Slog
News & ArtsFriday, February 10, 2012
Comedy The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon"
Posted by Charles Mudede on Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 2:43 PM
There it is...
Iranian intelligence experts also warned of the very real, and very frightening, possibility of the U.S. providing weapons and resources to a rogue third-party state such as Israel.
2
The thing is, I don't worry about what America and Israel will do with those 8,500 nukes. I worry a lot about what Iran would do with one.
4
@3 It was necessary. We don't live in fantasy world. We live in a downright nasty world and that was definitely the good guys winning. And now we're being faced with the same danger. Fanatics with a will to destroy and a means to do it.
5
@4: "Fanatics with a will to destroy and a means to do it."
I believe that's what the Onion article is about, chuckles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism
I believe that's what the Onion article is about, chuckles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism
6
Personally, I am fine with Iran and whatever they want to do. They already have regular public executions of the gays
7
I'm kinda starting to buy the idea that having them actually makes a country less aggressive, not more, because the stakes are too high to even use them.
No two countries in history have hated each others guts more than India and Pakistan. They have both had the bomb for a decade or more and they have the means to deliver them--yet they stick with lobbing shells across glaciers and proxy terrorist attacks.
Terrorists with the bomb? That's a terrifying prospect. Nation states, who are nothing but a big fat target for retaliatory attacks, not so much.
No two countries in history have hated each others guts more than India and Pakistan. They have both had the bomb for a decade or more and they have the means to deliver them--yet they stick with lobbing shells across glaciers and proxy terrorist attacks.
Terrorists with the bomb? That's a terrifying prospect. Nation states, who are nothing but a big fat target for retaliatory attacks, not so much.
8
@ i hope that you meant to write "two", while some in the Iranian regime my come of a bit mad (mostly proud and not taking shit from that bigger bully that likes to throw its weight around in the region, but Yeah also sometimes a bit mad) they are not so mad that they would ever use their only nuke offensively..
And even khomeini with two nukes would still be a lot less scary than santorum with 8,500.
Come back to me when either all the other countries that have them start decommissioning or when they have made more than Israel has... (i believe that's at least 15)
And even khomeini with two nukes would still be a lot less scary than santorum with 8,500.
Come back to me when either all the other countries that have them start decommissioning or when they have made more than Israel has... (i believe that's at least 15)
10
@2 well, Israel doesn't have missiles that can reach here, unlike China, Russia, and North Korea.
So, to be frank, I don't worry about India, Pakistan, or Iran. Their delivery systems suck.
Good thing none of them are smart enough to use cargo ships or cargo planes.
So, to be frank, I don't worry about India, Pakistan, or Iran. Their delivery systems suck.
Good thing none of them are smart enough to use cargo ships or cargo planes.
11
I can only think of one rough state in the middle east run by religious fanatics that has not signed onto the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, refuses to allow IAEA inspectors into the country, has attacked a US carrier unprovoked killing 34 of its crew members, and starts with an "I"....it ain't Iran.
13
mullahs are crazy, but they're not THAT crazy. they know they'd be vaporized if they use a nuclear bomb.
the US of A, on the other hand, is full of pussies that are scared of their shadows.
the US of A, on the other hand, is full of pussies that are scared of their shadows.
14
To all you who THINK you know Iran and all of those oh-so-scary muslims (you friggin' ignorant biggots): When's the last time Iran attacked the USA? When's the last time Iraq did? When's the last time a middle-Eastern country attacked us? How many wars has the USA started, instigated or fueled?
It is our disgusting ethnocentrism, fueled by corporate media fools and non-leader politial bumpkins that convinces so many of us that WE can have and manage potentially lethal and bad shit but people who are different from us? Hell no!
Please. Before you spout paranoia about Iran, learn the role of the president of Iran and get a clue about just what the likelihood of an Iranian-Israeli nuclear war really is.
Go educate yourselves. I'm not wasting my precious time doing it. ;-)
It is our disgusting ethnocentrism, fueled by corporate media fools and non-leader politial bumpkins that convinces so many of us that WE can have and manage potentially lethal and bad shit but people who are different from us? Hell no!
