At least that's what it sounds like (
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060408/ts_afp/usirannuclearmilitary;_ylt=Auh9VHVNcK2XQNb7zWCj5Ra) s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-)
I thought this had to be a sick April Fool's joke, but it was reported today, for an April 17th issue.
Blustering or not, that's chilling. Are they crazy?
http://www.jeromegoolsby.net/nucflash/nuke21.jpg)
Here's the article, at least how it appears now. Let's see if there's any updates on the mass of what-if's:
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.
ADVERTISEMENT
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.
It wouldn't be the first time threats were made, but seriously, what are they thinking?
Well, at least the explosion would be pretty. It was one of my desires to see a nuclear explosion live, but I digress.
And yet, George Bush is still in office. There is no possible way that this could end well.
Well, isn't one of the deals with the explosion if you can see it, you're going to be affected by it?
But I see your point, something pretty to see before you die, small comfort.
If that were the case, then clearly Oppenheimer would never have made that lovely quote of his... he'd be dead.
You're relatively safe if far away and get a nice vantage point to see the fireworks. That'd be picnic worthy.
I don't mean instant death, I'm talking cancer from the radiation. Maybe I'm wrong. It's been awhile since I read up on the effects of a nuclear blast.
The cancer issue is most likely negligible UNLESS you decide to sit inside the radiation zone for any appreciable length of time.
I just have this morbid desire to see one of the damn things in action. I can't realy appreciate its power otherwise.
It's too cold where I am anyways...
I'm not sure what else to say. I'm actually somewhat saddened that we have nuclear weapons anyway; all that research into quantum mechanics and particle physics going not to help people-but to destroy, maim, and mutilate them.
As for this thing in Iran- why use nuclear weapons? They'll irradiate large areas of the country and spew radioactive particles into the atmosphere, spreading the radiation all over the world. Hell, even the areas we used to test the atomic bombs in the 1940s still have above average levels of radioactivity.
Psst... nuclear generators.
Psst... nuclear generators.
Psst... we're talking about nuclear weapons. One is in a controlled enviroment, one is not.
It saddens me that the people will impeach a president because of some sex scandal, but when the president starts wars and supposidly talks about starting nuclear wars, we just sit back and watch.
It saddens me that the people will impeach a president because of some sex scandal, but when the president starts wars and supposidly talks about starting nuclear wars, we just sit back and watch.
But he was impeached for perjury!
:xp:
Yeah, I guess that means Bush has never lied! :0
Ya know this report is overrated. If you think a bunker buster is anything like a real nuke then your wrong.
It's similar technology to dead uranium shells, which are horrid but lets not pretend that these are 'real nukes'. (i.e. in the classical sense, "Hiroshima")
If you want some details on why a bunker bomb isn't nearly as bad, I'd be happy to present it.
Furthermore I couldn't care less if the US wiped out their nuclear facility. They are an intolerant, violent country and their head of state wants to wipe out another countrys people.
What better way than a nuclear weapon?
Do you trust Iran with a nuclear weapon?
Oh and I don't have a particular fondness of Israel either, I have a fondness for democracy and human life.
Iran can threaten and black mail Europe with their Shahab missle, do you want Iran having that luxury over the United States? You wouldn't mind? I would.
It's amazing that people are more sympathetic to intolerant, biggoted, misogynistic clerics in the East while they denounce religious conservatism in our own country.
The Islamic Republic of Iran makes Pat Robertson look like a liberal, so in my oppinion, screw'm.
Yeah, I guess that means Bush has never lied! :0
He could be impeached for perjury if he lied in court-apparently you can lie to the entire nation without fear of prosecution.
Ya know this report is overrated. If you think a bunker buster is anything like a real nuke then your wrong.
It's similar technology to dead uranium shells, which are horrid but lets not pretend that these are 'real nukes'. (i.e. in the classical sense, "Hiroshima")
If you want some details on why a bunker bomb isn't nearly as bad, I'd be happy to present it.
