We would hit those
US ‘plans nuclear strikes against Iran’
THE administration of US 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 reported in its April 17 issue.
The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said that Mr 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…
Aren’t they tried using the same old stupid method?? First, they paint him as sane, then they’d have a little trouble arguing for bombing them.
Remember: “Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks and has Weapons of Mass Destruction, so we must bomb him!”
The absolute sad truth is that most Americans will give Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran and will allow him to bomb without any justified reason.
One former defence 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.
Good luck with that… and welcome back to Ice Age.
This is one of those quotes that’s either laughably wrong or that indicates the complete and utter stupidity and arrogance of the military, signalling that US learned nothing from Iraq or other failed endeavors.
Some operations, apparently aimed in part at intimidating Iran, are already under way. American Naval tactical aircraft, operating from carriers in the Arabian Sea, have been flying simulated nuclear-weapons delivery missions—rapid ascending maneuvers known as “over the shoulder” bombing—since last summer, the former official said, within range of Iranian coastal radars.
Last month, in a paper given at a conference on Middle East security in Berlin, Colonel Sam Gardiner, a military analyst who taught at the National War College before retiring from the Air Force, in 1987, provided an estimate of what would be needed to destroy Iran’s nuclear program. Working from satellite photographs of the known facilities, Gardiner estimated that at least four hundred targets would have to be hit.
Excuse me, say that again sir! He added:
I don’t think a U.S. military planner would want to stop there. Iran probably has two chemical-production plants. We would hit those. We would want to hit the medium-range ballistic missiles that have just recently been moved closer to Iraq. There are fourteen airfields with sheltered aircraft. . . . We’d want to get rid of that threat. We would want to hit the assets that could be used to threaten Gulf shipping. That means targeting the cruise-missile sites and the Iranian diesel submarines. . . . Some of the facilities may be too difficult to target even with penetrating weapons. The U.S. will have to use Special Operations units.
Guys, if this thing happen, this will be the end… of everything. Not Iran, not the region, but the world.
History tells us that empires eventually dies. But this will be the first time in history that the empire will kill everyone before committing a suicide.
The stories from the April 17th edition are available online… http://www.newyorker.com/
Enjoy this post? Get future updates sent to you for free! Join by 
19 Comments on “We would hit those”
The New Yorker is not exactly an objective source of information about the Bush administration.
In any case, this article looks like a lot of hype and little substance. Of course the administration is planning to attack Iran. The Pentegon makes plans in various levels of detail for almost *every* contingency. The thought that there might be some pretty specific plans for Iran seems reasonable based on Iran’s recent activities and crazy pronouncements from one of its leaders.
Concerned:
who said that the citizens allowed to see the Plans of the administration ??
Abed Hamdan, I don’t understand your question.
Bunker-busting bombs are not nuclear. They are very big bombs using conventional explosives.
The problem is to find planes big enough to carry them. The US may have to buy planes from the Russians.
As to the use of such a strategy - the destruction of Saddam’s nuclear plant by the Israelis was very effective.
We should all be working hard to _reduce_ the number of countries with nuclear weapons, not allowing them to spread. There is absolutely no reason other than mindless machismo for Iran to have nuclear weapons.
Very disturbing tone, Don Cox. I’m saying this if it’s your believe and support for this strategy.
You are saying that the US problem is how to bomb others, not if they should do that in first place. It is also very biased strategy to claim US justice to apply on everyone but Israel. So, Iran is not suppose to have nukes (which I agree to), but it is fine for Israel to have them. Not only that, but for Israel to bomb countries in the neighboring region then come and claim that they are not safe.
How do you want to live in peace if you are the one who is attacking others and claiming the victim?
Haitham,
Just returned after a hiatus and am glad the see the idiots have returned. They must be Rumsfeld’s answer to cracking into the blogging business. Hire a few NSA, CIA, or otherwise far too patriotic to be sane folks to spin the grand ole U.S. of A.
