US prepares military blitz against Iran's nuclear sites

[Justin_stacy]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/12/wiran12.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/12/ixnewstop.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48791

[Justin_stacy]

US prepares military blitz against Iran's nuclear sites
By Philip Sherwell in Washington
(Filed: 12/02/2006)

Strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for devastating bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against Iran's nuclear sites as a "last resort" to block Teheran's efforts to develop an atomic bomb.

Central Command and Strategic Command planners are identifying targets, assessing weapon-loads and working on logistics for an operation, the Sunday Telegraph has learnt.


Click to enlarge
They are reporting to the office of Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, as America updates plans for action if the diplomatic offensive fails to thwart the Islamic republic's nuclear bomb ambitions. Teheran claims that it is developing only a civilian energy programme.

"This is more than just the standard military contingency assessment," said a senior Pentagon adviser. "This has taken on much greater urgency in recent months."

The prospect of military action could put Washington at odds with Britain which fears that an attack would spark violence across the Middle East, reprisals in the West and may not cripple Teheran's nuclear programme. But the steady flow of disclosures about Iran's secret nuclear operations and the virulent anti-Israeli threats of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has prompted the fresh assessment of military options by Washington. The most likely strategy would involve aerial bombardment by long-distance B2 bombers, each armed with up to 40,000lb of precision weapons, including the latest bunker-busting devices. They would fly from bases in Missouri with mid-air refuelling.

The Bush administration has recently announced plans to add conventional ballistic missiles to the armoury of its nuclear Trident submarines within the next two years. If ready in time, they would also form part of the plan of attack.

Teheran has dispersed its nuclear plants, burying some deep underground, and has recently increased its air defences, but Pentagon planners believe that the raids could seriously set back Iran's nuclear programme.



Iran was last weekend reported to the United Nations Security Council by the International Atomic Energy Agency for its banned nuclear activities. Teheran reacted by announcing that it would resume full-scale uranium enrichment - producing material that could arm nuclear devices.

The White House says that it wants a diplomatic solution to the stand-off, but President George W Bush has refused to rule out military action and reaffirmed last weekend that Iran's nuclear ambitions "will not be tolerated".

Sen John McCain, the Republican front-runner to succeed Mr Bush in 2008, has advocated military strikes as a last resort. He said recently: "There is only only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option and that is a nuclear-armed Iran."

Senator Joe Lieberman, a Democrat, has made the same case and Mr Bush is expected to be faced by the decision within two years.

By then, Iran will be close to acquiring the knowledge to make an atomic bomb, although the construction will take longer. The President will not want to be seen as leaving the White House having allowed Iran's ayatollahs to go atomic.

In Teheran yesterday, crowds celebrating the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution chanted "Nuclear technology is our inalienable right" and cheered Mr Ahmadinejad when he said that Iran may reconsider membership of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

He was defiant over possible economic sanctions.

11 February 2006: Iran plant 'has restarted its nuclear bomb-making equipment'

[Dan Hollister]

Good. The last thing we need right now is Iran with nuclear weapons.

[duffe]

World War III is coming guys.

[Justin_stacy]

Irony isn't it. We bomb Iran to keep them from going nuclear, but the backlash from the bombing will probably be as volatile as Iran gaining the weapon in the first place.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[Dan Hollister]

World War III? Iran is not big or important enough to cause this by themselves. (There's an entire topic about this on the Politics forum. Read it.)

It's not irony. Do not even try to equate us to Iran. If Iran had the capability to nuke our entire country out of existence, they would gladly do so. (And destroy Israel in the process.)

We, however, do have this capability, but will not do so. Any strike we launch on them will not be nuclear, and we wouldn't be destroying their entire country.

The UN right now is totally in agreeance that we cannot allow a nuclear Iran.

Perhaps it is somewhat ironic to use weapons to thwart their weapons program, but one must realize that we would not be destroying their nation, only their nuclear sites, whereas Iran would gladly wipe out every man, woman, and child just about anywhere that doesn't abide by their standards.

[Cal Smith]

Irony isn't it. We bomb Iran to keep them from going nuclear, but the backlash from the bombing will probably be as volatile as Iran gaining the weapon in the first place.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I wouldnt think so. Iran has about as much support as Iraq did.

[duffe]

World War III? Iran is not big or important enough to cause this by themselves. (There's an entire topic about this on the Politics forum. Read it.)

It's not irony. Do not even try to equate us to Iran. If Iran had the capability to nuke our entire country out of existence, they would gladly do so. (And destroy Israel in the process.)

We, however, do have this capability, but will not do so. Any strike we launch on them will not be nuclear, and we wouldn't be destroying their entire country.

The UN right now is totally in agreeance that we cannot allow a nuclear Iran.