Furthermore I couldn't care less if the US wiped out their nuclear facility. They are an intolerant, violent country and their head of state wants to wipe out another countrys people.
What better way than a nuclear weapon?
Do you trust Iran with a nuclear weapon?
Oh and I don't have a particular fondness of Israel either, I have a fondness for democracy and human life.
Iran can threaten and black mail Europe with their Shahab missle, do you want Iran having that luxury over the United States? You wouldn't mind? I would.
It's amazing that people are more sympathetic to intolerant, biggoted, misogynistic clerics in the East while they denounce religious conservatism in our own country.
The Islamic Republic of Iran makes Pat Robertson look like a liberal, so in my oppinion, screw'm.
I'm not saying I wouldn't want to stop them, however using a nuclear weapon of any size would be a bad decision. It's bad for the innocent people in Iran, and it's bad for the rest of the world, seeing as radioactive particles in the atmosphere can traverse the globe and are in fact radioactive, as in they aren't good for humans to be surrounded with.
There's also the chance that we can negotiate with them, seeing as they're ~10 years away from having weapons-grade uranium (only 2%0.74% of all uranium in the world is weapons-grade, it decays very quickly as it's far more unstable than other types).
Come on kids go outside and play in the black snow!
Come on kids go outside and play in the black snow!
...and melt!
Fallout won't melt you but its not exactly good for you, kinda like licking a barstool
Fallout won't melt you but its not exactly good for you, kinda like licking a barstool
I was referring to a Lewis Black joke with that... but yeah, it won't melt anyone.
The Fallout games are awesome.
Remember when this is a Senate topic, and not a thread in the swamp for bull****ting? I remember, so stop it.
He could be impeached for perjury if he lied in court-apparently you can lie to the entire nation without fear of prosecution.
I'm not saying I wouldn't want to stop them, however using a nuclear weapon of any size would be a bad decision. It's bad for the innocent people in Iran, and it's bad for the rest of the world, seeing as radioactive particles in the atmosphere can traverse the globe and are in fact radioactive, as in they aren't good for humans to be surrounded with.
There's also the chance that we can negotiate with them, seeing as they're ~10 years away from having weapons-grade uranium (only 2% of all uranium in the world is weapons-grade, it decays very quickly as it's far more unstable than other types).
True but Israel and the regions stability is at risk soley because Iran wants it's grubby little hands on nuclear weapons. Sure there will be some fallout in their area, arguably the Iranian people share a bit of the blame, across party lines they view nuclear power as a leveling mechanism.
I say no because I don't want that despotic government even coming close to nuclear weapons.
Their entire nation is behind it and so there is little we can do but to disagree and let the best man win.
Would you feel safe with Pat Robertson having a red button on his show?
That's how I feel about Iran.
Another good topic to bring up... why is it okay for Western nations to have nuclear weapons, but not Iran? Is it because they're intolerant and making threats? (and we're not?)
Not saying that Iran is blameless, but really, aren't we being hypocritical and self serving in this? With the high potential of it blowing up in our faces? I mean, isn't this the very definition of "rule by fear"?
It's not looking good, in any case. I mean we'll be using the same sorts of slippery justifications this time as we did with the Iraq debacle. Well, someday they might get WMD, that means we need to attack them.
I just think that the use of nukes against another nation is a violation of a HUGE cold war taboo. Once we do this act, even if it's a supposedly weaker variant like a "dirty bomb" or tactical nuke, it opens the flood gates. It sets a horrible precedent, and could lead to a global crisis. We let China get nukes. We let North Korea get nukes. We let Europe get nukes. Is it worth another Cuban Missile Crisis over the pissant nation of Iran just because Israel is scared?
True but Israel and the regions stability is at risk soley because Iran wants it's grubby little hands on nuclear weapons. Sure there will be some fallout in their area, arguably the Iranian people share a bit of the blame, across party lines they view nuclear power as a leveling mechanism.
