Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,020 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Bush 'is planning nuclear strikes on Iran's secret sites'
By Philip Sherwell in Washington
(Filed: 09/04/2006)

The Bush administration is planning to use nuclear weapons:flamethrowingsmiley against Iran, to prevent it acquiring its own atomic warheads, claims an investigative writer with high-level Pentagon and intelligence contacts.

President George W Bush is said to be so alarmed by the threat of Iran's hard-line leader, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, that privately he refers to him as "the new Hitler", says Seymour Hersh, who broke the story of the Abu Ghraib Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal.


Mahmoud Ahmedinejad: 'The new Hitler'
Some US military chiefs have unsuccessfully urged the White House to drop the nuclear option from its war plans, Hersh writes in The New Yorker magazine. The conviction that Mr Ahmedinejad would attack Israel or US forces in the Middle East, if Iran obtains atomic weapons, is what drives American planning for the destruction of Teheran's nuclear programme.

Hersh claims that one of the plans, presented to the White House by the Pentagon, entails the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One alleged target is Iran's main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, 200 miles south of Teheran.

Although Iran claims that its nuclear programme is peaceful, US and European intelligence agencies are certain that Teheran is trying to develop atomic weapons. In contrast to the run-up to the Iraq invasion, there are no disagreements within Western intelligence about Iran's plans.

This newspaper disclosed recently that senior Pentagon strategists are updating plans to strike Iran's nuclear sites with long-distance B2 bombers and submarine-launched missiles. And last week, the Sunday Telegraph reported a secret meeting at the Ministry of Defence where military chiefs and officials from Downing Street and the Foreign Office discussed the consequences of an American-led attack on Iran, and Britain's role in any such action.

The military option is opposed by London and other European capitals. But there are growing fears in No 10 and the Foreign Office that the British-led push for a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear stand-off, will be swept aside by hawks in Washington. Hersh says that within the Bush administration, there are concerns that even a pummelling by conventional strikes, may not sufficiently damage Iran's buried nuclear plants.

Iran has been developing a series of bunkers and facilities to provide hidden command centres for its leaders and to protect its nuclear infrastructure. The lack of reliable intelligence about these subterranean facilities, is fuelling pressure for tactical nuclear weapons to be included in the strike plans as the only guaranteed means to destroy all the sites simultaneously. :rocketwhore:

The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings among the joint chiefs of staff, and some officers have talked about resigning, Hersh has been told. The military chiefs sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran, without success, a former senior intelligence officer said.

The Pentagon consultant on the war on terror confirmed that some in the administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among defence department political appointees.

The election of Mr Ahmedinejad last year, has hardened attitudes within the Bush Administration. The Iranian president has said that Israel should be "wiped off the map". He has drafted in former fellow Revolutionary Guards commanders to run the nuclear programme, in further signs that he is preparing to back his threats with action.

Mr Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official told Hersh. "That's the name they're using. They say, 'Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?' "

Despite America's public commitment to diplomacy, there is a growing belief in Washington that the only solution to the crisis is regime change. A senior Pentagon consultant said that Mr Bush believes that he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do," and "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy".

Publicly, the US insists it remains committed to diplomacy to solve the crisis. But with Russia apparently intent on vetoing any threat of punitive action at the UN, the Bush administration is also planning for unilateral military action. Hersh repeated his claims that the US has intensified clandestine activities inside Iran, using special forces to identify targets and establish contact with anti-Teheran ethnic-minority groups.

The senior defence officials said that Mr Bush is "determined to deny Iran the opportunity to begin a pilot programme, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,741 Posts
Crud.

Both options (us doing it and them getting it) suck. I'd have to think this one through. I'd agree that the *option* for a nuke is one that should be kept open just in case. But to decide to actually do it?...
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
143,960 Posts
It reads like a Web~Fake article to me.
Just my opinion on that.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
19,009 Posts
I am sure there are plans for nuclear weapons in place. even on Great Britian and other friendlies. doesn't mean they are likely to be implemented.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
750 Posts
Making any statement about what options may be considered "off" the table would be about the stupidest thing anyone could do.

I will not bother to explain why. If you have to ask that question, then you likely are not bright enough to understand the answer. (And probably a Democrat, to boot!)

mm

**EDIT**
Probably could have left the parenthetical remark out, huh?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,125 Posts
The "actual" use of nuclear weapons has been discussed by every president since they were developed.

