US plans nuke hit on Iran: Report


PDA






the Juggernaut
April 10, 2006, 01:27 AM
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060410/asp/foreign/story_6080051.asp
If this is true, then I firmly believe that Bush is off his freaking rocker. The results of something like this would be WWIII (or IV depending if you count the Cold War as III). He says he wants to prevent it but all he will do is cause it. If that does not happen then we can surely expect nuke hits in the US by either terrorists or N. Korea (once we show we are willing to preemptively nuke people we don't like I can't see them holding back). Start buying up some ammo. SHTF may be right around the damn corner. Freaking wacko. I really hope that if this order is given the Generals refuse the order on the basis that this order is an unlawful order. This freaks me out how willing the Bush administration is to get us into 3 wars at once.

If you enjoyed reading about "US plans nuke hit on Iran: Report" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
crazed_ss
April 10, 2006, 01:32 AM
Gotta Nuke Something.. - Nelson

mp510
April 10, 2006, 01:33 AM
I hope that this isn't true, especially since I have trusted Bush on foreign policy for most of his administration. I bet that we would avoid launching the Birds, due to the repercussions, and our goal to act diplomatically with Iran. Also, the government has basically said that the report was blow out of proportion, but I guess you never know.

Jason M.
April 10, 2006, 01:34 AM
The title should read, "Bush alleged to be considering tactical-bunk-buster nuke to disable future Iranian nuclear program." It might not be as PR friendly as a conventional bunker buster, but it's a far cry from nuking a city full of civilians like the words "Nuke hit" suggests.

Domino
April 10, 2006, 01:36 AM
edited...

beerslurpy
April 10, 2006, 01:36 AM
Wow that will certainly distract us from the immigration mess.

WayneConrad
April 10, 2006, 01:40 AM
The military plans everything. They plan making invasions, fending off invations, launching nukes, receiving nukes. They make plans for everything they can think of anywhere they can imagine it.

Put these plans for dealing with Iran on a long shelf with all the other plans and contingencies for all other parts of the world. What does it look like then?

Heck, we had plans for slugging it out with the USSR, had worse come to worse. Why is it less alarming that we've got plans for slugging it out with Iran, should worse come to worse?

Domino
April 10, 2006, 01:40 AM
If that does not happen then we can surely expect nuke hits in the US by either terrorists or N. Korea

Not only is the topic of your thread extremely unlikely, this remark is just silly. If terrosist currently had the ability to discharge a nuclear weapon inside the U.S., they would have already done it. Seriously, do you honestly believe that terrorist need a reason to kill Americans? If you do, than you are not in touch with reality.

Also, North Korea is only capable of firing a nuclear missle at Japan, they do not even begin to have the capability to launch an ICBM at the U.S. Iran has to believe that there is going to be a severe response to any attempt made by them to obtain a nuclear weapon.

So, relax, take a chill pill, and don't believe everything you read. You appear to be a little unstable, perhaps a dose of reality would help you considerably. ;)

ConstitutionCowboy
April 10, 2006, 01:50 AM
These bunker-busters are a far cry from something like what was used in WW II. These only destroy what they hit. That is why they are called "tactical" and not "strategic". A strategic nuke is for maximum effect such as taking out a city - tactical is for specific targets.

Woody

"I pledge allegiance to the rights that made and keep me free. I will preserve and defend those rights for all who live in this, the country founded on the belief and principles that those rights are inalienable and essential to the pursuit and preservation of life, liberty, and happiness." B.E.Wood

MadMag
April 10, 2006, 01:59 AM
Where is Harry Truman when you need him?....just joking.:D

I agree that Bush would not go to direct use of nuclear weapons. That would be crazy.

But I do think the threat to our country of hand (or vehicle) carried nuclear weapons is real. The issue is that the technology to construct a nuclear weapon is known…it is the material that is hard to get. The critical mass can be less than 50 lbs…if you are willing to do away with shielding. So, that’s a real threat.

I notice that Homeland Security is talking more & more these days about hand carried nuke threats.

el44vaquero
April 10, 2006, 02:03 AM
I wonder if they have a plan for defending ourselves from armor-plated bears?

Dmack_901
April 10, 2006, 02:09 AM
propaghanda != news

MadMag
April 10, 2006, 02:09 AM
I wonder if they have a plan for defending ourselves from armor-plated bears?

Of course we do. My Colt 1911 .45ACP will go through at least two armor-plated bears at a time & knock down a third. :p

Hope you are not talking about more than 8 bears at a time!

Ok, I didn't count right. Thats 16 dead + 8 down bears per mag.= 24. I carry two back-up mags...so, well I am from Kentucky and those are high numbers for me, but it will be a lot of dead bears.

the Juggernaut
April 10, 2006, 02:31 AM
Not only is the topic of your thread extremely unlikely, this remark is just silly. If terrosist currently had the ability to discharge a nuclear weapon inside the U.S., they would have already done it. Seriously, do you honestly believe that terrorist need a reason to kill Americans? If you do, than you are not in touch with reality.