I say no because I don't want that despotic government even coming close to nuclear weapons.
Their entire nation is behind it and so there is little we can do but to disagree and let the best man win.
Would you feel safe with Pat Robertson having a red button on his show?
That's how I feel about Iran.
That region has been unstable since long before there even was a country called Iran.
Another good topic to bring up... why is it okay for Western nations to have nuclear weapons, but not Iran? Is it because they're intolerant and making threats? (and we're not?)
I don't agree with anyone having them, however I'd rather we have them, and not Iran.
Remember when this is a Senate topic, and not a thread in the swamp for bull****ting? I remember, so stop it.
YOU DARE SUPPRESS THE AWESOME THAT IS FALLOUT 1 AND 2!? You have just lost the right to debate anything. Please retire from this forum immediately and don't come back.
---
On another note...
Jmac got it somewhat right here... on principle I'd rather hold all the cards. Who wouldn't?
[QUOTE=jmac7142]I don't agree with anyone having them, however I'd rather we have them, and not Iran./QUOTE]
That statement seems self-contradictory, doesn't it?
Would you feel safe with Pat Robertson having a red button on his show?
He essentially does... his red button is George W. Bush.
[QUOTE=jmac7142]I don't agree with anyone having them, however I'd rather we have them, and not Iran./QUOTE]
That statement seems self-contradictory, doesn't it?
No, due to the fact that I'd like it if no one had them (idealism), but I realize the fact that they're here to stay, and would prefer that we had them and not Iran.
He essentially does... his red button is George W. Bush.
Bush talks to God directly. He (Bush) said so, so it must be true.
Bush talks to God directly. He (Bush) said so, so it must be true.
And that is one of the reasons why Bush should be impeached. Government is supposed to be secular, with no religious bias. And besides, fighting won't solve anything. It will simply leave the enemy more vengeful, and more inclined to fight back. If anything, the US should not be the agressor in any war, since it makes them out to be the "bad guy".
Another good topic to bring up... why is it okay for Western nations to have nuclear weapons, but not Iran? Is it because they're intolerant and making threats? (and we're not?)
If I was a leader, I'd try to get my hands on Nuclear Weapons. Some country started invading, BAM made them regret it.
I don't see why N.K. and Iran can't have nukes, while we have loads of them. Heck, we actually dropped some. Although, seeing as how N.K. and Iran don't have a very good track record, I wouldn't want them tog et their hands on nukes.
I guess it's reletive or something.
"You have nukes, why can't I have one?"
Would you feel safe with Pat Robertson having a red button on his show?
Well if he promised only to nuke Hugo Chavez, who happens to be a free speach stifling peice of authoritarian ****.
No because I'd be wiped off the map for not taking christainity seiruisly
If I was a leader, I'd try to get my hands on Nuclear Weapons. Some country started invading, BAM made them regret it.
I don't see why N.K. and Iran can't have nukes, while we have loads of them. Heck, we actually dropped some. Although, seeing as how N.K. and Iran don't have a very good track record, I wouldn't want them tog et their hands on nukes.
I guess it's reletive or something.
"You have nukes, why can't I have one?"
I think the general theme of people's responses to this issue can be summed up by saying that they'd rather nuke someone else than be nuked.
Ya know this report is overrated. If you think a bunker buster is anything like a real nuke then your wrong.
It's similar technology to dead uranium shells, which are horrid but lets not pretend that these are 'real nukes'. (i.e. in the classical sense, "Hiroshima")
If you want some details on why a bunker bomb isn't nearly as bad, I'd be happy to present it.
Where it isn't a real nuke as what we're used to, there are varying degrees of bunkerbusters. Most use a depleted uranium shell, which is radio active, but has a half life of like 5 billion years(i'm doing this on memory, so if i'm wrong please tell me) so it's radioactivity at the time of detonation is relatively nothing. Bunker busters can carry anywhere from 1 kiloton of nuclear charge, to a 300 kiloton charge. Just to put this in persepctive, Hiroshima was somewhere around a 15 kiloton charge. So, yes, these can be catagorized as a full nuclear bomb, but only if they are chosen to be.
