[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Well, they surely didn’t do anything to prevent them ! ! ! ;-)[/quote]
yea, we dropped the ball on that one.haha
Perhaps we moved the location and date for this “test” up a bit???
Plans for Massive Blast in Nev. Draw Fire
Mar 31, 6:04 AM (ET)
By KATHLEEN HENNESSEY
(AP)
LAS VEGAS (AP) - Plans for a Pentagon-led experiment that involves detonating 700 tons of explosives in the desert drew criticism from state leaders and a disarmament activist.
The explosion scheduled for June 2 at the Nevada Test Site is part of an effort to design a weapon that can penetrate solid rock formations in which a country might store nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction.
“I am concerned that tests of this magnitude have been planned without providing Nevadans with any information about the possible impact on their health or safety,” said Demcratic Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid in a statement Thursday.
Nevada Test Site spokesman Darwin Morgan said the test will be conducted about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, near the center of the former nuclear testing site.
(AP) A mushroom cloud rises over the Nevada Test Site (NTS) after the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission…
Full Image
The test, named “Divine Strake,” will involve nearly 40 times the amount of commercial ammonium nitrate and fuel oil explosive set off in the largest open-air, non-nuclear blast at the site to date. In 2002, 18 tons of explosives were set off at the Nevada Test Site.
“This is nothing that’s out of the bounds for us. That’s what our expertise is in,” he said.
Morgan said the site obtained the required state approvals and air quality permits in January. Officials from the National Nuclear Security Administration, which operates the site, alerted the state’s congressional delegation and state government in December.
The Nevada Department of Administration responded with a letter stating: “Your proposal is not in conflict with state plans, goals or objectives.”
No elected officials responded to the notice until Thursday, Morgan said. The test site is not required to seek public comment, he said.
“Given the level of contamination in areas where nuclear tests were conducted, I have real concerns about the dust and other pollutants that will be released into the air as a result of this explosion,” said U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley.
I’d like to join that Bilderberg group! Is there an application or something I can fill out?
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
I’d like to join that Bilderberg group! Is there an application or something I can fill out? [/quote]
You’ve already joined…as a slave…
well its now april 5th and nothing has happened yet, so im calling april fools on your post.
[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
I’d like to join that Bilderberg group! Is there an application or something I can fill out?
You’ve already joined…as a slave…[/quote]
Umm… what? The only slave around here is me.
But seriously, are you suggesting that the earthquake was caused by the United States and that’s how we attacked Iran?
Iran is nothing like Iraq…Iran actually has weapons and a real military.
This would be a fiasco and we would pay a huge price and gain nothing but misery.
From the UK News Telegraph.
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 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.
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”.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
This would be a fiasco and we would pay a huge price and gain nothing but misery.[/quote]
Or quite possible prevent one crazy ass muthafuckin’ country from obtaining tactical nukes.
There’s that too.
marma-mouth,
I’d be interested to hear what YOU would do in W’s place.
It’s not enough to be Mr. Sideline.
Let’s hear some constructive commentary.
It’s going to be very hard to criticize W’s diplomatic approach on this one. He’s pushed the europeans way out front on this one.
Where do we go from here?
I want specifics from you.
Do YOU impose sanctions? Would they work? Would russia enforce effective sanctions?
Would you hit before being hit?
For instance, how would YOU attack the nuclear sites? Would YOU count on convential weapons or would YOU use tactical nuclear weaponery?
Think it through. If the strike happens, can we afford to miss ANY?
Do YOU strike the leaders?
Do we take the chance that this guy destroys Israel?
Do we let this guy continue to infiltrate the burgeoning Democracy in Iraq?
What do YOU do?
JeffR
From the story below, I do have to say that I think it would be a very very bad idea to use tactical nukes…
US steps up plans for possible Iran attack: report
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060409/ts_nm/iran_hersh_dc
[i]
Hersh’s report says the administration has stepped up clandestine activities in Iran and has initiated a series of talks on its plans with “a few key senators and members of Congress.”