Also, North Korea is only capable of firing a nuclear missle at Japan, they do not even begin to have the capability to launch an ICBM at the U.S. Iran has to believe that there is going to be a severe response to any attempt made by them to obtain a nuclear weapon.

So, relax, take a chill pill, and don't believe everything you read. You appear to be a little unstable, perhaps a dose of reality would help you considerably.If you would have read the first words of my post they say "If this is true..." Since you lack comprehension skills I am not surprised at your snotty little remarks.

As for terrorists needing a reason to attack Americans, that is exactly what the Al Qaeda group does. They didn't just wake up one morning thinking what a nice sunny day it is and how fun it would be to attack Americans and America. They have reasons.

Also if you simply write Bin Laden of as a nut then you underestimate him. You may not like him but look at what he says. Use some logic. The one thing that I know about Bin Laden from reading transcripts of his speechs is that he has always told us what he is going to do before he does it. He also articulates his reasons for it. I would suggest you read "Imperial Hubris" or watch this video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3618572605592948640&q=imperial+hubris&pl=true). The author/speaker is the man who had been tracking Bin Laden with the CIA for longer than probably any other Westerner. He's got some very good points.

Zundfolge
April 10, 2006, 02:38 AM
I'm sure the Calcutta Telegraph has people inside the whitehouse :rolleyes:

Mr.V.
April 10, 2006, 03:37 AM
I'm sure the Calcutta Telegraph has people inside the whitehouse
They are just reporting on this article by Seymour Hersh:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact
He basically says that the Bush administration has a hard-on for war (as if we already didn't know), wants to go to war but will put on a show of diplomacy (I'm still looking for something new here...), and is bandying about the possibility of using nuclear weapons (again...articles like this discussed before Afghanistan and Iraq the possiblity of using them but in reality weren't).

Fortunately, I've learned to worrying and love the bomb.

yojimbo
April 10, 2006, 03:46 AM
the Bush administration has a hard-on for war I wish the Bush Administration had the luxury of starting a war with the Arab world. Unfortunately, they (meaning certain Arab leaders and radicals) started it, and Bush must play the hand he is being dealt. You may not like how he plays it, but don't imagine he is starting the card game.

Manedwolf
April 10, 2006, 05:02 AM
These only destroy what they hit. That is why they are called "tactical" and not "strategic".

Please check facts. The DoD itself released findings that a bunker-buster hit on North Korea, since it is a GROUND STRIKE that throws up a plume of irradiated dirt...could cause "up to a million casualties" downwind, in China, even Japan.

That's destroying only what's hit, hm? Why do you think they're going for conventional Really Big Bombs again with the Nevada test?

LAK
April 10, 2006, 07:44 AM
Iran hasn't been blessed with the right to determine it's own path - unlike India - by the Global Socialists, and things like 9/11 are catching up with Comrade Bush (along with his cronies) who need another good media distraction. As a bonus it will make them all alot of money at our further expense. And that is if it does not start WW3; if Russia does indeed have more on the ground in Iran than is believed, they might well turn Tel Aviv and Haifa to glass.

----------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

longhorngunman
April 10, 2006, 08:14 AM
It seems many on here prefer the "let's stick our head in the sand" policy of dealing with crazed regimes and terrorists instead of confronting them and doing whatever is necessary. I hope Iran gets the drift that everything is on the table.;)

Ezekiel
April 10, 2006, 08:41 AM
Personally, I do not mind at all the concept of having a "plan" for nuking other countries as that would seem to imply that some study has been made of the repercussion(s).

"Planning" doesn't appear to be an Administration strong suit. :banghead:

I'm sure, somewhere, there is a scenario for if/when Canada invades us: "plans" are meaningless beyond their appraisal of an exercise.

Basically, I'm no more worried today then I was yesterday, perhaps less so.

allmons
April 10, 2006, 08:53 AM
Every administration has tactical planners prepare for EVERY eventuality, no matter how far fetched an action or response. If the preps for every President
were known, people would "be aghast", even though only about 1% of the planning is ever seriously considered.

The best explanation of this I have seen comes from the Marines -
"Be polite, be courteous and make a plan to kill everyone you meet."

:)

WT
April 10, 2006, 09:56 AM
I think a nuclear bunker buster is an excellent idea. Cost effective and it will save the lives of American troops. We have weapons to spare and they are reaching the end of their shelf life. Might as well use them as they were designed.

A 5 kiloton nuke is no big deal. Just another weapon, somewhat bigger than a 1911.

My father toured Hiroshima and Nagasaki in September 1945. Said "it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people."

Maxwell
April 10, 2006, 10:09 AM
Nukes are bombs. Seriously high yield bombs, but bombs no less. Its how you get the most payload into the smallest package.
Some seem to think that aquiring nukes will mean you can take over the world.
Not exactly.