Concerned,
I suggest that you murder everyone that you don’t like, even just a little bit. Use a handgun. Cheap, effective, second Amendment, and all that. You can start with that neighbor that barely says hello to you. He must be up to no good. I tell you, it will solve ALL of your problems. After you do that, you should murder everyone that has a handgun. After all, these people have the potential to harm you. I’m sure if you ask politely, the NRA will supply you with a list of its members with handguns. If they fail to comply, promptly visit their offices and shoot them dead, too. And the shotgun owners, as well. Yes, kill them all. The world will be a much better place when it is inhabited by you and you alone. Oh, so much better.
Wouldn’t you agree?
Raymond: I made no claim as to whether it was sensible or not to initiate an attack on Iran. What I pointed out was that a claim that the US is ‘planning’ an attack is not the same thing as the US advocating an attack nor is it evidence that the attack plans have reached any sort of operational status. It just means that someone somewhere is making plans. Anybody who finds that surprising isn’t thinking too hard.
The Pentagon is *always* planning for contingencies. I’m sure Iran has planners who have discussed how to attack Israel and Iraq and how to blockade the Straights of Hormuz and so on including attacking the US.
I’m not sure why you think I would go around killing anyone for no reason and I certainly don’t see how your analogy captures any of the relevant details regarding Iran. If this neighbor of mine was constantly shouting that he was going to wipe some other neighbor (a friend of mine) from the face of the earth and was blaming my religion for all that is wrong in the world and claimed I was the Great Satan and he was seen to frequent the local gun shop and was building artillery pieces (but claimed to just be a collector) and the police department said that they would send a strongly worded letter to the neighbor but nothing else and the neighbor had in the past taken members of my family hostage for over a year, then yes maybe I would buy a gun (or two or three or…), learn how to use it and I would certainly inform my neighbor that he was making me very nervous and that if he didn’t explain and change his behavior to my satisfaction that I might get an itchy trigger finger.
Of course there are other ways to deal with the situation: maybe I could convince the police to actually do their job, maybe I could convince the family members of this neighbor to take care of the situation, maybe I could hire armed guards to patrol the borders of my property. Regardless, I would probably spend some time planning how to eliminate the neighbor, just in case.
And before you point out the flaws in my analogy, I agree with you. There are flaws in my analogy, it is *just* an analogy. It seems a little more accurate than yours though.
Hasn’t America learnt any lessons from its war in Afghanistan and in Iraq? Hasn’t it learnt that its policy of strength and oppression resulted in the spreading of extremism and of terrorism? How long will it take them to understand that they have begun an era of injustice and jungle law?
How long will it take America to learn that its war in Iraq and the one before it in Afghanistan have produced but more extremism and terrorism and hatred?
During the Cold War, the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) was used to repel both the Soviet Union and the United States from the precipice of nuclear war. The theory is predicated on the believe that both sides want to continue to exist and that both sides are rational and predictable. A key tenet of that theory is the idea that both sides present a credible threat to the other. Each side has to believe that the other side will destroy them if they launch a first strike.
Now switch to thinking about the US and Iran. If Iran obtains nuclear weapons, either by constructing them or by purchasing them from some third party, I think it is reasonable to believe that the US (and everyone else) would want Iran to be deterred from using those weapons. If we consider that those in power in Iran are rational and therefore deterrable then MAD theory requires that we present a credible threat to Iran, that we *plan* to use nuclear weapons against Iran and that we publicize that plan in order to deter them from using the weapons. France did just this a few weeks back when they reiterated their policy on nuclear deterrence. On the other hand if we do not consider those in power in Iran as rational and therefore not predictable and not deterrable, then we probably should be planning to attack Iran to prevent the acquisition of the weapons.
In either case the US would be planning to attack Iran, perhaps with tactical nuclear weapons. I find this type of theorizing just a bit disquieting. It would be much better for everyone if Ahmadinejad would tone down the rhetoric and crazy talk about taking over the world and if he would stop playing games with the IAEA.
The most disgusting news I’ve read about Mubarak:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060410/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_arab_worries
The Iranians are Shiites.The Palestinians are mostly Sunnis.Yet the Iranians are standing by the Palestinians becoz they are Muslims.Not becoz they are Arabs or Sunnis or Shiites.
Maybe Mubarak should ignore the countribution of the Iranian/Persian Scientists to the Muslim world simply becoz they believed that the Muhammad’s blood should be the Caliphs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iranian_scientists
Maybe next time Mubarak will start to question the loyalty of the Arab Christians in Egypt towards their own country.