Well I don't think anybody really wants to be nuked, despite how much of a death wish they seem to have
Where it isn't a real nuke as what we're used to, there are varying degrees of bunkerbusters. Most use a depleted uranium shell, which is radio active, but has a half life of like 5 billion years(i'm doing this on memory, so if i'm wrong please tell me) so it's radioactivity at the time of detonation is relatively nothing. Bunker busters can carry anywhere from 1 kiloton of nuclear charge, to a 300 kiloton charge. Just to put this in persepctive, Hiroshima was somewhere around a 15 kiloton charge. So, yes, these can be catagorized as a full nuclear bomb, but only if they are chosen to be.
Depleted Uranium (half-life of 4.46 billion years) is only used to reflect neutrons back as the Uranium-235/233 in order to increase the efficiancy of the bomb. Weapons-grade uranium is Uranium-235 or Uranium-233, which was a half-life of 700 million years and can release ~200 MeV in ~0.10000000000000 seconds when it's triggered and becomes unstable by a neutron being fired at it's nucleus (so if the neutron misses, the depleted Uranium-or Uranium-238-reflects the neutron back at the Uranium-235/233).
So to sum-up, depleted Uranium (Uranium-238) can't trigger a nuclear explosion, and any nuclear device will irradiate a large area around it as well as send radioactive particles into the atmosphere traveling at near-lightspeed.
I don't think we should use nukes on Iran. It would just be a really bad idea.
America is a superpower. And what to do with that power? abuse it? We should hold ourselves to a higher standard.
Besides, we could make Iran a nice flat desert with conventional weapons. There is no need to nuke them.
Here's hoping this is one of those staged leaks in order to threaten Iran while maintatining deniability.... because if its true then the US has just lost any chance of any sort of international coalition against Iran.
It's talking about planning. We plan for a lot of things. We planned an exact way to use nukes on Russia. We planned our naval movements during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We no doubt have a plan to use nuclear weapons for every single war we've fought since WW2. Military planning means very little unless that plan will actually be carried out. It's actually irresponsible of them not to plan, because they are supposed to be considering every possible alternative. Executing said strike is quite another matter, and no, I don't think it should happen unless we have real information that makes their use the only viable option and it is then a matter of immediate and justifying danger not to use them.
Seriously, get over someone saying "nukes" and "GW" in the same sentence.
It's talking about planning. We plan for a lot of things. We planned an exact way to use nukes on Russia. We planned our naval movements during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We no doubt have a plan to use nuclear weapons for every single war we've fought since WW2. Military planning means very little unless that plan will actually be carried out. It's actually irresponsible of them not to plan, because they are supposed to be considering every possible alternative. Executing said strike is quite another matter, and no, I don't think it should happen unless we have real information that makes their use the only viable option and it is then a matter of immediate and justifying danger not to use them.
Seriously, get over someone saying "nukes" and "GW" in the same sentence.
Spot on, alot of the times military plans are purely for theoretical/training purposes.
People can say that a bunker buster is a nuke, sure it has nuclear material but it's detonating underground and it doesn't resemble the destruction illustrated by Hiroshima.
Besides, why should America care about what people think? Most of the world is rallied against us any way, there is simply no way we could do right.
We're either a police man or a coward, a liar or a blow heart.. no one is happy with a super power for one reason or another.
Besides, why should America care about what people think? Most of the world is rallied against us any way, there is simply no way we could do right.
Why you're wrong on the issue of ignoring what the rest of the world thinks:
Because we're only like 10% of the world's population, probably less than that now that I think about it.*
We should attempt to make it right, just because our credibility is shot because of the current administration doesn't mean we should give up on improving it.