Perhaps it is somewhat ironic to use weapons to thwart their weapons program, but one must realize that we would not be destroying their nation, only their nuclear sites, whereas Iran would gladly wipe out every man, woman, and child just about anywhere that doesn't abide by their standards.
I said WWIII because of everything that happens in the world right now : the president of Iran is crazy, Iran is going nuclear, Hamas has won elections, the fact that a part of the Muslim world is very angry about cartoons, Irak...

[Dan Hollister]

Haha yes, but you realize that the US and Europe could squash all of those countries in a matter of minutes if it came to it. There wouldn't be much of a war.

Europe vs. China? That would be a war. But Iran vs. the UN would be a joke.

[Cal Smith]

I'd even argue that the middle east (muslim led countries) are to poor, and to fractioned to even be a huge military threat.

[Dan Hollister]

I still wouldn't trust them with a nuke.

[duffe]

These dudes just need a few nuclear bombs (Iran and others countries), kamikazes and they are ready for WWIII.. Look what they do in Irak, Afghanistan, Palestine... they don't have important means but they are still fighting.

[Dan Hollister]

Yes, but keep in mind that right now in Iraq, we aren't fighting to our full potential. We only have a handful of soldiers there, and we're intentionally trying to fight clean. We are attempting to minimize civillian casualties.

If, however, it came to the point where they had a bunch of nukes pointed at us, we wouldn't pussyfoot around with diplomacy, we'd whip out a few warheads and blow them into oblivian before they even knew what hit them. They would not have this same power. The US or any European country (minus Germany) could easily overpower a nation like Iran in a matter of minutes.

But the point is, we don't want to do that. (Yet.)

[Justin_stacy]

I wouldnt think so. Iran has about as much support as Iraq did.

Different situations, the Middle East is already inflamed due to the Iraqi war, and Iran, unlike Iraq, is not a secular state.

[selftitled85]

dumbest. idea. ever

[selftitled85]

I wouldnt think so. Iran has about as much support as Iraq did.

id say it has much less.

a strike on iran is the worst idea on the face of the earth.

iran is years away from acquiring any sort of nuclear weapons.

and who the hell are we to decide who gets nuclear technology when we are setting up a deal to completely undermine the npt by selling all sorts of nuclear objects to india?

seriously bombing iran is/would be the dumbest thing america could do. especially if it goes at it unilaterally.

[Love As Arson]

This would turn the Iranian youth, which embraces American culture, against us. Plus, if this were to turn into a ground war, we'd see massive amounts of foreign fighters going into Iran. I do not see it as one we can win.

[Cal Smith]

Different situations, the Middle East is already inflamed due to the Iraqi war, and Iran, unlike Iraq, is not a secular state.

But honestly what other serious military conteneders are going to come to the aid of Iran? I'm arguing this in the sense of their not being a WWIII from this.

[LeftWideOpen]

But honestly what other serious military conteneders are going to come to the aid of Iran? I'm arguing this in the sense of their not being a WWIII from this.

well if we keep pissing off the Chinese, who knows what they'll do. They are certainly against us going after Iran, since they've been reluctant to take any kind of action on the matter. For that matter, a World War is highly improbable if we just go after Iran. I'm highly against it because of moral reasons, but sadly we could go after them w/out any more resistence (internationally) than the Iraq war.

Domestically though, there would be an uproar. We don't have the military forces to do this, and if they tried to bring back a draft because of something like this, there'd be a huge uproar. Bottom line is, it won't happen. We're just trying to use our power to make them play by our rules.

So unless we ever go after one of the Western European powers, Japan, or China ..you won't see World War 3.

[Cal Smith]

well if we keep pissing off the Chinese, who knows what they'll do. They are certainly against us going after Iran, since they've been reluctant to take any kind of action on the matter. For that matter, a World War is highly improbable if we just go after Iran. I'm highly against it because of moral reasons, but sadly we could go after them w/out any more resistence (internationally) than the Iraq war.

China did vote for the referral, but I do doubt if it came down to it in months or years to come that China would support any type of military conflict and would probably veto any sort of resolution saying so.

Domestically though, there would be an uproar. We don't have the military forces to do this, and if they tried to bring back a draft because of something like this, there'd be a huge uproar. Bottom line is, it won't happen. We're just trying to use our power to make them play by our rules.

So unless we ever go after one of the Western European powers, Japan, or China ..you won't see World War 3.

I don't see the US doing this by themselves though if it came to it.

[Dan Hollister]

Here's my question to you guys that have "moral" objections to this: Would you allow Iran to nuke you and your family into oblivion because you feel it's "immoral" to stop them? Is us stopping them from acquiring nukes more immoral than the things they would actually do with the nukes?

