[WCUSP] The Words None Dare Say: Nuclear War

Thu Mar 1 14:19:12 CST 2007

Help stop the coming nuclear war:

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0228-28.htm

                  Published on Wednesday, February 28,
2007 by CommonDreams.org 
                          The Words None Dare
Say:Nuclear War 
                          by George Lakoff 

"Theelimination of Natanz would be a major setback for
Iran's nuclearambitions, but the conventional weapons
in the American arsenal couldnot insure the
destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet
ofearth and rock, especially if they are reinforced
with concrete."
      —Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker, April 17, 2006 

"Thesecond concern is that if an underground
laboratory is deeply buried,that can also confound
conventional weapons. But the depth of theNatanz
facility - reports place the ceiling roughly 30 feet
underground- is not prohibitive. The American GBU-28
weapon - the so-called bunkerbuster - can pierce about
23 feet of concrete and 100 feet of soil.Unless the
cover over the Natanz lab is almost entirely rock,
bunkerbusters should be able to reach it. That said,
some chance remains thata single strike would fail."
      —Michael Levi, New York Times, April 18, 2006   

Afamiliar means of denying a reality is to refuse to
use the words thatdescribe that reality. A common form
of propaganda is to keep realityfrom being described.

In suchcircumstances, silence and euphemism are forms
of complicity both inpropaganda and in the denial of
reality. And the media, as well as themajor
presidential candidates, are now complicit.

The storiesinthe major media suggest that an attack
against Iran is a realpossibility and that the Natanz
nuclear development site is the numberone 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, especiallywithrepeated
bombings. But on the other hand, they also say such
iterateduse of conventional weapons might not work,
e.g., if the rockand earth above the facility becomes
liquefied. On that supposition, a"low yield"
"tactical" nuclear weapon, say, the B61-11, mightbe
needed.

If the Bushadministration, for example, were to insist
on a sure "success," thenthe "attack" would constitute
nuclear war. The words inboldface are nuclear war,
that's right, nuclear war — afirst strike nuclear war.

We don'tknowwhat exactly is being planned —
conventional GBU-28's or nuclearB61-11's. And that is
the point. Discussion needs to be open. Nuclearwar is
not a minor matter.

TheEuphemism

As early asAugust 13, 2005, Bush, in Jerusalem, was
asked what would happen ifdiplomacy failed to persuade
Iran to halt its nuclear program. Bushreplied, "All
options are on the table." On April 18, the day after
theappearance of Seymour Hersh's New Yorker report on
theadministration'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 diplomaticefforts, you also say all options
are on the table. Does that includethe possibility of
a nuclear strike? Is that something that
youradministration will plan for?"          

He replied,

"Alloptions are on the table."

ThePresidentnever actually said the forbidden words
"nuclear war," but he appearedto tacitly acknowledge
the preparations — without further discussion.

Vice-PresidentDick Cheney, speaking in Australia last
week, backed up the President.

"Weworked with the European community and the United
Nations to puttogether a set of policies to persuade
the Iranians to give up theiraspirations and resolve
the matter peacefully, and that is still
ourpreference. But I've also made the point, and the
president has madethe point, that all options are on
the table."

RepublicanPresidential Candidate John McCain, on FOX
News August 14, 2005, said the same.

"For usto say that the Iranians can do whatever they
want to do and we won'tunder any circumstances
exercise a military option would be for them tohave a
license to do whatever they want to do ... So I think
thepresident's comment that we won't take anything off
the table wasentirely appropriate."

But it'snot just Republicans. Democratic Presidential
candidate John Edwards,in a speech in Herzliyah,
Israel, echoed Bush.

"Toensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we
need to keep ALLoptions on the table. Let me reiterate
– ALL options must remain on thetable."

Although,Edwardshas said, when asked about this
statement, that he prefers peacefulsolutions and
direct negotiations with Iran, he has
nonethelessrepeated the "all options on the table"
position — making clear that hewould consider starting
a preventive nuclear war, but withoutusing the fateful
words.

HillaryClinton, at an AIPAC dinner in NY, said,

"Wecannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to
build or acquirenuclear weapons, and in dealing with
this threat, as I have said for avery long time, no
option can be taken off the table."

Translation:Nuclear weapons can be used to prevent the
spread of nuclear weapons.

BarackObama, asked on 60 Minutesabout using military
force to prevent Iran from developing nuclearweapons,
began a discussion of his preference for diplomacy by
responding, "I think we should keep all options onthe
table."

Bush,Cheney, McCain, Edwards, Clinton, and Obama all
say indirectly thatthey 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 withit
by a corresponding refusal to use the words.

If theconsequences of nuclear war are not discussed
openly, the war mayhappen without an appreciation of
the consequences and without thepublic having a chance
to stop it. Our job is to open that discussion.