Did I mention we're not the only country in the world?
We aren't the only country in the world with an army.
*see below...
http://www.nihonkaigaku.org/ham/eacoex/100econ/110step/111pop/e_wldpop.gif)
Amen.
When will we learn, I wonder, to be progressive once again, and not reactionary...
You will always end up annoying some people... but life would go a lot easier if you only annoyed people when you needed to, and not at every opportunity just to show that you can. imho.
You will always end up annoying some people... but life would go a lot easier if you only annoyed people when you needed to, and not at every opportunity just to show that you can. imho.
You guys are right, I hope you realize that my comment was a little off the cuff.
Im just tired of all the anti-Americanism in the world. It's like we're the USSR now or something.
Sure we've made huge mistakes but it's my oppinion that America is generally, a force for good in the world. Then you take a step back and look at Europe and alot of the folks generally hate "America" based upon false stereotypes.
It's also interesting that there is almost a complete lack of anti-Americanism in Vietnam, a country that has every right to despise us.
I don't want to turn this into a debate over the merits of US foreign policy so I'll leave it at that, I hope you can see where I'm coming from.
Im just tired of all the anti-Americanism in the world. It's like we're the USSR now or something.
I agree with that to some extent, however some things that are said against us are well deserved-and you can blame the Bush administration for that.
I agree with that to some extent, however some things that are said against us are well deserved-and you can blame the Bush administration for that.
Of course...because before George W. Bush became President, everyone loved the United States.
But when it comes to the "planning to use nukes against Iran" thing, I don't see what the big deal is. If they were implementing the plan to use nukes, it would be a big deal...but planning for war is part of the President's job. And with Iran either several years or 16 days (
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000100&sid=aduNTcpDuDd4&refer=germany) away from having a nuclear weapon, if President Bush wasn't drawing up plans to do whatever is necessary to stop Iran from deploying nuclear weapons, he should be impeached.
So are all our "allies" planning a similar strike as well? Israel probably is (they likely had a plan to nuke the entire Middle East way before this), but what about Germany, France, UK, etc.? Are they ready to start WWIII?
We all know Iran with a nuke is BAD, but what the HELL are they going to actually use it on? Israel? If they do, then Iran will promptly be destroyed. They're smart enough to know they can't just send out nukes willy-nilly. And if they attack our bases in the Middle East, again, they can't do that; Iran has an address, we know where to come for them.
I say this is just like the situation with North Korea. We KNOW that North Korea has nukes RIGHT NOW. And they would very much like to use them on us. But they don't, why? Because they know that if they did, they can say goodbye to their little communist "paradise" as they call their country.
So basically, the reason why Iran wants nukes is the same reason that North Korea does: they want the prestige. They want to be in the "club" of all the other countries, like us, with nukes. They also want to have leverage over other countries like North Korea has over us.
Before attacking Iran's bases, shouldn't we attack North Korea's bases? I mean, they got nukes right now. Aren't they clearly the bigger threat?
So are all our "allies" planning a similar strike as well? Israel probably is (they likely had a plan to nuke the entire Middle East way before this), but what about Germany, France, UK, etc.? Are they ready to start WWIII?It's not quite the same situation for them. They aren't the ones stuck in a very unstable situation in the Middle East, getting a lot of bad publicity in the process. Besides, probably at least France does have a plan - they were talking about using nuclear weapons if attacked, and the only people likely to start a war over there is the Middle Eastern countries (excluding us, of course. :p).
We all know Iran with a nuke is BAD, but what the HELL are they going to actually use it on? Israel? If they do, then Iran will promptly be destroyed. They're smart enough to know they can't just send out nukes willy-nilly. And if they attack our bases in the Middle East, again, they can't do that; Iran has an address, we know where to come for them.
I say this is just like the situation with North Korea. We KNOW that North Korea has nukes RIGHT NOW. And they would very much like to use them on us. But they don't, why? Because they know that if they did, they can say goodbye to their little communist "paradise" as they call their country.
