US considers use of nuclear weapons against Iran

phoenix80

Banned
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The administration of President George W. Bush is planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a key Iranian suspected nuclear weapons facility, The New Yorker magazine has reported in its April 17 issue.

The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said that Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler.

"That's the name they're using," the report quoted a former senior intelligence official as saying.

A senior unnamed Pentagon adviser is quoted in the article as saying that "this White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war."

The former intelligence officials depicts planning as "enormous," "hectic" and "operational," Hersh writes.

One former defense official said 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," The New Yorker pointed out.

In recent weeks, the president has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of the House of Representatives, including at least one Democrat, the report said.
One of the options under consideration involves the possible use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, to insure the destruction of Iran's main centrifuge plant at Natanz, Hersh writes.

But the former senior intelligence official said the attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the military, and some officers have talked about resigning after an attempt to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans in Iran failed, according to the report.

"There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries," the magazine quotes the Pentagon adviser as saying.

The adviser warned that bombing Iran could provoke "a chain reaction" of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world and might also reignite Hezbollah.

"If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle," the adviser is quoted as telling The New Yorker.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060408/wl_mideast_afp/usirannuclearmilitary_060408061934;_ylt=Apsf7ZiSNVD1bQy5XbkPMM1Sw60A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
 
bulldogg said:
Never happen. The economic backlash would be overwhelming.

It never happens and it is impossible, but the leftist author (Seymour Hersh) wants to make the US military look like war criminals
 
Isn't that always the case? People will try to make a name for themselves no matter how they manage to accomplish it.
 
A first strike Nuclear attack is unlikely to happen. The International community would start questioning America's policy towards Nuclear Arsenal.
 
Rabs said:

I'm not going to repeat myself.

http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20375

If the US-India nuclear deal goes through, it will further encourage Iran pursue to develop Nuclear weapons as a deterrent. If Iran produces Nuclear weapons, compellence for the US have failed regardless if physical or non-physical action is taken.

States build nuclear weapons because of its cheap and robust form of defense and deterrence.

If a state uses nuclear weapons, the NPT is scrapped and nuclear powers will once again engage in a Nuclear Arms Race.
 
This news is just warning to Iran.
Mr bush wants to tell Iran"If you don,t accept nuclear inspection,I will attack you."
I hope Iran accepts it・・・・・・・
 
A Passive Nuclear strike against Iran would have immense Political and Economic Consequences:

1. Price of Oil would skyrocket(already has since rumor of this).
2. US Markets would Plummet(As well as European, Asian).
3. Prudence would demand that Russia, China and others start warming up their Birds in the Bullpens until true US intensions are made clear.

Even though i think this is just the Bush administration posturing some what, it is a fact that it was an option on the table. Bottomline? if your going to go Nuclear you better be prepared to go all the way.
 
doubtless there is plan to use a first strike, hell, there is probably a plan to invade outer Mongolia. There are plans for everything that never get used. Take my word for it, the USA would never do a first strike. It would immediately cause all the Muslems to attack the civilized world. we would win but probably kill a couple hundred million people. It ain't worth it. But if a Iraian or north korean bomb got used, What would happen is that the country would be given a finite time (short, very short) or suffer total anialation.
i see two problems
1. Iran does not have a way to bomb the US, but they can hit Israel, Russia, or europe.
2. The hard-core born again moslems running Iran are religious freaks. If there was a full scale nuclear war and there was one man and one woman left, and they were moslem. then they would consider the war worth it. you cannot reason with beliefs like that.
 
The Iranian PM has been having a go at Israil in his political speeches.
Its starting to whip up the Iranian public opinion.
Do we have any iranian members who can fill us in on whats going on at the average joe level??
 
I love how the article starts off:

The administration of President George W. Bush is planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a key Iranian suspected nuclear weapons facility
but later the tone changes completely:

One of the options under consideration involves the possible use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon...
At the beginning, a strike is going to happen tomorrow, but by the end of the article, it's simply a "consideration." Sensationalist BS. Of course there's no agenda. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

While I have little doubt the US would happily romp across Iran with all manner of airborne explosive devices (or at least help Israel to do the same), none of said devices will be nuclear in nature. If the attack happens, there will be enough of an outcry in the "international community" as it is without tacking the stigma of using nuclear devices on top of it.

China's fate is rather tightly enter twined with the US so I doubt they would do anything but posture. Russia would lose arms revenue, but that's been happening since Iran has been developing arms in house and spreading their money to other countries. I doubt they'd follow through on their threat of military intervention. It would be nearly suicidal. France and Germany would likely say naughty things about the US at the UN and shake their fingers, but that's something of a trend we've seen over the last few years anyway. I don't think there would be any other major dissenters.
 
CABAL said:
A first strike Nuclear attack is unlikely to happen. The International community would start questioning America's policy towards Nuclear Arsenal.

Oh my goodness. How could America sleep at night knowing the "International Community" was questioning our actions? When the German judicial system mismanaged the prosecution of the Hamburg Cell, did the disapproval of the International Community cause you any lost sleep.

Each country operates in its own best self interest and that of its people. Deal with it.
 
US will never do a first strike with nuclear weapons. Things would have to be VERY deep, and already far past "doom," for us to do so.

A conventional strike? That's another thing altogether.
 
phoenix80 said:
It never happens and it is impossible, but the leftist author (Seymour Hersh) wants to make the US military look like war criminals

Not only that, Hersh can't spell. There are numerous grammatical and spelling errors throughout the work. Pay it no mind.
 
Back
Top