Of course,thereis a rationale for the euphemism: To
scare our adversaries by makingthem think that we are
crazy enough to do what we hint at, while notraising a
public outcry. That is what happened in the lead up to
theIraq War, and the disaster of that war tells us why
we must have such adiscussion about Iran. Presidential
candidates go along, not wanting tobe thought of as
interfering in on-going indirect diplomacy. That maybe
the conventional wisdom for candidates, but an
informed, concernedpublic must say what candidates are
advised not to say.

MoreEuphemisms

Theeuphemismsused include "tactical," "small,"
"mini-," and "low yield" nuclearweapons. "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 nuclearweapons at
all would be anything but "tactical." It would be a
majorworld event – in Vladimir Putin's words,
"lowering the threshold forthe use of nuclear
weapons," making the use of more powerful
nuclearweapons more likely and setting off a new arms
race. The use of theword "tactical" operates to lessen
their importance, to distract fromthe fact that their
very use would constitute a nuclear war.

What is"lowyield"? Perhaps the "smallest" tactical
nuclear weapon we have is theB61-11, which has a
dial-a-yield feature: it can yield "only" 0.3kilotons,
but can be set to yield up to 170 kilotons. The power
of theHiroshima bomb was 15 kilotons. That is, a
"small" bomb can yield morethan 10 times the explosive
power of the Hiroshima bomb. The B61-11dropped from
40,000 feet would dig a hole 20 feet deep and
thenexplode, send shock waves downward, leave a huge
crater, and spreadradiation widely. The idea that it
would explode underground and beharmless to those
above ground is false — and, anyway, an
undergroundrelease of radiation would threaten ground
water and aquifers for along time and over wide
distance.

To usewords like "low yield" or "small" or "mini-"
nuclear weapon is likespeaking of being a little bit
pregnant. Nuclear war is nuclear war!It crosses the
moral line.

Anydiscussion ofroadside canister bombs made in Iran
justifying an attack on Iranshould be put in
perspective: Little canister bombs (EFP's —explosively
formed projectiles) that shoot a small hot metal ball
at ahumvee or tank versus nuclear war.

Incidentally,theadministration may be focusing on the
canister bombs because it seeksto claim that the
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against
IraqResolution of 2002 permits the use of military
force against Iran basedon its interference in Iraq.
In that case, no further authorization byCongress
would be needed for an attack on Iran.

Thejournalisticpoint is clear. Journalists and
political leaders should not talk aboutan "attack."
They should use the words that describe what is really
atstake: nuclear war — in boldface.

Then, thereisthe scale of the proposed attack.
Military reports leaking out suggesta huge (mostly or
entirely non-nuclear) airstrike on as many as
10,000targets — a "shock and awe" attack that would
destroy Iran'sinfrastructure the way the US bombing
destroyed Iraq's. The targetswould not just be
"military targets." As Dan Plesch reportsin the New
Statesman, February 19, 2007, such an attack would
wipe outIran's military, business, and political
infrastructure. Not justnuclear installations, missile
launching sites, tanks, and ammunitiondumps, 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 whatwas attacked
in Iraq: the "critical infrastructure." It is not
justmilitary in the traditional sense. It leaves a
nation in rubble, andleads to death, maiming, disease,
joblessness, impoverishment,starvation, mass refugees,
lawlessness, rape, and incalculable pain andsuffering.
That is what the options appear to be "on the table."
Is nationdestruction what the American people have in
mind when theyacquiesce without discussion to an
"attack"? Is nuclear warwhat the American people have
in mind? An informed public must ask andthe media must
ask. The words must be used.

Even if theattack were limited to nuclear
installations, starting a nuclear warwith 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 beviewed as
yet another major attack on Islam. Fundamentalist
Islam is arevenge culture. If you want to recruit
fundamentalist Islamists allover the world to become
violent jihadists, this is the best way to doit.
America would become a world pariah. Any idea of the
US as apeaceful nation would be destroyed. Moreover,
you don't work againstthe spread of nuclear weapons by
using those weapons. That will justmake countries all
over the world want nuclear weaponry all the
more.Trying to stop nuclear proliferation through
nuclear war isself-defeating.

As Einsteinsaid, "You cannot simultaneously prevent
and prepare for war."

Why wouldthe Bush administration do it? Here is what
conservative strategistWilliam Kristol wrote last
summer during Israel's war withHezbollah.

"Forwhile Syria and Iran are enemies of Israel, they
are also enemies ofthe United States. We have done a
poor job of standing up to them andweakening them.
They are now testing us more boldly than one would
havethought possible a few years ago. Weakness is
provocative. We have beentoo weak, and have allowed
ourselves to be perceived as weak.

Therightresponse is renewed strength--in supporting
the governments of Iraq andAfghanistan, in standing
with Israel, and in pursuing regime change inSyria and
Iran. For that matter, we might consider countering
this actof Iranian aggression with a military strike
against Iranian nuclearfacilities. Why wait? Does
anyone think a nuclear Iran can becontained? That the
current regime will negotiate in good faith? Itwould
be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there
would berepercussions--and they would be healthy ones,
showing a strong Americathat has rejected further
appeasement."