So basically, the reason why Iran wants nukes is the same reason that North Korea does: they want the prestige. They want to be in the "club" of all the other countries, like us, with nukes. They also want to have leverage over other countries like North Korea has over us.Actually, I doubt that Iran would ever use nukes even if it had them. What having them would do, however, is obtain for Iran semi-immunity to invasion. This means they would not be in the same position as Iraq was - they could basically do whatever they liked; they'd be able to push up their terrorism support and similar activities with no consequence because it would be too risky for other nations to try to stop them. Eventually they might do something bad enough to be attacked, but having nuclear weapons changes the risk/benefit balance of an invasion quite a lot.
So are all our "allies" planning a similar strike as well? Israel probably is (they likely had a plan to nuke the entire Middle East way before this), but what about Germany, France, UK, etc.? Are they ready to start WWIII?
We all know Iran with a nuke is BAD, but what the HELL are they going to actually use it on? Israel? If they do, then Iran will promptly be destroyed. They're smart enough to know they can't just send out nukes willy-nilly. And if they attack our bases in the Middle East, again, they can't do that; Iran has an address, we know where to come for them.
I say this is just like the situation with North Korea. We KNOW that North Korea has nukes RIGHT NOW. And they would very much like to use them on us. But they don't, why? Because they know that if they did, they can say goodbye to their little communist "paradise" as they call their country.
So basically, the reason why Iran wants nukes is the same reason that North Korea does: they want the prestige. They want to be in the "club" of all the other countries, like us, with nukes. They also want to have leverage over other countries like North Korea has over us.
Before attacking Iran's bases, shouldn't we attack North Korea's bases? I mean, they got nukes right now. Aren't they clearly the bigger threat?
I don't think you're hearing what I'm saying. Yes, our military has plans on how to attack Iran. They probably also have plans for an attack on North Korea, as well as sevaral other nations that pose potential threats to the United States. Making these plans does not automatically mean that they will be implemented...but the plans are there just in case we do need to implement them. This kind of planning takes time and resources to draw up...and our military needs to have the plans ready and available before they start deploying troops and launching missiles.
And I have no doubt that several of our allies militaries have plans drawn up for a potential invation or military action (most especially Israel)...that's just the way things work.
The situation with North Korea is different, though. Do they pose a greater threat? Most definitely. But North Korea's nuclear capability is the reason we can't invade. An invasion of Iran is much more likely because they don't have nukes yet, and it is in everyone's best interests to keep it that way...because once Iran gets nuclear weapons, it's a whole different ball game...just like with North Korea. When a nation has nuclear weapons, a new element is added: we have to guarantee that we can destroy all of their nuclear weapons before they can launch them...or the doctrine of "acceptable losses" goes right out the window.
I have no doubt that Iran will launch an attack once they get nukes...it's just a question of who they'll attack first: the US or Israel...or somebody else who hacks them off (Denmark, maybe?). I don't know if you've noticed, but Ahmadinejad is more than just a bit off his rocker...all the more reason that it's a good thing that we're drawing up plans to take out their ability to manufacture nuclear weapons.
The main question is this: would you rather take out a potential nuclear threat...or go into another cold war? Mutually assured destruction isn't really something I'd like to play with with someone like Ahmadinejad with his finger on the button. At least we can be somewhat certain that Kim Jong Ill would rather keep his communist "paradise" than be annihilated...but when you have 72 virgins just waiting for you...who can say what'll happen?
You have some good points and you've almost won me over on this one, but the problem I see is that we could never put such a plan into action without horrible consequences. The Muslims in the Middle East have always wanted to unite - and it would be pretty damn bad if they united against us.
Pissing off a country with terrorist ties is not a good idea. Who's to say that they won't turn into another Taliban with terrorist training camps all over and send some of those terrorists over to us - then what do we do? Regime change?