-Caveat Lector-
Begin forwarded message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: March 1, 2007 8:44:19 AM PST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The "N" Word and Iran
"Using terms like 'low yield' or 'tactical' in describing nuclear
weapon is like reassuring a woman that she's only 'a little bit'
pregnant. She is or she isn't -- there isn't any gray area.
Nuclear war is nuclear war!"
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0228-28.htm
The Words None Dare Say:
Nuclear War
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" like the GBU-28 might be able to destroy the Natanz
facility, especially with repeated bombings. But 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.
We don't know what exactly is being planned — conventional GBU-28's
or nuclear B61-11's. And that is the point. Discussion needs to be
open. Nuclear war is not a minor matter.
The Euphemism
As early as August 13, 2005, Bush, in Jerusalem, was asked what
would happen if diplomacy failed to persuade Iran to halt its
nuclear program. Bush replied, "All options are on the table." On
April 18, the day after the appearance of Seymour Hersh's New
Yorker report on the administration's preparations for a nuclear
war against Iran, President Bush held a news conference. He was asked,
"Sir, when you talk about Iran, and you talk about how you have
diplomatic efforts, you also say all options are on the table. Does
that include the possibility of a nuclear strike? Is that something
that your administration will plan for?"
He replied,
"All options are on the table."
The President never actually said the forbidden words "nuclear
war," but he appeared to tacitly acknowledge the preparations —
without further discussion.
Vice-President Dick Cheney, speaking in Australia last week, backed
up the President.
"We worked with the European community and the United Nations to
put together a set of policies to persuade the Iranians to give up
their aspirations and resolve the matter peacefully, and that is
still our preference. But I've also made the point, and the
president has made the point, that all options are on the table."
Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain, on FOX News August
14, 2005, said the same.
"For us to say that the Iranians can do whatever they want to do
and we won't under any circumstances exercise a military option
would be for them to have a license to do whatever they want to
do ... So I think the president's comment that we won't take
anything off the table was entirely appropriate."
But it's not just Republicans. Democratic Presidential candidate
John Edwards, in a speech in Herzliyah, Israel, echoed Bush.
"To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep
ALL options on the table. Let me reiterate – ALL options must
remain on the table."
Although, Edwards has said, when asked about this statement, that
he prefers peaceful solutions and direct negotiations with Iran, he
has nonetheless repeated the "all options on the table" position —
making clear that he would consider starting a preventive nuclear
war, but without using the fateful words.
Hillary Clinton, at an AIPAC dinner in NY, said,
"We cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or
acquire nuclear weapons, and in dealing with this threat, as I have
said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table."
Translation: Nuclear weapons can be used to prevent the spread of
nuclear weapons.
Barack Obama, asked on 60 Minutes about using military force to
prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, began a discussion of
his preference for diplomacy by responding, "I think we should keep
all options on the table."
Bush, Cheney, McCain, Edwards, Clinton, and Obama all say
indirectly that they seriously consider starting a preventive
nuclear war, but will not engage in a public discussion of what
that would mean. That contributes to a general denial, and the
press is going along with it by a corresponding refusal to use the
words.
If the consequences of nuclear war are not discussed openly, the
war may happen without an appreciation of the consequences and
without the public having a chance to stop it. Our job is to open
that discussion.
Of course, there is a rationale for the euphemism: To scare our
adversaries by making them think that we are crazy enough to do
what we hint at, while not raising a public outcry. That is what
happened in the lead up to the Iraq War, and the disaster of that
war tells us why we must have such a discussion about Iran.
Presidential candidates go along, not wanting to be thought of as
interfering in on-going indirect diplomacy. That may be the
conventional wisdom for candidates, but an informed, concerned
public must say what candidates are advised not to say.
More Euphemisms
The euphemisms used include "tactical," "small," "mini-," and "low
yield" nuclear weapons. "Tactical" contrasts with "strategic"; it
refers to tactics, relatively low-level choices made in carrying
out an overall strategy, but which don't affect the grand strategy.
But the use of any nuclear weapons at all would be anything but
"tactical." It would be a major world event – in Vladimir Putin's
words, "lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons,"
making the use of more powerful nuclear weapons more likely and
setting off a new arms race. The use of the word "tactical"
operates to lessen their importance, to distract from the fact that
their very use would constitute a nuclear war.