In every case, just the fact that it was being discussed as an option was enough for the opposition to rethink their strategys.

Even so, its just a matter of time until someone goes past the discussion stage and into the actual use. Whether its done by the good guys or the bad guys wont matter.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,483 Posts
Nukes are and always have been in the background - but use?

Well with this article the menu seems fish with a tin foil side-order. But then rumor always is a fave for the press. If not actually heard then dream it up.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
25,574 Posts
madmike said:
**EDIT**
Probably could have left the parenthetical remark out, huh?
Yea, probably, but for me it's more because I think both parties stink (I'd normally use another word here), I both agree and disagree with parts of both parties.

We've got the best Government money can buy! (Sarcasm IS free!)

(The Iran thing DID also make the front page of the Washington Post, but I'll refrain from any comments that would start a war here! :biggrin2: )
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
750 Posts
Use of nukes in a war isn't novel. Refer to the title of this very thread. It's been done.

As for this article being a fake, well. . . Doesn't really matter to me. Even if just a rumor, it serves a purpose. They need that little seed of doubt to be planted in their heads!

I'm firmly convinced that it was such a thought that keep us OUT of a nuclear war for quite a few years.

mm
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
24,244 Posts
This may just reflect the growing war of words and be a strategic "leak". There was another article earlier this spring (or winter for those of you north of the M-D line) on conjecture that Israel might deploy a pre-emptive airstrike this spring with the goal of crippling Iran's nuclear ambitions. That particular article did not include, IIRC, the nuclear option.

I think the Neo-Cons have an uphill battle, but no military options should ever be "taken off the table".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,826 Posts
HotGuns said:
Even so, its just a matter of time until someone goes past the discussion stage and into the actual use. Whether its done by the good guys or the bad guys wont matter.
Pandora's Box has been opened, and we can't undo that...I'm wondering what our friends China and Russia :)rolleyes: ) will do if we make an example of Iran.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
750 Posts
The lid got blown off that old box, years ago.

The effect the bombs had on Japan and the thought that we would do it again is what kept Russia and China at bay for quite a while.

Unfortunately, we cannot count on the "critical decision-making skills" of the Islamic-Extremist to see the possibility of a nuclear strike as being "unthinkable."

They'd just as likely see it a short-cut on the "Stairway to Heaven."

For those young enough to miss growing up with "duck & cover" drills in grade school, welcome to my world! (Or my nightmare.)

mm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
753 Posts
Psyops can be a mutha
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,843 Posts
So lets see if i got this right. Our President is saying that we should (maybe)nuke Iran cuz they have WMD ??? Hmmmmmm ??? Hey,Mr. president,what about our borders??---------
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
570 Posts
Saw this story on CNN and Fox News.
No friends left anywhere in the world if this happens but then again in my opinion G.B. was the only real ally we've had in years.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,125 Posts
So lets see if i got this right. Our President is saying that we should (maybe)nuke Iran cuz they have WMD ??? Hmmmmmm ??? Hey,Mr. president,what about our borders??---------

No.
Nuking our borders would be a definate no-no.:blink:




:image035:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,563 Posts
Even the insane leaders will back off using WMD's if threatened with credible retaliation. Hitler had nerve and blistering agents, but never used them because of the threat of retaliation with like by the allies. Saddam Hussein had them in the first Gulf War for sure, (since he used them afterward on the Kurds) but did not use them against coalition forces due the the announcement that "special weapons" (i.e. nukes, nerve gas) would be used by the coalition in response to chemical or biological attacks.

Still, allowing a regime with a history of backing terrorists, with a visibly irrational leader to obtain nuclear weapons is tantamount to standing by while a serial murderer makes plans to kill and not calling the police. Our policy towards Iran should be that any use by Iran or any terrorist organization of nuclear weapons on any of the friends or allies of the US will be considered to be a declaration of nuclear war on the US and the response will be in kind, but of a MUCH greater magnitude.

Not having plans to use nuclear weapons to deny the creation of nuclear weapons by an insane government would be criminally negligent by our military and government.

Lastly, make no mistake, that the capability of enriching Uranium by a country with one of the greatest known oil fields and reserves in the Middle East and the world is not for peaceful purposes, but for development of nuclear weapons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,142 Posts
QKShooter said:
It reads like a Web~Fake article to me.
Just my opinion on that.
"War of the Worlds" part two
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top