Can somebody please kick him out office?Thanks.
My apologies for the rant yesterday. I try not to do that, as it squashes the dialogue.
I think the US has too much of a hangover from the Cold War with Russia, with many believing the leaders of foreign “enemy” countries have their fingers poised over a big red button, waiting for provocation. Surely Ahmadinejad realises the consequenses of using nuclear weapons would result in the complete obliteration of Iran and most of the world. I urge everyone to read the IAEA Board of Governor’s report regarding their ongoing investigation of Iran’s nuclear program before drawing conclusions.
Realise, while reading this, that the US is probably not fully transparent in its own nuclear program. http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2006/gov2006-15.pdf
According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (http://www.thebulletin.org/nuclear_weapons_data/), the US still has nearly 10000 nuclear warheads in its stockpile. Russia is next with about 5800. Britain has fewer than 200. China, 120. India, an estimated 40-50. Pakistan, 24-48.
Let the US be the first to disarm their massive nuclear arsenal, then maybe they will stand some credibility in telling others to do the same. Nearly 10000 warheads is a little excessive (and hypocritical), is it not?
Surely? Isn’t that the problem. No one is sure at all about Ahmadinejad.
Concerned is 100% dead on correct. We have to plan for such an attack, and the Pentagon does so. Why? Because if the need arises, there has to be intense preparation. That should not be done on short notice. Iran is known for sabre-rattling. Unlike other sabre-rattlers, though, they have a habit of thrusting it from time to time. Ahmadinejad is not predictable and (despite hyperbolic statements to the contrary), the US is a stable, reliable nation (like most others, including most Muslim nations). In fact, it is likely that Ahmadinejad is a terrorist himself, based on the accounts of the US hostages from 1980-81. This is more than just a little unsettling.
Does the US’s hardline response to terrorism breed resistance? Of course. Good. That means we’re doing the right thing. If we made terrorists happy, that means we are traitors to all that is good and noble. Terrorists and extremists hate what is good. So, Tamim, if we are breeding more hatred from terrorists and other extremists, there is no better proof that what we are doing is right.
But we are sure that Israel and the US want to bomb Iran.
Philip: “So, Tamim, if we are breeding more hatred from terrorists and other extremists, there is no better proof that what we are doing is right.”
Excuse me, Philip, but shouldn’t the goal be to reduce the number of terrorists instead of creating more of them?!?
On the other hand, if you create more extremists and terrorists then, statistically, you increase the chances of catching one or two of them. I am sure your Emperator would be happy to use them as tropheas to show his simple-minded followers that he is winning the ‘War on Terror’.
What is going to be next? Will you suggest to demolish all buildings on Manhattan as an effective way of preventing a terrorist attack from destroying buildings on Manhattan?
1. To concerned: Semour Hersh is a very reliable source. He predicted much of what happened in Iraq, and broke the story of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam.
2. There is no less reason for Iran to have nuclear weapons than it is for the United States to have them. Everyone wants them as insurance against the others who have them. Iran is no different. The U.S. has no right to dictate which countries have nuclear weapons.
3. The government of Iran is one of the better governments in the world. Yes, they have tortured political prisoners, which is the most heinous act a government can commit. So has the United States. For the average citizen, Iran is not at all a bad place to live. There is more freedom of speech there than in most countries in the world.
4. Yes, surely Ahmadinejad realizes the consequences of using nuclear weapons, as he realizes that the sky is blue. He is a democratically elected president. He is not insane. Yes, he believes that he knows God’s will better than others do–so does George Bush. (Of course he is incorrect about the Holocaust, but an imperfect knowledge of history is categorically different than an imperfect understanding of ordinary cause and effect. The latter makes a person insane; the former just makes him wrong.)
5. No one on earth ‘hates what is good.’ Don’t we all wish life were that simple, that there were evil people out there with no morality at all who we could kill with impunity. We are all just human beings. None of us is fit to sit in judgement of the others. Bush killing Iranians or Iraqis for his own agenda is morally identical to Muslim extremists killing Americans to promote their agenda.
Well put, Laura. I concur.