don't think of the nuclear elephant

[Guest guest]

*Backing into nuclear war*

 

*None dare say what the Bush administration is really threatening to do

to Iran.*

 

Dateline: Monday, March 05, 2007

 

/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.

 

 

 

* " All options are on the table " is a euphemism for the threat to use

so-called " small " " tactical " nuclear weapons.*

 

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, eg, 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.

 

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.

 

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*....

 

For the whole story, please go to the first URL below. Download the

entire book, /Thinking Points/ from the second URL below. Or from the

*/Straight Goods/* download page, at the third URL below.

 

/George Lakoff is Professor of Linguistics at the University of

California, Berkeley. He previously taught at Harvard University and the

University of Michigan. He is the author of several influential books,

including *Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think*, Second

Edition, (2002), and, most recently, *Don't Think of an Elephant: Know

Your Values, Frame the Debate,/b> (2004). */

 

/* *Thinking Points: Communicating our American Values and Vision* is

the Rockridge Institute's handbook for the grassroots progressive

community. The book is now available to order online at Amazon, Barnes

and Noble, and Cody's Books, and has a list price of $10.*/* *

 

* *

 

*Related addresses: *

 

* *

 

*URL 1:

www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/the-words-none-dare-say-nuc...

<http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/the-words-none-dare-say-nucle\

ar-war>

 

URL 2: www.rockridgeinstitute.org/thinkingpoints

<http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/thinkingpoints>

URL 3: www.straightgoods.ca/PDFs/index.cfm

<http://www.straightgoods.ca/PDFs/index.cfm> *

 

 

 

I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to

tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of war, corporations have been

enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money

power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the

prejudices of the people until all the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and

the republic is destroyed. I feel, at this moment, more anxiety for the safety

of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my

suspicions may prove groundless. " Lincoln in a letter to Col. William F. Elkins

on November 21, 1864