Please. Before you spout paranoia about Iran, learn the role of the president of Iran and get a clue about just what the likelihood of an Iranian-Israeli nuclear war really is.
Go educate yourselves. I'm not wasting my precious time doing it. ;-)
15
Realistically, the only nuclear scenario with any likelihood of playing out is Israel nuking Iran. That would be a disaster for US interests.
And the best way to ensure that doesn't happen is for Iran to have the ability to retaliate in kind.
As for the fear that Iran would start a nuclear war with Israel, the US, or any of our allies? Right-wing paranoia.
And the best way to ensure that doesn't happen is for Iran to have the ability to retaliate in kind.
As for the fear that Iran would start a nuclear war with Israel, the US, or any of our allies? Right-wing paranoia.
18
@14: Exactly. It's amazing that after the WMD lies about Iraq that people would be so gullible once again, but there you have it, @2 and @4 and others are swallowing the bullshit again.
Oh and @4, get some historical analysis on a deeper intellectual level that The History Channel. "We" did not have to drop nukes on Japan. At the time the US had intercepted cables from within Japan that they were ready to surrender, they were just figuring out the terms. Furthermore, the US had a total blockade and complete air dominance. "We" dropped the nukes for different, more insidious reasons.
But as @14 said, educate yourself.
Oh and @4, get some historical analysis on a deeper intellectual level that The History Channel. "We" did not have to drop nukes on Japan. At the time the US had intercepted cables from within Japan that they were ready to surrender, they were just figuring out the terms. Furthermore, the US had a total blockade and complete air dominance. "We" dropped the nukes for different, more insidious reasons.
But as @14 said, educate yourself.
19
there is no reason (unless you are a conservative nutjob or have taken their rantings to heart) to believe that the leadership class of iran is suicidal. and that is the only scenario in which one would have to worry about iran using a nuclear bomb. this is a culture w/ thousands of years of history going back to the persians. they are not a suicidal society. if/when iran gets a nuke, it will actually calm the region down. MAD will be in play. detente will be the result. keeping iran from getting a nuclear weapon is not about keeping iran from using a nuclear weapon (despite what you read & hear on tv). keeping iran from getting a nuclear weapon is about maintaining the ability of our country to act unilaterally within the region w/ our military wo/ anyone standing up to us. if/when iran gets a nuke, that equation changes, and suddenly we are forced to respect them (at least a little bit).
20
@18: The most shameful thing is that there was never really a question as to whether or not it would be used, because it was considered just another weapon. We didn't yet know the sheer destructive power of a nuclear detonation in a populated area, and we had scarcely any knowledge of radioactive contamination at the time.
21
"drop it on Japan. Twice. Like we did."
Pretty sure the families of the 20 million Chinese, Koreans, Indonesians, Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese and so forth killed by the Nipponese really don't give a shit about Japan being nuked and its claims of 'victim hood' gobbled up by America's gullible left.
Pretty sure the families of the 20 million Chinese, Koreans, Indonesians, Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese and so forth killed by the Nipponese really don't give a shit about Japan being nuked and its claims of 'victim hood' gobbled up by America's gullible left.
22
According to Vince, Dwight Eisenhower, Winston Churchill, and Fleet Admiral William Leahy all "lived in a fantasy world."
Good job, Vince!
--------------
"During [Secretary of War Henry Stimson's] recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings: first, on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly, because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.'" --Gen. Dwight Eisenhower
“It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.... My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages...wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." --Fleet Adm. William Leahy, Chief of Staff to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman
"It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the first bomb fell." --Winston Churchill
"The real purpose of building the bomb was to subdue the Soviets." -- Gen. Leslie Groves, chief of the Manhattan Project
Good job, Vince!
--------------
"During [Secretary of War Henry Stimson's] recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings: first, on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly, because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.'" --Gen. Dwight Eisenhower
“It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.... My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages...wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." --Fleet Adm. William Leahy, Chief of Staff to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman
"It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the first bomb fell." --Winston Churchill
"The real purpose of building the bomb was to subdue the Soviets." -- Gen. Leslie Groves, chief of the Manhattan Project
25
"Waaah, I started the fight, but you weren't supposed to knock my teeth out. That's not fair."