[LeftWideOpen]

Here's my question to you guys that have "moral" objections to this: Would you allow Iran to nuke you and your family into oblivion because you feel it's "immoral" to stop them? Is us stopping them from acquiring nukes more immoral than the things they would actually do with the nukes?

there is no credible proof that they are attaining nuclear material for terrorist purposes. they arent trying to acquire weapons people, thats where you need to check yourself. they want the nuclear material and the U.S is jumping to conclusions because the leader is "crazy". they have adamently claimed they are using it for energy purposes only and were even in discussion with Russia about a compromise where the plants would be on Russia's soil but they'd be for Iran's energy use. We cant just go invade people's countries without probable cause because we're suspicious. It's dangerous precedent that we've already set and failed miserably at. We need to learn from our mistakes as a country.

[Cal Smith]

there is no credible proof that they are attaining nuclear material for terrorist purposes. they arent trying to acquire weapons people, thats where you need to check yourself. they want the nuclear material and the U.S is jumping to conclusions because the leader is "crazy". they have adamently claimed they are using it for energy purposes only and were even in discussion with Russia about a compromise where the plants would be on Russia's soil but they'd be for Iran's energy use. We cant just go invade people's countries without probable cause because we're suspicious. It's dangerous precedent that we've already set and failed miserably at. We need to learn from our mistakes as a country.

You can use light water nuclear reactors and get nuclear power without enriching uranium. If they truly wanted nuclear energy this is the most obvious, viable option without causing problems. I'd also be willing to bet if they went this route they could get funding from the international community to help pay for it as a deal. Iran is not attempting this. They are using heavey water so anyone in there right mind would not buy it. Plus the fact that they've found weapons plans including missiles in which to hold nuclear warhead doesnt bold well for them. Europe nor the US is not jumping to any conclusions.

[selftitled85]

Here's my question to you guys that have "moral" objections to this: Would you allow Iran to nuke you and your family into oblivion because you feel it's "immoral" to stop them? Is us stopping them from acquiring nukes more immoral than the things they would actually do with the nukes?

here is a nice little rebuttal question...

would you preemptively strike them killing a lot of innocent people and pissing off the rest of the world that doesnt already hate us because of a hunch you have?

also...

do you trust your intel enough to preemptively strike a state against many other nations beliefs...one being india one of our biggest allies...after the debacle of iraq?

also...

if your wrong...because you probably are...are you willing risk destroying almost your whole parties chance of reelection in either of the houses and the president because of a hunch?

[Cal Smith]

here is a nice little rebuttal question...

would you preemptively strike them killing a lot of innocent people and pissing off the rest of the world that doesnt already hate us because of a hunch you have?

first it's not a hunch. when you characterize it like this you make it seem like there's no evidence. rather the evidence is loaded against this not being for civilian use.

also...

do you trust your intel enough to preemptively strike a state against many other nations beliefs...one being india one of our biggest allies...after the debacle of iraq?

Legit question after Iraq. That's why the IAEA was there and they can't get there job done due to difficulties from Iran. Plus it's a legal question in the sense that they signed to NPT and if found to have broken that and to continue break should face harsh consequences and possibly military action regardless.

also...

if your wrong...because you probably are...are you willing risk destroying almost your whole parties chance of reelection in either of the houses and the president because of a hunch?

So are you actualy willing to take a bet with someone that Iran is only using this for peaceful nuclear power and not military? Also this goes far beyond party affiliation and if you are even considering how your party will fair if it takes action is the dumbest thing ever.

[Cal Smith]

there is no credible proof that they are attaining nuclear material for terrorist purposes. they arent trying to acquire weapons people, thats where you need to check yourself. they want the nuclear material and the U.S is jumping to conclusions because the leader is "crazy". they have adamently claimed they are using it for energy purposes only and were even in discussion with Russia about a compromise where the plants would be on Russia's soil but they'd be for Iran's energy use. We cant just go invade people's countries without probable cause because we're suspicious. It's dangerous precedent that we've already set and failed miserably at. We need to learn from our mistakes as a country.

Also this is not just jumping to conclusions because the leader is "crazy". This guy hasnt been President that long and the concerns have been there for years, even prior to Bush. Clinton in 2000 signed the Iran non proliferation act.

[selftitled85]

Legit question after Iraq. That's why the IAEA was there and they can't get there job done due to difficulties from Iran. Plus it's a legal question in the sense that they signed to NPT and if found to have broken that and to continue break should face harsh consequences and possibly military action regardless.


So are you actualy willing to take a bet with someone that Iran is only using this for peaceful nuclear power and not military? Also this goes far beyond party affiliation and if you are even considering how your party will fair if it takes action is the dumbest thing ever.[/QUOTE]


america is on the brink of completely undermining the npt already with the deal to india. so the npt is pretty much worthless now.


if the plan backfires the public will show no mercy to whomever voted yes to action against iran. id say there is a higher probability of democrats going against the plan than republicans. so im sorry for generalizing.