A former senior defense official is cited as saying the planning was based on the belief that a bombing campaign against Iran would humiliate the leadership and lead the Iranian public to overthrow it, adding that he was shocked to hear the strategy.
The report also said the administration is seriously considering using “bunker buster” tactical nuclear weapons against Iran to ensure the destruction of Iran’s main centrifuge plant at Natanz.
The Pentagon adviser is quoted as saying some senior officers and officials were considering quitting over the plans to use nuclear weapons.
[/i]
Another article…
Bush critics alarmed over reports of possible strike on Iran
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060409/ts_afp/usirannuclearmilitary
[i]
“But I believe … when you take that military action, you have to ask the question, ‘and then what?’ Because you’re going to have a series of those ‘and then whats’ down the road,” he said.
Hersh told CNN however, that the White House has spurned Tehran’s overtures for dialogue.
“This president is not talking to the Iranians. They are trying very hard to make contact, I can assure you of that, in many different forms,” he said.
“He’s not talking. And there’s no public pressure on the White House to start bilateral talks. And that’s what amazes everybody,” he said.
[/i]
I might point out that in invading Iran’s long time adversary, we dramatically shifted the balance of power to Iran.
I don’t see how we could logistically or strategically invade Iran, as all of our troops are tied down in Iraq. As for aerial bombing (probably more likely and feasible, I would think), we’re not talking about an attack on the likes of Afghanistan, Iraq, or Kosovo. Iran successfully repelled an attack by Iraq in the early-mid 80’s, back when Iraq had a very large, sophisticated army that used every weapon at its disposal, including chemical weapons. Iran is mountainous in the north, so passing down from Afghanistan is not feasible, and attacking from Iraq by land is not an option.
It’s not so much the materials themselves (they don’t have a capability yet) as it the knowledge. More than likely, in the event you bombed Iran, you’d have a group of renegade nuclear scientists either moving eastward, into Pakistan (and bin Laden-land) or westward into Iraq and ultimately Syria. More than likely, Iraq would become the new center of radical Shia Islam.
I think it would be more likely that you would see the diplomatic/economic solution at work. Iran enjoys a significantly stronger economy than Iraq, and it is isolated in that it is a Shia dominated country, so the economic threat of Iran’s major trade partners (mostly, Europe) joining the US embargo on Iran will happen before you see any military threat.
Iran has been the bigger threat all along (other than North Korea) to distribute nuclear weapons technology to terrorists, but the current administration’s agenda took them to other places, and now its a much less viable option.
"zarathus wrote:
I might point out that in invading Iran’s long time adversary, we dramatically shifted the balance of power to Iran.
I don’t see how we could logistically or strategically invade Iran, as all of our troops are tied down in Iraq. As for aerial bombing (probably more likely and feasible, I would think), we’re not talking about an attack on the likes of Afghanistan, Iraq, or Kosovo. Iran successfully repelled an attack by Iraq in the early-mid 80’s, back when Iraq had a very large, sophisticated army that used every weapon at its disposal, including chemical weapons. Iran is mountainous in the north, so passing down from Afghanistan is not feasible, and attacking from Iraq by land is not an option.
It’s not so much the materials themselves (they don’t have a capability yet) as it the knowledge. More than likely, in the event you bombed Iran, you’d have a group of renegade nuclear scientists either moving eastward, into Pakistan (and bin Laden-land) or westward into Iraq and ultimately Syria. More than likely, Iraq would become the new center of radical Shia Islam.
I think it would be more likely that you would see the diplomatic/economic solution at work. Iran enjoys a significantly stronger economy than Iraq, and it is isolated in that it is a Shia dominated country, so the economic threat of Iran’s major trade partners (mostly, Europe) joining the US embargo on Iran will happen before you see any military threat.
Iran has been the bigger threat all along (other than North Korea) to distribute nuclear weapons technology to terrorists, but the current administration’s agenda took them to other places, and now its a much less viable option."
Same question: What do we do?
It isn’t enough to say “Bush screwed it up.”