What is "low yield"? Perhaps the "smallest" tactical nuclear weapon
we have is the B61-11, which has a dial-a-yield feature: it can
yield "only" 0.3 kilotons, but can be set to yield up to 170
kilotons. The power of the Hiroshima bomb was 15 kilotons. That is,
a "small" bomb can yield more than 10 times the explosive power of
the Hiroshima bomb. The B61-11 dropped from 40,000 feet would dig a
hole 20 feet deep and then explode, send shock waves downward,
leave a huge crater, and spread radiation widely. The idea that it
would explode underground and be harmless to those above ground is
false — and, anyway, an underground release of radiation would
threaten ground water and aquifers for a long time and over wide
distance.
To use words like "low yield" or "small" or "mini-" nuclear weapon
is like speaking of being a little bit pregnant. Nuclear war is
nuclear war! It crosses the moral line.
Any discussion of roadside canister bombs made in Iran justifying
an attack on Iran should be put in perspective: Little canister
bombs (EFP's — explosively formed projectiles) that shoot a small
hot metal ball at a humvee or tank versus nuclear war.
Incidentally, the administration may be focusing on the canister
bombs because it seeks to claim that the Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 permits the use of
military force against Iran based on its interference in Iraq. In
that case, no further authorization by Congress would be needed for
an attack on Iran.
The journalistic point is clear. Journalists and political leaders
should not talk about an "attack." They should use the words that
describe what is really at stake: nuclear war — in boldface.
Then, there is the scale of the proposed attack. Military reports
leaking out suggest a huge (mostly or entirely non-nuclear)
airstrike on as many as 10,000 targets — a "shock and awe" attack
that would destroy Iran's infrastructure the way the US bombing
destroyed Iraq's. The targets would not just be "military targets."
As Dan Plesch reports in the New Statesman, February 19, 2007, such
an attack would wipe out Iran's military, business, and political
infrastructure. Not just nuclear installations, missile launching
sites, tanks, and ammunition dumps, but also airports, rail lines,
highways, bridges, ports, communications centers, power grids,
industrial centers, hospitals, public buildings, and even the homes
of political leaders. That is what was attacked in Iraq: the
"critical infrastructure." It is not just military in the
traditional sense. It leaves a nation in rubble, and leads to
death, maiming, disease, joblessness, impoverishment, starvation,
mass refugees, lawlessness, rape, and incalculable pain and
suffering. That is what the options appear to be "on the table." Is
nation destruction what the American people have in mind when they
acquiesce without discussion to an "attack"? Is nuclear war what
the American people have in mind? An informed public must ask and
the media must ask. The words must be used.
Even if the attack were limited to nuclear installations, starting
a nuclear war with Iran would have terrible consequences — and not
just for Iranians. First, it would strengthen the hand of the
Islamic fundamentalists — exactly the opposite of the effect US
planners would want. It would be viewed as yet another major attack
on Islam. Fundamentalist Islam is a revenge culture. If you want to
recruit fundamentalist Islamists all over the world to become
violent jihadists, this is the best way to do it. America would
become a world pariah. Any idea of the US as a peaceful nation
would be destroyed. Moreover, you don't work against the spread of
nuclear weapons by using those weapons. That will just make
countries all over the world want nuclear weaponry all the more.
Trying to stop nuclear proliferation through nuclear war is self-
defeating.
As Einstein said, "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare
for war."
Why would the Bush administration do it? Here is what conservative
strategist William Kristol wrote last summer during Israel's war
with Hezbollah.
"For while Syria and Iran are enemies of Israel, they are also
enemies of the United States. We have done a poor job of standing
up to them and weakening them. They are now testing us more boldly
than one would have thought possible a few years ago. Weakness is
provocative. We have been too weak, and have allowed ourselves to
be perceived as weak.
The right response is renewed strength--in supporting the
governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and
in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran. For that matter, we
might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a
military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does
anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current
regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act
sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions--and
they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has
rejected further appeasement."
—Willam Kristol, Weekly Standard 7/24/06
"Renewed strength" is just the Bush strategy in Iraq. At a time
when the Iraqi people want us to leave, when our national elections
show that most Americans want our troops out, when 60% of Iraqis
think it all right to kill Americans, Bush wants to escalate. Why?