[Cal Smith]

america is on the brink of completely undermining the npt already with the deal to india. so the npt is pretty much worthless now.


if the plan backfires the public will show no mercy to whomever voted yes to action against iran. id say there is a higher probability of democrats going against the plan than republicans. so im sorry for generalizing.

Please explain how it's being undermined ecspecially considering india never signed the NPT and already has a nuclear weapon?

Also the deal from the US perspective is trying to somewhat disarm India from using nuclear energy for military purposes and get them under more international supversion. If anything it is an attempt to get a foot hold on India because they DIDNT sign the NPT. I honestly don't know what you're talking about with regards to this.

Also would you really bet that Iran will only be using nuclear material for peaceful purposes and not for military purposes?

[FScott]

Russia said if the US attacks Iran that they'll attack us

[Kram41]

Yeah, so we're going to blow up their nuclear weapons plants, and that will be the end of it. One and done deal... :wall_nut: Whoever mentioned learning from our past mistakes hit the nail on the head.

[Cal Smith]

Russia said if the US attacks Iran that they'll attack us

You have a link because i find that really hard to believe that something like this would be coming from Putins admin.?

[Cal Smith]

Also I dont see a military option even being in play for a couple of years. A lot can change between now and then.

[Dan Hollister]

Speculation? There is no speculation folks, we know they are doing this. As Cal says, the method they are claiming does not scientifically check out. There are ways to get nuclear power in far less invasive ways than what they are doing. Also, it's pretty damn suspicious that they would continue to build this "innocent" nuclear program after threats with military involvement. You'd think they'd at least shut the project down for a while to talk things over with us and prove it to us.

And yes, the fact that the new dictator has publicly stated he'd love to blow Israel off the map if he had the firepower to do so is not an observation to be overlooked.

Also, the UN is fully behind taking military measures if Iran does not back down. So the theory about the world "hating us" kind of goes out the window, since the security council is just as scared as we are about this ordeal, if not moreso.

It is also true that Russia does indeed support Iran. However, Russia does not have the infrastructure to fund a war right now. They're still dirt poor from the Cold War.

[dai the flu]

iran acquired plans for nuclear warheads on the black market. thats not speculation. and it doesnt take a genius to figure out what they wanted those plans for.

[Justin_stacy]

But honestly what other serious military conteneders are going to come to the aid of Iran? I'm arguing this in the sense of their not being a WWIII from this.

Serious? Probably none, but that doesn't mean a real conflict won't ensue. The terrorist in Iraq aren't "serious" contenders but they've been able to bog down the US military for 36 months. People who think they're fighting for something (i.e. religion) are going to be a nuisance regardless of how strong, militarily, they are.

And I never said it would start WWIII, I said it would make things just as volatile by bombing them as it would to let them proceed. Personally, I do think we should bomb them, but the consequences are going to be worse, due to Iran's supposed religious stance, then the invasion of Iraq, original, was.

[xllirikx]

As much as I dislike war, Bush, or the current Iranian nuclear policy - this is not an overly legitimate site. Read the other articles.

[Love As Arson]

Here's my question to you guys that have "moral" objections to this: Would you allow Iran to nuke you and your family into oblivion because you feel it's "immoral" to stop them? Is us stopping them from acquiring nukes more immoral than the things they would actually do with the nukes?
Do not use emotional arguments in a debate.

[Brownpants06]

Haha yes, but you realize that the US and Europe could squash all of those countries in a matter of minutes if it came to it. There wouldn't be much of a war.

Europe vs. China? That would be a war. But Iran vs. the UN would be a joke.


China vs. anyone would be a world war. That country is going to take over the world someday before I die I bet.

[Justin_stacy]

China vs. anyone would be a world war. That country is going to take over the world someday before I die I bet.

i think its more likely that you'll see a total collapse of China before you die. communism won't last when people the aren't impoverished.

[open mind]

World War III? Iran is not big or important enough to cause this by themselves. (There's an entire topic about this on the Politics forum. Read it.)

It's not irony. Do not even try to equate us to Iran. If Iran had the capability to nuke our entire country out of existence, they would gladly do so. (And destroy Israel in the process.)

We, however, do have this capability, but will not do so. Any strike we launch on them will not be nuclear, and we wouldn't be destroying their entire country.

The UN right now is totally in agreeance that we cannot allow a nuclear Iran.

Perhaps it is somewhat ironic to use weapons to thwart their weapons program, but one must realize that we would not be destroying their nation, only their nuclear sites, whereas Iran would gladly wipe out every man, woman, and child just about anywhere that doesn't abide by their standards.
i'm not saying iran is filled with angels, but don't you think your taking the rhetoric a bit to far here?
also iran isn't suicidal even if they developed A bomb or even ten bombs, they aren't crazy enough to hit us with them because they know the response would be cataclysmic...........mmmmmmmm i like that word.