http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten.../060417fa_fact
not sure if this has been posted
Anyone know how credible this is?
I think it might just be a "leak" to try to convince Iran.
Very credible. An air strike is 100% go if they don't comply with UN resolutions.
I don't know about the use of nukes. If so only on 2 targets.
It will not be a ground war. At least not yet. Maybe a front could develop with Iraq.
Overnight there entire Air Force and Navy will be destroyed. They are about to get ed up bad.
What resolutions?An air strike is 100% go if they don't comply with UN resolutions.
This hasn't even been referred to the Security Council yet.
Don't feed the NeoCon...or confuse him.
Many seem to be confusing Iran with Iraq on so many levels, it's disturbing.
iran is like 5 times the size of iraq too
its almost if we should have CONSERVED our forces, for something worthwile
The full US military hasn't been able to pacify an Iraq that had no army, no air force, no air defenses, no nothing after 11 years of US flyovers and sanctions and after Saddam's military was essentially destroyed in and retreating from Kuwait.
The full US military would have a lot worse time invading a fully armed and much larger Iran. It would be suicide without 100s of 1000's more of US miltary conscripts.
Yea it has dude lol... they have till the end of the month to turn the cameras back on and cease all refinement operations.
You want to compare military experiance? I hope your above a Lt Col.
Attacking Iran, IMO, would be a very bad idea.
Using Nukes would be a catastrophic mistake.
And we will be lucky if it is. UN/Germany/France/Russia/China don't
want it to go there. They will have their nukes, but not by us dropping
them. I don't think our Government in it's present state, the people in
their frame of mind will support a war or nukes. Maybe a drive by bombing
or two, but I think Israel has their own plans for Iran. And it may not be
a pretty picture of either Israel or Iran. And God help the world when it
happens.
but just recently dubya said "nothing is off the table" as
======================
April 10, 2006
Bush: Iran Strike Plans 'Wild Speculation'
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 11:26 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Monday that force is not necessarily required to stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon, and he dismissed reports of plans for a military attack against Tehran as ''wild speculation.''
Bush said his goal is to keep the Iranians from having the capability or the knowledge to have a nuclear weapon.
''I know we're here in Washington ... (where) prevention means force,'' Bush said. ''It doesn't mean force necessarily. In this case it means diplomacy.''
( ... BUT ... )
Bush, speaking Monday at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, and other administration officials have said repeatedly that the military option is on the table.
Earlier Monday, the White House sought to minimize speculation stoked by media reports over the weekend about a possible military strike against Iran while acknowledging that the Pentagon is conducting ''normal military contingency planning'' to deal with Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan refused to confirm or deny a report in The New Yorker magazine that raised the possibility of using nuclear bombs against Iran's underground nuclear sites. ''I'm not going to engage in all this wild speculation,'' McClellan told reporters.
''Those who are seeking to draw broad conclusions based on normal military contingency planning are misinformed or not knowledgeable about the administration's thinking,'' he said.
McClellan repeatedly stressed that the administration's focus is on working with other nations to come up with a diplomatic solution to get Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment program.
Bush counselor Dan Bartlett made a similar statement to The Associated Press on Sunday, saying ''those who are drawing broad, definitive conclusions based on normal defense and intelligence planning are ill-informed and are not knowledgeable of the administration's thinking on Iran.''
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, in an interview with the British Broadcasting Corp. on Sunday, called the idea of a nuclear strike ''completely nuts.''
Straw said Britain would not launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran and he was as ''certain as he could be'' that neither would the U.S. He said he has a high su ion that Iran is developing a civil nuclear capability that in turn could be used for nuclear weapons, but there is ''no smoking gun'' to prove it and rationalize abandoning the plodding diplomatic process.
''The reason why we're opposed to military action is because it's an infinitely worse option and there's no justification for it,'' Straw said.
Defense experts say a military strike on Iran would be risky and complicated. U.S. forces already are preoccupied with Iraq and Afghanistan, and an attack against Iran could inflame U.S. problems in the Muslim world.
( same experts warned about an sectarian insurgency in Iraq, but dubya/ head/rummy didn't listen, and now the US military is ed )
The U.N. Security Council has demanded Iran suspend its uranium enrichment program. But Iran has so far refused to halt its nuclear activity, saying the small-scale enrichment project was strictly for research and not for development of nuclear weapons.
Bush has said Iran may pose the greatest challenge to the United States of any other country in the world. And while he has stressed that diplomacy is always preferable, he has defended his administration's strike-first policy against terrorists and other enemies.
Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Mark Ballesteros would not comment Sunday on reports of military planning for Iran. ''The U.S. military never comments on contingency planning,'' he said.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press
I've seen that now (March 29), but what's the resolution number?
And so, Colonel, with all your vast knowledge of Iran's nuke facilities -- how far away are they from actually having a bomb?
And why does the commander in chief say talk of attacking is "wild speculation" anyway?
"I know we're here in Washington (where) prevention means force," Bush said during an appearance at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. "It doesn't mean force necessarily. In this case it means diplomacy."
I'm sure gtown's mom or the Colonel can tell me that means the bombs drop tomorrow.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 04-10-2006 at 11:54 AM.
Probably a more meaningful resolution here, since "please turn on the cameras" is pretty weak....