Cry me a fucking river.
Cry me a fucking river.
26
Ah, what would Slog be without regular cocktails of spite, immaturity, and willful ignorance provided by Fifty-Two-Eighty?
27
Don't you need to be "occupying" somewhere? Try the middle of the street. Maybe we'll all get lucky and you'll get hit by a car.
29
Some people haven't been paying attention. A nuclear Iran is not a peaceful Iran. Iran is not peaceful. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if these people think their god will protect them. Or think they should sacrifice their people in a mass suicide. That's the kind of fanaticism we're dealing with. Same kind as before.
30
@29: Speaking of willful ignorance... How many countries has Iran bombed in the last 20 years?
Now tell me how many the US has bombed in that same timeframe?
And how do you define "fanaticism?" Is it making gross generalizations about "these people." Or is that just plain bigotry? Perhaps the notion of US exceptionalism in defending democracy in the world (despite all contrary evidence) could be defined as fanaticism.
Yes, it is a matter of "paying attention," but also to what you are paying such attention.
http://www.fair.org/blog/2012/02/03/iran…
Now tell me how many the US has bombed in that same timeframe?
And how do you define "fanaticism?" Is it making gross generalizations about "these people." Or is that just plain bigotry? Perhaps the notion of US exceptionalism in defending democracy in the world (despite all contrary evidence) could be defined as fanaticism.
Yes, it is a matter of "paying attention," but also to what you are paying such attention.
http://www.fair.org/blog/2012/02/03/iran…
31
@29: Oh look, it's every asshole that eggs on every unnecessary war, ever. Ahmadinejad is saying the same thing about you, you ignorant fuck.
32
This was actually the link I was going for @30, though that one works too:
http://www.fair.org/blog/2012/02/01/iran…
http://www.fair.org/blog/2012/02/01/iran…
33
Their proxies have been bombing Israel for a decade. They have openly threatened Isral with destruction and they've threatened our presence in the gulf. Do you hear that coming out of any other country? We have repeatedly sought to get them to let in inspectors but they continue to hide what they're doing. Does that sound honest and peace loving to you? If it does, it's you who are delusional.
34
@33: Talk is cheap. How many countries has the US, in essence, destroyed? Also, does Israel allow inspectors?
Speaking of proxies, how many thousands have died thanks to US proxies in the world? Or is it hundreds of thousands?
As for "threatened our presence in the gulf," what is the exact nature of that presence? Let me get this straight, the US amasses warships off the coast of another country, and when that country makes a postering implication that it would defend itself, the US is the one who's threatened? If another country invaded and almost completely destroyed the infrastructure of Canada, then sailed warships off the coast of California, do you think we'd have reason to fear it and want to defend ourselves?
Yes, the government of Iran is certainly oppressive internally, and sure they don't have the most kind-hearted rhetoric, but consider what they actually DO internationally. Then consider what the US actually DOES. Then consider that there is a vast population of innocent civilians who want no part of any war, who just want to live their lives and take care of their families, just like the rest of us. Then consider what your warmongering sounds like.
Yes, delusional is a good word.
Speaking of proxies, how many thousands have died thanks to US proxies in the world? Or is it hundreds of thousands?
As for "threatened our presence in the gulf," what is the exact nature of that presence? Let me get this straight, the US amasses warships off the coast of another country, and when that country makes a postering implication that it would defend itself, the US is the one who's threatened? If another country invaded and almost completely destroyed the infrastructure of Canada, then sailed warships off the coast of California, do you think we'd have reason to fear it and want to defend ourselves?
Yes, the government of Iran is certainly oppressive internally, and sure they don't have the most kind-hearted rhetoric, but consider what they actually DO internationally. Then consider what the US actually DOES. Then consider that there is a vast population of innocent civilians who want no part of any war, who just want to live their lives and take care of their families, just like the rest of us. Then consider what your warmongering sounds like.