Because he is weak in America. Because he needs to show more
"strength." Because, if he knocks out the Iranian nuclear
facilities, he can claim at least one "victory." Starting a nuclear
war with Iran would really put us in a world-wide war with
fundamentalist Islam. It would make real the terrorist threat he
has been claiming since 9/11. It would create more fear — real fear
— in America. And he believes, with much reason, that fear tends to
make Americans vote for saber-rattling conservatives.
Kristol's neoconservative view that "weakness is provocative" is
echoed in Iran, but by the other side. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was
quoted in the New York Times of February 24, 2007 as having "vowed
anew to continue enriching uranium, saying, 'If we show weakness in
front of the enemies, they will increase their expectations.'" If
both sides refuse to back off for fear of showing weakness, then
prospects for conflict are real, despite the repeated analyses,
like that of The Economist that the use of nuclear weapons against
Iran would be politically and morally impossible. As one unnamed
administration official has said (New York Times, February 24,
2007), "No one has defined where the red line is that we cannot let
the Iranians step over."
What we are seeing now is the conservative message machine
preparing the country to accept the ideas of a nuclear war and
nation destruction against Iran. The technique used is the
"slippery slope." It is done by degrees. Like the proverbial frog
in the pot of water – if the heat is turned up slowly the frog gets
used to the heat and eventually boils to death – the American
public is getting gradually acclimated to the idea of war with Iran.
First, describe Iran as evil – part of the axis of evil. An
inherently evil person will inevitably do evil things and can't be
negotiated with. An entire evil nation is a threat to other nations.
Second, describe Iran's leader as a "Hitler" who is inherently
"evil" and cannot be reasoned with. Refuse to negotiate with him.
Then repeat the lie that Iran is on the verge of having nuclear
weapons —weapons of mass destruction. IAEA Director General Mohamed
ElBaradei says they are at best many years away.
Call nuclear development "an existential threat" – a threat to our
very existence.
Then suggest a single "surgical" "attack" on Natanz and make it
seem acceptable.
Then find a reason to call the attack "self-defense" — or better
protection for our troops from the EFP's, or single-shot canister
bombs.
Claim, without proof and without anyone even taking responsibility
for the claim, that the Iranian government at its highest level is
supplying deadly weapons to Shiite militias attacking our troops,
while not mentioning the fact that Saudi Arabia is helping Sunni
insurgents attacking our troops.
Give "protecting our troops" as a reason for attacking Iran without
getting new authorization from Congress. Claim that the old
authorization for attacking Iraq implied doing "whatever is
necessary to protect our troops" from Iranian intervention in Iraq.
Argue that de-escalation in Iraq would "bleed" our troops, "weaken"
America, and lead to defeat. This sets up escalation as a winning
policy, if not in Iraq then in Iran.
Get the press to go along with each step.
Never mention the words "preventive nuclear war" or "national
destruction." When asked, say "All options are on the table." Keep
the issue of nuclear war and its consequences from being seriously
discussed by the national media.
Intimidate Democratic presidential candidates into agreeing,
without using the words, that nuclear war should be "on the table."
This makes nuclear war and nation destruction bipartisan and even
more acceptable.
Progressives managed to blunt the "surge" idea by telling the truth
about "escalation." Nuclear war against Iran and nation destruction
constitute the ultimate escalation.
The time has come to stop the attempt to make a nuclear war against
Iran palatable to the American public. We do not believe that most
Americans want to start a nuclear war or to impose nation
destruction on the people of Iran. They might, though, be willing
to support a tit-for-tat "surgical" "attack" on Natanz in
retaliation for small canister bombs and to end Iran's early
nuclear capacity.
It is time for America's journalists and political leaders to put
two and two together, and ask the fateful question: Is the Bush
administration seriously preparing for nuclear war and nation
destruction? If the conventional GBU-28's will do the job, then why
not take nuclear war off the table in the name of controlling the
spread of nuclear weapons? If GBU-28's won't do the job, then it is
all the more important to have that discussion.
This should not be a distraction from Iraq. The general issue is
escalation as a policy, both in Iraq and in Iran. They are linked
issues, not separate issues. We have learned from Iraq what lack of
public scrutiny does.
George Lakoff is the author of Thinking Points (with the Rockridge
Institute staff) and Whose Freedom? He is Richard and Rhoda Goldman
Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the
University of California at Berkeley, and a founding senior fellow
at the Rockridge Institute.
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's
free from AOL at AOL.com.
**************************************
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's
free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
