I'd reallly rather not. An underground level detonation will dig a really
big hole, throwing hundreds of thousands of tons of dirt (now highly
radioactive) into the air, and probably into the stratosphere. Being above
the weather, it will drift for thousands of miles before gravity drags it
back to the surface. Millions of square miles of terrain will be
contaminated for the forseeable future, at least decades, perhaps
centuries.
To make this nightmare even worse, the proposed targets are nuclear
refining
facilities, which will no doubt have hundreds of tons of raw materials
onsite. These will only aggrevate an already disasterous situation,
perhaps
beyond our capability to clean it up ever. Ten thoudsand Chernobyls, all
in
one spot. We are so Boned.

Charly

dreamwalker wrote:

"The Last 2445 DaysT ?" <stargatedecember2012@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1144643394.071271.100770@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
US considers use of nuclear weapons against Iran

Sat Apr 8, 2:24 AM ET

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.

---0---

Monday, April 10, 2006

Invasion of Iran being plotted

By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: The dramatic disclosure by American investigative reporter
Seymour Hersch that an invasion of Iran is being readied has been lent
strength by another report on the same lines published by the
Washington Post on Sunday.

According to this report, quoting US officials and independent
analysts, the Bush administration is studying options for military
strikes against Iran as part of a broader strategy of coercive
diplomacy to pressure Tehran to abandon its alleged nuclear development
programme.

No attack seems likely in the short term, as many specialists seriously
doubt an attack's effectiveness. However, preparations are underway
just in case.

The Post report says that Pentagon and CIA planners are exploring
possible targets, such as the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and
the uranium conversion facility at Isfahan. While a land invasion is
not on the cards, alternatives range from a limited air strike at key
nuclear sites to a more extensive bombing campaign to destroy military
and political targets. Some military officers and experts are alarmed
at the prospect of a strike on Iran, as they fear it could inflame
international opinion against the United States while making US troops
in Iraq targets for retaliation. One Pentagon policy official says air
strikes are the "only real option ahead."

The report says US officials continue to pursue the diplomatic course
but privately seems increasingly sceptical that it would succeed. The
administration is also coming under pressure from Israel, which has
warned the Bush team that Iran is closer to developing a nuclear bomb
than Washington thinks. "Bush and his team have calibrated their
rhetoric to give the impression that the United States may yet resort
to force," it notes. Some preliminary steps that go beyond planning
have been already taken. Israel is said to be preparing as well. The
Israeli government recently leaked a contingency plan for attacking on
its own if the United States does not.

According to the Post, "Although US intelligence agencies estimate
Iran is about a decade away from having a nuclear bomb, Israelis
believe a critical breakthrough could occur soon. They have told US
officials that Iran is testing an elaborate cascade of centrifuges."
What the Israelis are saying is this year - unless they are pressed
into abandoning the programme - would be the year they will master the
engineering problem, said a US official.

However, several specialists and military officials are against
strikes. "The Pentagon is arguing forcefully against it because it is
so constrained in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Reuel Marc Gerecht, a
former CIA Middle East specialist.

But, since several Iranian nuclear facilities are underground, Pentagon
planners are studying how to penetrate deep targets and contemplating
tactical nuclear devices.

---0---
Can you imagine those secondary explosions? LMFAO.

I'd reallly rather not. An underground level detonation will dig a really
big hole, throwing hundreds of thousands of tons of dirt (now highly
radioactive) into the air, and probably into the stratosphere. Being above
the weather, it will drift for thousands of miles before gravity drags it
back to the surface. Millions of square miles of terrain will be
contaminated for the forseeable future, at least decades, perhaps centuries.
To make this nightmare even worse, the proposed targets are nuclear refining
facilities, which will no doubt have hundreds of tons of raw materials
onsite. These will only aggrevate an already disasterous situation, perhaps
beyond our capability to clean it up ever. Ten thoudsand Chernobyls, all in
one spot. We are so Boned.

Charly

dreamwalker wrote:

"The Last 2445 DaysT ?" <stargatedecember2012@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1144643394.071271.100770@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
US considers use of nuclear weapons against Iran

Sat Apr 8, 2:24 AM ET

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.

---0---

Monday, April 10, 2006

Invasion of Iran being plotted

By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: The dramatic disclosure by American investigative reporter
Seymour Hersch that an invasion of Iran is being readied has been lent
strength by another report on the same lines published by the
Washington Post on Sunday.

According to this report, quoting US officials and independent
analysts, the Bush administration is studying options for military
strikes against Iran as part of a broader strategy of coercive
diplomacy to pressure Tehran to abandon its alleged nuclear development
programme.

No attack seems likely in the short term, as many specialists seriously
doubt an attack's effectiveness. However, preparations are underway
just in case.

The Post report says that Pentagon and CIA planners are exploring
possible targets, such as the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and
the uranium conversion facility at Isfahan. While a land invasion is
not on the cards, alternatives range from a limited air strike at key
nuclear sites to a more extensive bombing campaign to destroy military
and political targets. Some military officers and experts are alarmed
at the prospect of a strike on Iran, as they fear it could inflame
international opinion against the United States while making US troops
in Iraq targets for retaliation. One Pentagon policy official says air
strikes are the "only real option ahead."

The report says US officials continue to pursue the diplomatic course
but privately seems increasingly sceptical that it would succeed. The
administration is also coming under pressure from Israel, which has
warned the Bush team that Iran is closer to developing a nuclear bomb
than Washington thinks. "Bush and his team have calibrated their
rhetoric to give the impression that the United States may yet resort
to force," it notes. Some preliminary steps that go beyond planning
have been already taken. Israel is said to be preparing as well. The
Israeli government recently leaked a contingency plan for attacking on
its own if the United States does not.

According to the Post, "Although US intelligence agencies estimate
Iran is about a decade away from having a nuclear bomb, Israelis
believe a critical breakthrough could occur soon. They have told US
officials that Iran is testing an elaborate cascade of centrifuges."
What the Israelis are saying is this year - unless they are pressed
into abandoning the programme - would be the year they will master the
engineering problem, said a US official.

However, several specialists and military officials are against
strikes. "The Pentagon is arguing forcefully against it because it is
so constrained in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Reuel Marc Gerecht, a
former CIA Middle East specialist.

But, since several Iranian nuclear facilities are underground, Pentagon
planners are studying how to penetrate deep targets and contemplating
tactical nuclear devices.

---0---
Can you imagine those secondary explosions? LMFAO.

I'd reallly rather not. An underground level detonation will dig a really
big hole, throwing hundreds of thousands of tons of dirt (now highly
radioactive) into the air, and probably into the stratosphere. Being above
the weather, it will drift for thousands of miles before gravity drags it
back to the surface. Millions of square miles of terrain will be
contaminated for the forseeable future, at least decades, perhaps centuries.
To make this nightmare even worse, the proposed targets are nuclear refining
facilities, which will no doubt have hundreds of tons of raw materials
onsite. These will only aggrevate an already disasterous situation, perhaps
beyond our capability to clean it up ever. Ten thoudsand Chernobyls, all in
one spot. We are so Boned.

Charly