Yes, delusional is a good word.
35
'Course we need 8,500 nukes. Every Republican has to have 'em. I mean good lord, George W. must have used a couple of dozen nukes while he was in office, just look at him. All wild eyed and cowboy-y. Reagan and Pappy Bush used a bajillion to wipe the Soviet Union off the map. The glow of the hole where Moscow used to be, can be seen from space.
We've used 2 nukes. Ever. And it was justified.
The Japanese hadn't surrendered three days after the bombing of Hiroshima and it took another 5 days after Nagasaki to convince them all hope was lost.
We've used 2 nukes. Ever. And it was justified.
The Japanese hadn't surrendered three days after the bombing of Hiroshima and it took another 5 days after Nagasaki to convince them all hope was lost.
36
Though it has already been said: educate yourself. Study a little history of Iran, especially around the early 1950's.
37
Please- 1950's? Try the last two thousand years. Point is,they are a threat and being blind to it won't make them peaceful.
38
@37: What about the last two thousand years? Are you saying Iranians are inherently violent? What does that make you?
But you can't answer any of my questions can you? You clearly don't know what you're talking about, you just regurgitate the simple lies told to you. Do you even know why I mention the 1950's? I wouldn't mind your willful ignorance, it's your loss, except for its murderous implications.
Oh, and @35: Yep, that's the History Channel version of the story. Actual research bears a different conclusion.
But you can't answer any of my questions can you? You clearly don't know what you're talking about, you just regurgitate the simple lies told to you. Do you even know why I mention the 1950's? I wouldn't mind your willful ignorance, it's your loss, except for its murderous implications.
Oh, and @35: Yep, that's the History Channel version of the story. Actual research bears a different conclusion.
39
Guys, Vince is right. Just think of all the countries Iran has invaded. Think of all the innocent civilians they've killed with drones and cluster bombs. Think of all the innocent people from foreign countries they're holding in secret prisons.
No, wait, that's us. Sorry.
Vince, your warmongering is weak. You should go hang out at National Review or the Weekly Standard to brush up on your "more poor brown people must die violent deaths for us to feel safe" shtick.
No, wait, that's us. Sorry.
Vince, your warmongering is weak. You should go hang out at National Review or the Weekly Standard to brush up on your "more poor brown people must die violent deaths for us to feel safe" shtick.
40
Thank you bhowie, LJM, and others for the information and voices of reason you've shared in this thread.
And thank you Vince and Fifty-Two-Eighty, for presenting so effectively the folly of ignorant nationalism, gullibility to propaganda, and xenophobia.
Here is a stark look at how the mounting propaganda for war with Iran is essentially a replay of the script leading up to war with Iraq.
Based on the Brookings Instution report "Which Path to Persia" (analyzed here and here), plans for war with Iran have been in the works for some time now.
As I mentioned in another thread, the authors of this report several times imagine the galvanizing effect a "Tehran-sponsored 9/11" attack would have on the American public. This language is eerily reminiscent of the PNAC report published before 9/11 that posited, "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor."
"Fanatics with a will to destroy and a means to do it," indeed.
More...
And thank you Vince and Fifty-Two-Eighty, for presenting so effectively the folly of ignorant nationalism, gullibility to propaganda, and xenophobia.
Here is a stark look at how the mounting propaganda for war with Iran is essentially a replay of the script leading up to war with Iraq.
Based on the Brookings Instution report "Which Path to Persia" (analyzed here and here), plans for war with Iran have been in the works for some time now.
As I mentioned in another thread, the authors of this report several times imagine the galvanizing effect a "Tehran-sponsored 9/11" attack would have on the American public. This language is eerily reminiscent of the PNAC report published before 9/11 that posited, "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor."
"Fanatics with a will to destroy and a means to do it," indeed.
42
@25 Okay- then WE started a fight on two borders with Iran - Iraq AND Afghanistan.
Iraq we INVADED and occupied without provocation, resulting in the deaths of over 200,000 people in the process.