What would YOU do?
JeffR
Zarathrus-
We will not invade in my opinion. My guess is we will strike the facilities very hard with conventional munitions, on a scale not seen before. At the same time the naval and air force facitlities will be knocked out. Iran will cease to be a military threat from a conventional sense in less then a week. I don’t think any strategist will give them longer then that.
I hope they find another way but in reality it’s in the hands of the Iranians and they are ratcheting up the rhetoric not the US.
The brain drain is a big problem. Not sure how they will deal with that. Unfortunately if they ever use a nuke against the US then the response is predestined. I don’t know if that will stop them but expecting a rational response is probably wishful thinking on our part.
I wouldn’t put any stock in the Hersch story. Nothing really new there. Unamed sources are a dime a dozen. More provactive then ground breaking.
The big question is what happens if the conventional munitions don’t knock out the nuke facilities. I think they will use ground penetrating nuclear weapons at that point to finish the job. They’ll work. If that deters the rest of the rougue states great. If not who knows at that point.
There are no word to describe how absolutely insane this would be if true.
“One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that ‘a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.’ He added, ‘I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’’”
This sort of madness sickens almost the entire earth’s population, outside of the usual pom pom waving hacks. Disgusting.
I think there are three options that would be ultimately discussed in any situation like this.
- Regime Change
- Nuclear Facility Destruction
- Diplomatic/Economic Isolation
If you’re talking about using theater tactical mini-nukes, are you going to do this in Tehran too, where they have labs underground?
If I were a President, espionage and sabotage would seem to be the way to go, coupled with absolute economic isolation from the world community to prevent them from rebuilding those facilities. I would think this would be more likely to bring about regime change than bombing itself.
There’s only so much you can know from the air. A bombing raid on nuclear sites that leaves the leadership intact, even if you use mini-nukes, might not destroy the target.
It’s almost an open secret that Israel has nuclear capability. Also, they have one of the best intelligence/clansdestine operations orgainzations in the world. Finally, they have the advantage of having the holy lands, Islamic holy sites, and plenty of Muslims and Arabs to provide deterence for all except the most crazy (not claiming that Ahmanijihad isn’t crazy, but they’res a lot of players In Iranian politics besides him, and most of them are clerics who would be opposed to bombing the Temple Mount, for instance).
zarathus:
Good post.
Again, how effective do you think sanctions would be?
Would they stop the nukes in time?
As Iraq showed, they have to be air-tight to do a damn thing.
Honestly, I’m very worried. I think the iranians are pushing us over the cliff.
We cannot do nothing.
Unless you can promise 7-8 Guns of Navaronne type clandestine operations, I’m not sure you get the sites that way.
Let me go on the record and state that I DO NOT, REPEAT: NOT, WANT THE U.S. TO HAVE TO FIGHT IRAN.
I just do not see how to avoid it.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
zarathus:
Good post.
Again, how effective do you think sanctions would be?
Would they stop the nukes in time?
As Iraq showed, they have to be air-tight to do a damn thing.
Honestly, I’m very worried. I think the iranians are pushing us over the cliff.
We cannot do nothing.
Unless you can promise 7-8 Guns of Navaronne type clandestine operations, I’m not sure you get the sites that way.
Let me go on the record and state that I DO NOT, REPEAT: NOT, WANT THE U.S. TO HAVE TO FIGHT IRAN.
I just do not see how to avoid it.
JeffR
[/quote]
it seems as though you’re saying it’s inevitable that the US will have to invade Iran…
to go to war with Iran the US would have to start drafting…forces are spread WAY to thin as it is…support for such a measure would make any republican un-electable…
as soon as young kids who didn’t want to be drafted start dying support for the war effort will drop to near zero…
maybe they should find a way for diplomacy to work this time?
[quote]DPH wrote:
…
maybe they should find a way for diplomacy to work this time?[/quote]
Diplomacy won’t work. Iran fully intends on securing nukes. They will not be talked out of it.
Don’t kid yourself.