All this talk about nuclear, nuclear states, non-nuclear states. So Iran is in compliance with the NPT. They can't really spin that anymore.
So what to do? How to justify an attack on Iran? Hillary Clinton basically lays it straight out for us.
"If we can prove that a biological attack originated in a country that attacked us, then all bets are off." - Hillary Clinton
Do you see how easy this would be?
Let's say a biological attack occurs. How many people are in a position to determine where it originated?
Who has the labs and the intelligence to make that determination? Only the government. They will prove that the biological attack originated in Iran, and they will prove it quickly, and then they will justify a devastating and most likely conventional attack on Iran -- no nuclear weapons -- to destroy Iran's oil infrastructure and any other things in Iran which make it a viable threat to whatever comes next on the NWO agenda.
Gates also pointed out that the policy dictates that any country that uses chemical or biological weapons against the U.S. will "suffer a devastating conventional retaliation."So they can't justify a nuclear attack, but they can justify a devastating conventional retaliation, and all it takes is for some people in the US to get sick with some biological weapon. That will terrorize people for sure, some invisible germ they can't see? Everything will grind to a halt.
They will discover the origin. They will retaliate. They will get credit for using restraint by not going nuclear.
Win win win!
To wit: July 6, 2008: Read Carefully. Speculation is not proof. Accusations are not proof.
Hundreds of endangered monkeys are being taken from the African bush and sent to a “secretive” laboratory in Iran for scientific experiments.
An undercover inquiry by The Sunday Times has revealed that wild monkeys, which are banned from experiments in Britain, are being freely supplied in large numbers to laboratories in other parts of the world. All will undergo invasive and maybe painful experiments leading ultimately to their death.
...Manji said scientists at the Razi Vaccine and Serum Research Institute in Iran had bought 215 vervet monkeys from him this year but he had become suspicious about their true motive, although he was still trading with them. They had “spent a lot of money” on getting the monkeys, even sending over scientists to check on each consignment.
...Rubibira indicated that finding out what the Iranians wanted the monkeys for would be difficult. “They cannot say, you know. They are secretive. They wouldn’t tell the truth.”
The revelation will fuel speculation that the monkeys may be used for research involving biological weapons. Primates are typically used by scientists wishing to test both the effectiveness of germ warfare agents and defences against them.
The Razi Vaccine and Serum Research Institute, which has its headquarters in Karaj, near Tehran, has been accused in the past by an Iranian opposition group of conducting biological weapons testing.
According to US intelligence, the pharmaceutical industry in Iran has long been used as a cover for developing a germ warfare capability.
In 2005 the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence said Iran “continued to seek dual-use biotechnology materials, equipment and expertise that are consistent with its growing legitimate biotechnology industry but could benefit Tehran’s assessed probable BW [biological weapons] programme”. Earlier this year it reiterated this.
This is the sort of language used to start wars.
And sure enough, here come the former senators to highlight the threat of bioweapons.
A New Kind of Deterrent, by Bob Graham and Jim Talent, April 14, 2010
As part of the Nuclear Posture Review, national security, intelligence and defense officials are in a heated debate within the Obama administration regarding the purpose of America's nuclear arsenal: whether the sole purpose of our nuclear force is to deter nuclear attack or whether it is the primary purpose. If it is the primary purpose, then the nuclear force would also be a deterrent against a biological attack by a nation-state.
...The policy of calculated ambiguity allowed the U.S. to threaten a nuclear response to a biological attack without actually stating it directly.
...it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction (nuclear or biological) will be used somewhere in the world before the end of 2013, but a biological attack is more likely than nuclear.
...If President Obama wants to eliminate our reliance on nuclear weapons to deter biological weapons, he first must take actions to remove bioterrorism from the category of weapons of mass destruction.
[Aha, so now they have inserted a little detour into the road map. FIRST we remove the bioterror weapons, THEN we can eliminate nuclear. How shall they accomplish that? What could justify removing bioterror weapons from our enemies hands? Wink wink, it can be arranged as soon as we can prove that our enemies used their weapons. Of course they'd have to use them first, but that can be arranged too! Wink wink wink wink wink!]
There is a critical difference between nutween clear and biological weapons. Both are proven threats. They deliver equal lethality. A recent National Security Council document, signed by President Obama, said that a biological attack "could place at risk hundreds of thousands of people" and "The economic cost could exceed one trillion dollars for each such incident." But while the United States cannot defend its citizens against a nuclear weapons blast, we do have the capability against bioterrorism. Today, we have the option of building a viable biodefense system that could allow a future Nuclear Posture Review to declare that the sole purpose of the U.S. nuclear force is to deter nuclear attack.
Just as President Kennedy gave us the challenge of going to the moon, President Obama can give us the challenge of removing bioterrorism from the category of WMD.
To meet this challenge, America needs to make significant improvements in:
— The rapid detection and diagnosis of disease;
— Development, production and dispensing of new vaccines and therapeutics;
— The capacity for surge medical care delivery; and
— Environmental cleanup after an attack.
Can this be accomplished? Yes. These steps could be taken relatively quickly and at low cost compared to other aspects of national defense. They would go a long way towards defeating bioterrorism as a WMD. They would also address naturally occurring threats such as H1N1, help regain America's lead in the biotechnical revolution (one of the dynamos that will drive the global economy in the decades ahead), and substantially improve the public health and medical care delivery systems. We cannot think of a more urgent priority for the Obama administration.
Oh, such grim laughter. Nice touch bringing up JFK. Anyway, evidently the distinguished former senators believe that the answer to all our problems is to pour more money into the health care industry. Oh geez yeah.
That works every fucking time.