Yet. It's glaringly obvious that out of the long lists of hostile and Axis of Eeeevil nations, the ones we do not fuck with, just coincidentally happen to have nukes.
So. Gee. Why would Iran want a Nuke?
You punched them in the nose, ran away and hid, and suddenly you're whining that they may want to kick you in the balls?
This absurd rationalization that Iran is just so evil that we must do anything to stop them from getting a nuke is the same irrational bullshit that got us into Iraq. It's all total propaganda generated by the right wing and hard liners in Israel. Iran is not a threat to us.
You want to notice something about states that have nukes? They suddenly get all adult, sober, and stop fucking around so much because they no they are now in on the one real list that matters - Mutually Assured Destruction.
If anything, though I oppose nuclear proliferation generally, Iran getting a nuke might actually stabilize the region. Checking Israel from throwing it's weight around.
And I suppose you miss the irony of the facts - that WE are the only nation to have used nuclear weapons in war. It;s irrelevant if you believe our use of Atomic weapons justified or not.
That one fact makes US, past behavior being a predictor of future behavior, the ones more likely to cross a terrible threshold again in eyes of friends and foes alike.
Iraq we INVADED and occupied without provocation, resulting in the deaths of over 200,000 people in the process.
Yet. It's glaringly obvious that out of the long lists of hostile and Axis of Eeeevil nations, the ones we do not fuck with, just coincidentally happen to have nukes.
So. Gee. Why would Iran want a Nuke?
You punched them in the nose, ran away and hid, and suddenly you're whining that they may want to kick you in the balls?
This absurd rationalization that Iran is just so evil that we must do anything to stop them from getting a nuke is the same irrational bullshit that got us into Iraq. It's all total propaganda generated by the right wing and hard liners in Israel. Iran is not a threat to us.
You want to notice something about states that have nukes? They suddenly get all adult, sober, and stop fucking around so much because they no they are now in on the one real list that matters - Mutually Assured Destruction.
If anything, though I oppose nuclear proliferation generally, Iran getting a nuke might actually stabilize the region. Checking Israel from throwing it's weight around.
And I suppose you miss the irony of the facts - that WE are the only nation to have used nuclear weapons in war. It;s irrelevant if you believe our use of Atomic weapons justified or not.
That one fact makes US, past behavior being a predictor of future behavior, the ones more likely to cross a terrible threshold again in eyes of friends and foes alike.
43
@29 --So, who has Iran invaded?
You'll no doubt cite, what? Iran's support for Hezbollah?
Then I can cite our support for a dozen terrorist organizations all over the planet over the last fifty years from the Contras to Chilean Death Squads.
Plus our our un-provoked invasions of sovereign states (Iraq, anyone, hello?).
Our proxy wars.
Oh. And. Our CIA coups of democratically elected leaders.
Like IRANIAN Mohammad Mosaddegh?
Gee. Again. Why on earth would Iran want a nuke?
You'll no doubt cite, what? Iran's support for Hezbollah?
Then I can cite our support for a dozen terrorist organizations all over the planet over the last fifty years from the Contras to Chilean Death Squads.
Plus our our un-provoked invasions of sovereign states (Iraq, anyone, hello?).
Our proxy wars.
Oh. And. Our CIA coups of democratically elected leaders.
Like IRANIAN Mohammad Mosaddegh?
Gee. Again. Why on earth would Iran want a nuke?
44
@18- To add to what Venomlash said; We were firebombing Japanese cities already, which was producing devastation similar to nuking though it took some hours to get the firestorm going rather than the instant of an atomic explosion. We were going to continue doing that until we got an unconditional surrender, that had already been decided. The nuking was basically to show off our new toy and hopefully speed things up with the Japanese. They were trying to decide terms, we had already decided that unless we dictated the terms there would be no surrender and no mercy.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
America's Epidemic of Toddler-on-Toddler Gun Violence Continues by Goldy
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
Saint Genet Re-Creates "Shoot" by Brendan Kiley
-
Well-Regulated Beaverton Militia Accidentally Fires Shot into Neighbor's Bedroom by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (44) RSS