Often getting nukes is more of a hassle than it is a benefit. Everyone is more suspsicous of your actions and outside support is no longer seen as charity, but blackmail. All they do is (hopefully) discourage your enemies from making a frontal assault.
What happens if your aquiring nukes is the trigger?
If we put this plan forth when russia was making its bombs, would we have avoided 50 years of conflict?

While the source isint exactly credible, I slightly doubt we would carry out nuclear pre-emtive strike. It might be the smartest thing to do because Iran (who has already threatend us with large scale terrorism) will now have bombs that they will use on the first provocation.

The question becomes do you want to get hit with suicide bombers or suicide nuclear-bombers.

If Iran gets a nuke and makes a credible threat then the US would have no option but to use nukes in return (just like france has already stated they would do).

To all you folks born after the 70's, welcome to the theory of M.A.D.

neoncowboy
April 10, 2006, 10:39 AM
I hope that this isn't true, especially since I have trusted Bush on foreign policy for most of his administration.

BWA-HAHA-HAHA-HA!!!!!

Oh man, that's just side splittingly funny!

HA! Trust Bush on foreign policy...that's HYSTERICAL!!

Vitamin G
April 10, 2006, 10:57 AM
I didn't really read the quote as that way... I took it to imply that even after the war, the people were polite and welcoming, the culture, elegant.
And it (the bad event) couldn't have happened to a nice bunch (the japanese) of people. (No sarcasm)

As for M.A.D. It would seem that suicide bombers would be a nice little way of avoiding destruction. If its just a bunch of "crazy people acting alone", who do you mutually destroy?

CAnnoneer
April 10, 2006, 11:11 AM
We cannot have fundamentalists and medievalists and religious zealots get their hands on nukes. If we do not destroy the facilities, the Israeli will.

Also, indeed the name of the thread was misleading. "Nuking" someone is generally construed as a full-scale bomb-them-into-the-stone-age release. The article talks about tactical nukes. That's a .22LR vs a 16in main battery. Let's not get inflammatory.

And, yes, the military's job includes a lot of planning for a lot of eventualities. I'd not be surprised if they have a plan to nuke the ice caps or the moon too, but those are certainly not going to happen tomorrow, are they?

The Drew
April 10, 2006, 11:24 AM
These bunker-busters are a far cry from something like what was used in WW II. These only destroy what they hit. That is why they are called "tactical" and not "strategic". A strategic nuke is for maximum effect such as taking out a city - tactical is for specific targets.

I thought they were tactical because they were painted black....:neener:

seeker_two
April 10, 2006, 11:35 AM
If the Iranian government is even HALF as terrified of the nuclear prospect as our own left-leaning-liberal-weenie media, then all is going according to plan... ;)

My father toured Hiroshima and Nagasaki in September 1945. Said "it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people."

Sounds like your father was a complete scumbag. How anyone could say such a thing about civilians is disgusting. Was your fathers name Osama?

Well, Jugs, since WT's father was talking about the same people responsible for Pearl Harbor, the Bataan Death March, and the Rape of Nanking; I think his commentary was appropriate for the time.


I'm listening to Glenn Beck (http://www.glennbeck.com/home/index.shtml)now, and I have to agree with him. Instead of calling them nuclear bombs, we should call them either....:

a) Daddy's Little Negotiator.
b) Tactical Behavior Modification Device.

:D

Mr.V.
April 10, 2006, 12:16 PM
since WT's father was talking about the same people responsible for Pearl Harbor, the Bataan Death March, and the Rape of Nanking; I think his commentary was appropriate for the time.

First of all I think WT's comments have been misread. YOURS, however, mirror the same argument Osama used to justify murdering civilians, making your views scantly better than theirs. The Japanese army was responsible for the Rape of Nanking, Pearl Harbor etc. If we do hold all civilians accountable for the deeds of the army and kill them since they (all) were responsible, why then hold Osama Bin Laden to a different standard and label him a "terrorist".

chorlton
April 10, 2006, 12:24 PM
Ah the irony of preventing a country from "going nuclear" by using tactical nuclear weapons as a first strike weapon :D

WT
April 10, 2006, 12:25 PM
Jug - as a new guy here you might want to review the forum rules.

My father fought the Japanese for 3 years. Left CONUS in 1943 and returned in 1946. He saw what they did. He is entitled to his opinion.

bakert
April 10, 2006, 12:29 PM
Since I've always been a sceptic about the Al Gharib "scandal" I don't think I would put much faith in Seymour Hersch who is one of many reporters that would label all American soldiers as rabid mad dog killers and torturers. If anyone bombs Iran I think it will be the Israelis.

Correia
April 10, 2006, 12:35 PM
Wow, this thread has it all. Unsubstantiated reports of something that most likely won't happen, allegations, name calling, personal attacks, and thread drift. Nice. :)

Closed.

If you enjoyed reading about "US plans nuke hit on Iran: Report" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!