Bolton Says U.S. May Seek UN Resolution on Iran
April 6 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. may press for a legally binding United Nations Security Council resolution to compel Iran to abandon nuclear enrichment should the country fail to comply with a request from the panel made last week, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said today.
Bolton told State Department reporters in Washington that if Iran's government doesn't halt the enrichment work and disclose more to inspectors to show its nuclear effort is peaceful, the ``likely next step'' would be a Chapter 7 resolution under the UN Charter.
Chapter 7 empowers the Security Council to authorize economic sanctions or military action for a ``threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.''
The next resolution will not just say ``we urge you to comply'' with resolutions of the International Atomic Energy Agency, ``but we require you to comply with the IAEA resolutions,'' Bolton said at a breakfast hosted by the State Department Correspondents' Association.
A further period of compliance would be set, and then the U.S. would consider a possible resolution that imposes sanctions, Bolton said.
China and Russia, both permanent members of the Security Council with veto power, oppose sanctions.
While the U.S. and its allies won agreement last week from China and Russia for a statement seeking Iran's cooperation within 30 days, the measure included no consequences for a failure to obey.
Bolton said that ``tells something about the difficulty of the road ahead.''
Other Options
The ambassador held out the possibility that the Security Council route might fail and said it's ``simply prudent planning to be looking at other options.''
Among those options is encouraging nations to impose their own curbs on trade with Iran and to deny visas to top Iranian officials, Bolton said. The U.S. is also ramping up the Proliferation Security Initiative, a multinational program aimed at stopping the spread of nuclear-arms materials in part through naval boardings of ships at sea.
Bolton said the U.S. could further tighten its own sweeping sanctions on Iran by reversing a Clinton administration order to allow the import of Persian rugs and pistachio nuts from the country.
There are ``still a few areas of economic interchange with Iran that have not been closed down,'' he said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...top_world_news
And again gtown this sure looks like the diplomatic channel is being followed, doesn't it?
Believe me, if the W.H. wanted to leak something, they sure wouldn't give it to Seymour Hersh. He's the guy that broke the Mi Lai Massacre story in Nam and the Abu Gharib prison abuse scandal story in Iraq. His credibility is fairly untarnished. Everyone should read what he's saying about the coming confrontation with Iran. I share his belief that there is nothing short of complete capitulation to its national sovereignty that Iran can do to appease the Neo-Cons leading the cause for war.Anyone know how credible this is?
I think it might just be a "leak" to try to convince Iran.
Conventional (1)
US conventional earth penetrating weapons (EPW) the GBU-28 and GBU-37 can break through 6m of reinforced concrete or 30m of earth
Guided by laser or GPS they may also carry a 'smart fuse' which detonates the weapon at a pre-programmed point
Insufficient penetration for use against "hardened and deeply buried targets"
Nuclear (2)
A nuclear EPW such as the B61-11 can only penetrate 2-3m but even a shallow underground nuclear explosion produces an intense and damaging seismic shock
Depending on the rock type, this could potentially crush a bunker at about 70 metres depth
But the missiles cannot penetrate deeply enough for the radioactive fallout to be contained
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4895212.stm
Nukes are a particularly bad idea if we're going to claim we're all about precision strikes. The last thing this country needs is pictures of Iranian kids with radiation burns.
The Neo-Cons are selling the misconception that there will be little radiation fall-out if they use low-yield tac ical nuclear weapons, even though every study I've seen says different.
Bush: Iran Strike Plans 'Wild Speculation'
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
9 minutes ago
Who ever said anything about bombing Tehran? Why would the U.S. bomb a populated city? Can Dubya stop leaking classified info? Oh, IC, so when we bomb Iran, but not Tehran, Dubya can say, see, told ya so!President Bush said Monday that force is not necessarily required to stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon, and he dismissed reports of plans for a military attack against Tehran as "wild speculation."
Bush said his goal is to keep the Iranians from having the capability or the knowledge to have a nuclear weapon.
"I know we're here in Washington ... (where) prevention means force," Bush said. "It doesn't mean force necessarily. In this case it means diplomacy."
Bush, speaking Monday at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, and other administration officials have said repeatedly that the military option is on the table.
Well, the Hersh article said one option included up to 400 targets, many unrelated to the nuke program including Revolutionary Guard bases, etc. -- the "in for a penny, in for a pound" option to try and take care of a host of potential problems at once.
if you are going to attack a country you don't allow them the possibility to attack you back
it only makes since to hit other target
I'm no scientist or engineer, but wouldn't the fallout from a nuclear strike (besides killing thousands of Iranians who may or may not support their government) also harm or kill thousands of U.S. troops stationed in Iraq right next door?
Not all targets would be subjected to nukes.
Even if the Iranian military is incapacitated, the Iranian response is going to be unleashing terrorists attacks in this country and other sites of American interest around the world.
Well I guess Dubya might not want to politically risk the B61-11 nuke bunker buster use. That means you'll need 100's or 1000's of 2000lb'ers.
Which means you would need an air bridge etc. It could be done that way too.
These strikes would not give you 100% resolution with IRAN but could set back there WMD program many years.
If they don't overthrow then eventually you might see a ground war.
1st Target below...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...z-imagery3.htm
Last edited by Vashner; 04-11-2006 at 12:58 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
