrades to old ones go on within DoD independent of the Administration all the time. Doesn’t mean the President is chomping at the bit to use them.
:dubious: Half a million is twice as large as Great Britain’s (for example) active duty armed forces. And for reference, the Coast Guard has 42,000 active duty personnel. (All according to Wikipedia)
Well, as I said, I don’t think any of this is at all likely, but if there were anything resembling a civil war, I think that’s what it would look like.
The scenario I described may be atypical compared to other civil conflicts in the world, but the US isn’t your typical country: it comprises fifty entities that are sovereign in their own right, led by relatively independent governors who are also commanders in chief in their own right.
They would, but in this case they weren’t. It looked like a hyped up news “flash” because Bush wouldn’t rule out the use of nukes-- which the US never does anyway.
Anyway, that’s what I got from actually reading the thread.
Judging by this map, it’s really the cities vs. the countryside. Hard to make a civil war out of that – and, when a civil war does come down to city vs. countryside, somehow the city always seems to win, despite the countryside being the place where everybody’s food comes from. The only exception I can think of is the Paris Commune.
Maybe states have their own “armies,” but I think you’ll find the average National Guardsman these days is, like the average American these days, more loyal to America as a whole than to his/her particular state.
There was this sort of revolutionary talk back when Clinton was president. Remember the Michigan militia and all the rest? Ooooh, scaaaarry kids! We’re gonna have us a people’s war against that draft-dodger in Washington! Yessir!
Then Timothy McVeigh came along and actually did something warlike, and you didn’t hear a peep out of the militia types. They didn’t run to the battlements. They just ran. And hid.
All this blather about militias and such like is just a chance for grown men to run around in the woods with their guns playing soldier, and brag about it in the bars afterwards. Unless of course they’re too fat to run around in the woods. They can still sit on bar stools and talk though. And after the bar closes they can drunkenly blog online until dawn.
Well John, if you think the the President seriously considered launching a nuclear strike, I can’t prove a negative. Too me, that though was clearly left wing nutcase. YMMV.
Actually, he isn’t, which is why I was surprised he spread garbage created by conspiracy theorists. But next time we’re all at a party together, I’ll make sure not to introduce you two.
I didn’t know EU was a two-month old “newspaper” from Florida, but I certainly was wondering and I’m not surprised it isn’t legit … that’s why in my OP I asked if any trusted sources had shared similar information. Obviously the answer is no.
I thought the original articles more a statement on the government than on the likelihood of the people to rise up. Town hall meetings notwithstanding.
I think any President, even if he/she was more than half crazy realizes that detonating a nuclear device on Iran, or anywhere else, would result in condemnation by the rest of the world. Nearly all other countries, probably including Canada, would coalesce to try to isolate the US as much as possible. If you think the US has economic problems now, launching a nuke would seal its economic fate.
Since I was the one who posted the link, I’ll explain why I thought it was a good example.
First, the OP in that post, mentioned something he thought he heard while “half-listening” to CNN. A few posts later he explains that while the story seemed to report that a nuclear strike is always an option, someone was interviewed that insisted a strike was a new option.
Secondly, and I think this is important to note, THERE WAS NO PRE-EMPTIVE NUCLEAR STRIKE ON IRAQ.
Tapioca Dextrin that’s exactly what I was looking for, but couldn’t find in the search. Thanks!
Like when Jimmy Carter seemed first to approve, then reject, deployment of the neutron bomb.