—WillamKristol, Weekly Standard 7/24/06

"Renewedstrength" is just the Bush strategy in Iraq.
At a time when the Iraqipeople want us to leave, when
our national elections show that mostAmericans want
our troops out, when 60% of Iraqis think it all right
tokill Americans, Bush wants to escalate. Why? Because
he is weak inAmerica. Because he needs to show more
"strength." Because, if heknocks out the Iranian
nuclear facilities, he can claim at least
one"victory." Starting a nuclear war with Iran would
really put usin a world-wide war with fundamentalist
Islam. It would make real theterrorist threat he has
been claiming since 9/11. It would create morefear —
real fear — in America. And he believes, with much
reason, thatfear tends to make Americans vote for
saber-rattling conservatives.

Kristol'sneoconservative view that "weakness is
provocative" is echoed in Iran,but by the other side.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quotedin the New York Times of
February 24, 2007 as having "vowed anew tocontinue
enriching uranium, saying, 'If we show weakness in
front ofthe enemies, they will increase their
expectations.'" If both sidesrefuse to back off for
fear of showing weakness, then prospects forconflict
are real, despite the repeated analyses, like that of
The Economistthat the use of nuclear weapons against
Iran would be politically andmorally impossible. As
one unnamed administration official has said (New York
Times, February 24, 2007), "No onehas defined where
the red line is that we cannot let the Iranians
stepover."

What we areseeing now is the conservative message
machine preparing the country toaccept the ideas of a
nuclear war and nation destructionagainst Iran. The
technique used is the "slippery slope." It is done
bydegrees. Like the proverbial frog in the pot of
water – if the heat isturned up slowly the frog gets
used to the heat and eventually boils todeath – the
American public is getting gradually acclimated to the
ideaof war with Iran.

   First,describe Iran as evil – part of the axis of
evil. An inherently evilperson will inevitably do evil
things and can't be negotiated with. Anentire evil
nation is a threat to other nations.                
   Second, describe Iran's leader as a "Hitler" who
isinherently "evil" and cannot be reasoned with.
Refuse to negotiate withhim.                
   Then repeat the lie that Iran is on the verge of
havingnuclear weapons —weapons of mass destruction.
IAEA Director GeneralMohamed ElBaradei says they are
at best many years away.                
   Call nuclear development "an existential threat" –
a threatto our very existence.                
   Then suggest a single "surgical" "attack" on Natanz
andmake it seem acceptable.                
   Then find a reason to call the attack
"self-defense" — orbetter protection for our troops
from the EFP's, or single-shotcanister bombs.         

   Claim, without proof and without anyone even
takingresponsibility for the claim, that the Iranian
government at itshighest level is supplying deadly
weapons to Shiite militias attackingour troops, while
not mentioning the fact that Saudi Arabia is
helpingSunni insurgents attacking our troops.         

   Give "protecting our troops" as a reason for
attacking Iranwithout getting new authorization from
Congress. Claim that the oldauthorization for
attacking Iraq implied doing "whatever is necessaryto
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 awinning 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 thetable." Keep the issue of nuclear war and
its consequences frombeing seriously discussed by the
national media.                
   Intimidate Democratic presidential candidates
intoagreeing,without using the words, that nuclear war
should be "on the table."This makes nuclear war and
nation destructionbipartisan and even more acceptable.

Progressivesmanaged to blunt the "surge" idea by
telling the truth about"escalation." Nuclear war
against Iran and nationdestruction constitute the
ultimate escalation.

The timehas come to stop the attempt to make a nuclear
war against Iranpalatable to the American public. We
do not believe that most Americanswant to start a
nuclear war or to impose nation destructionon the
people of Iran. They might, though, be willing to
support atit-for-tat "surgical" "attack" on Natanz in
retaliation for smallcanister bombs and to end Iran's
early nuclear capacity.

It is timeforAmerica's journalists and political
leaders to put two and twotogether, and ask the
fateful question: Is the Bush administrationseriously
preparing for nuclear war and nation destruction?If
the conventional GBU-28's will do the job, then why
not take nuclearwar off the table in the name of
controlling the spread of nuclearweapons? If GBU-28's
won't do the job, then it is all the moreimportant to
have that discussion.

This shouldnotbe a distraction from Iraq. The general
issue is escalation as apolicy, both in Iraq and in
Iran. They are linked issues, not separateissues. We
have learned from Iraq what lack of public scrutiny
does.

GeorgeLakoff is the author of ThinkingPoints(with the
Rockridge Institute staff) and Whose Freedom? He is
Richardand Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of
Cognitive Science andLinguistics at the University of
California at Berkeley, and a foundingsenior fellow at
the RockridgeInstitute.       

____________________________________________________________________________________
Get your own web address.  
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL