U.S. Plan Envisioned Nuking Iran, Syria, Libya

Source: TPMmuckraker

Despite years of denials, a secret planning document issued by the U.S. military's nuclear-weapons command in 2003 ordered preparations for nuclear strikes on countries seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction, including Iran, Saddam Hussein-era Iraq, Libya and Syria.

.....

Speaking to CNN around the same time, General Richard Myers, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Nuclear Posture Review was "not a plan, it's not an operational plan. It's a policy document. And it simply states our deterrence posture, of which nuclear weapons are a part." Vice President Dick Cheney said at the time that the notion that the review paved the way for "preemptive nuclear strikes" was "a bit over the top."

But that now looks to be an explanation too clever by half. Perhaps the review itself didn't contain operational plans. But guidance documents created to flesh it out did.



Read more: http://tpmmuckraker.com/

Having a plan for something doesn't equate to actually intending to do it. I'm sure we also have plans--probably a lot better developed--for nuclear strikes against Russia and China. Just a little perspective.

I can't help but laugh when this silly red-herring is posted, it's a good thing it isn't posted in an attempt to stifle discussion of the REAL issue because that would be even more ridiculous, imo.

Who knows, Darth may have had the target folder updated.

No telling what that desperado will do to stay out of prison.

That "plan" currently " sits in a little gray box in the National Archives in College Park, available to anybody, even Canadian spies. They can photocopy it for 15 cents a page." Here's a link that tells all about it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/29/AR2005122901412_pf.html

To even raise it wrt the OP subject is, imo, either satire or a silly attempt to stifle discussion of the REAL issue.

Well, everything except what to do with a country (or two) once they're invaded an occupied...

But in all honesty militaries spend decades planning for every possible scenario - we 'what if' ourselves to death. Many plans are bare-bones to say the least, but at least they provide a point of departure should something happen roughly similar to the plan. Better to start with a minimal framework than nothing at all. I guess since I'm in the military and have been involved in a lot of this 'what if' planning, I just don't get that excited about it. There's a big gap between a plan and a targeting strategy, and then another big gap between that and an 'actionable' target list.

to invade Canada as equal to what the OP was discussing was beyond ridiculous. Given the intense focus by PNAC and the bush admin toward the Middle East and the discussions wrt regime change in 7 countries in 5 years as iterated by General Wesley Clark, to even bring in the old saw about plans to attack Canada is ridiculous, imo.

General Wesley Clark's comments:

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, "Sir, you've got to come in and talk to me a second." I said, "Well, you're too busy." He said, "No, no." He says, "We've made the decision we're going to war with Iraq." This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, "We're going to war with Iraq? Why?" He said, "I don't know." He said, "I guess they don't know what else to do." So I said, "Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?" He said, "No, no." He says, "There's nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq." He said, "I guess it's like we don't know what to do about terrorists, but we've got a good military and we can take down governments." And he said, "I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail."


So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, "Are we still going to war with Iraq?" And he said, "Oh, it's worse than that." He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, "I just got this down from upstairs" -- meaning the Secretary of Defense's office -- "today." And he said, "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." I said, "Is it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Well, don't show it to me." And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, "You remember that?" He said, "Sir, I didn't show you that memo! I didn't show it to you!"

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/19200

Edited to add: The points you made in your post were definitely valid and in context to the OP as opposed to the silly reference to the Canada "plans" which, imo, seemed to infer ridicule of the OP.

Your point is valid and well-taken.

Obviously hostilities with Iran or Syria is a lot more likely than hostilites with Canada. But that doesn't justify the extreme paranoia that's on display so often on DU. It's a gross overstatement to suggest that there's a realistic chance or intention of deploying nuclear weapons in an offensive capacity. But planning for things is one of the reasons you have a military--in the event that something were to happen, you don't want to be making things up as you go along. Iraq is a good example of how THAT goes. So my point is that people shouldn't be incoherently wailing "OMG theyre going to nuke IRan!!!1" the way that so often happens here. OF COURSE there's plans for strikes on Iran, and Syria, and others, both first-strike and second-strike, some of which involve nuclear weapons. But that's not evidence that they're ever going to be used, any more than the US went to war with Canada over capturing Vancouver. (Fifty four forty or fight, anyone?)

was, imo, an intent to ridicule the OP as opposed to actually discussing the OP in a mature manner as was done by the poster to whom I was responding. Given the tone and tenor of your response post, I stand by my belief that your intent was to ridicule the OP.

because we all know that anything this misadiministration does if totally and completely fucked up.

Or poverty, or AIDS, or cancer, or global warming or anything but creating more death and destruction.

I'm sure that the Evil Cheney still wants all that Oil.

"mission accomplished"