George Lakoff: The Words None Dare Say: Nuclear War

[demobabe]

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by George Lakoff

"The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iran's nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete."

-Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker, April 17, 2006

"The second concern is that if an underground laboratory is deeply buried, that can also confound conventional weapons. But the depth of the Natanz facility - reports place the ceiling roughly 30 feet underground - is not prohibitive. The American GBU-28 weapon - the so-called bunker buster - can pierce about 23 feet of concrete and 100 feet of soil. Unless the cover over the Natanz lab is almost entirely rock, bunker busters should be able to reach it. That said, some chance remains that a single strike would fail."

-Michael Levi, New York Times, April 18, 2006

A familiar means of denying a reality is to refuse to use the words that describe that reality. A common form of propaganda is to keep reality from being described.

In such circumstances, silence and euphemism are forms of complicity both in propaganda and in the denial of reality. And the media, as well as the major presidential candidates, are now complicit.

The stories in the major media suggest that an attack against Iran is a real possibility and that the Natanz nuclear development site is the number one target. As the above quotes from two of our best sources note, military experts say that conventional "bunker-busters" such as the GBU-28 might be able to destroy the Natanz facility, especially with repeated bombings. On the other hand, they also say such iterated use of conventional weapons might not work, e.g., if the rock and earth above the facility becomes liquefied. On that supposition, a "low yield" "tactical" nuclear weapon, say, the B61-11, might be needed.

If the Bush administration, for example, were to insist on a sure "success," then the "attack" would constitute nuclear war. The words in boldface are nuclear war, that's right, nuclear war - a first strike nuclear war.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/817

[HCE SuiGeneris]

1. Would we be told if they used a nuclear tipped warhead?

I somehow doubt that they would fess up and start telling the truth all of a sudden. This INSANE administration is taking us to yet another war. Like Sy Hersh, my greatest fear is GWB and his mindless need for conquest.

Here is a link to a most disturbing film demonstrating a nuclear winter: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023790698427111488&q=threads&hl=en

[PVnRT]

2. It's certainly possible - could become an "accident" or something

Although the evidence would be very hard to cover up in that case - a nuclear facility accident looks nothing like even a low-yield nuke exploding.

[PerfectSage]

3. The nuclear war decision also includes Russia/China

If Bush decides to use tactical nuclear warheads on Iran, he also has to decide to first strike Russia&China with strategic nuclear warheads. If his decision is nuke Iran without nuking Russia&China then it's Putin's turn to decide to respond with Russia's strategic nuclear warheads.

Since Bush's doctrine is preventive war, if he decides to nuke Iran, he'll probably first strike Iran, Russia and China.

[shadowknows69]

4. Whicxh will make a fun summer for all of us

Where did I put my fallout shelter again?

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. They might choose not to retaliate

with nukes themselves. They may be sane enough to avoid nuclear escalation and instead spank us some other way.

[sweetheart]

6. respect your enemy

Do they actually believe that the iranians would keep their gear all in one place,
waiting for the US to bomb it? Is belittling ones enemy somehow presuming that they
are stupid and not equally as clever as their attackers? Maybe iran would, rather
than taking any damage to its programmes, would take a lot of damage rather to structures
the US mistakenly identified and blew up. Then the program would accelerate and a nuclear
iran would be all but assured, as well as likely, guarded by first rate russian AA after
such an aggression.

[donkeyotay]

7. We used to say we would never launch a first strike nuclear war

Now with this junta in place, we must sit and wait out this madman's term. He will decide if he feels like it. The only rationale we've been given is that it's unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons. Seems kind of unacceptable to launch an attack against a country when you don't even have evidence that that's what they're doing. We just accept that this dismal president, who thinks God talks to him, will wake up one day and decide it's a nice day to make millions more suffer. Congress will come along afterward with a non-binding resolution that he shouldn't have, if they can overcome the filibuster.

[phantom power]

8. we used to follow the Geneva conventions, and respect our own Constitution.

And balance the budget, and adhere to habeas corpus, and...

[magellan]

9. I heard Sy on DN! today saying that Iran has probably moved stuff to Teheran

...into densely populated areas of the city. I can't imagine anything stupider or more cynical if true. Ahmadenijad knows as well as anyone that Bush** has no sense of humanity to stop him bombing Teheran if he thinks Iran's hiding part of its nuclear program there. A lot of people will die as a result.

[demobabe]

10. kick

:kick: