UK Telegraph: Bush 'is planning nuclear strikes on Iran's secret sites'

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=C3HY5I431EHHRQFIQMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2006/04/09/wbush09.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/04/09/ixportaltop.html

By Philip Sherwell in Washington

(Filed: 09/04/2006)

The Bush administration is planning to use nuclear weapons against Iran, to prevent it acquiring its own atomic warheads, claims an investigative writer with high-level Pentagon and intelligence contacts.

President George W Bush is said to be so alarmed by the threat of Iran's hard-line leader, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, that privately he refers to him as "the new Hitler", says Seymour Hersh, who broke the story of the Abu Ghraib Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal.

Mahmoud Ahmedinejad: 'The new Hitler'

Some US military chiefs have unsuccessfully urged the White House to drop the nuclear option from its war plans, Hersh writes in The New Yorker magazine. The conviction that Mr Ahmedinejad would attack Israel or US forces in the Middle East, if Iran obtains atomic weapons, is what drives American planning for the destruction of Teheran's nuclear programme.

Hersh claims that one of the plans, presented to the White House by the Pentagon, entails the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One alleged target is Iran's main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, 200 miles south of Teheran.

Although Iran claims that its nuclear programme is peaceful, US and European intelligence agencies are certain that Teheran is trying to develop atomic weapons. In contrast to the run-up to the Iraq invasion, there are no disagreements within Western intelligence about Iran's plans.

This newspaper disclosed recently that senior Pentagon strategists are updating plans to strike Iran's nuclear sites with long-distance B2 bombers and submarine-launched missiles. And last week, the Sunday Telegraph reported a secret meeting at the Ministry of Defence where military chiefs and officials from Downing Street and the Foreign Office discussed the consequences of an American-led attack on Iran, and Britain's role in any such action.

The military option is opposed by London and other European capitals. But there are growing fears in No 10 and the Foreign Office that the British-led push for a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear stand-off, will be swept aside by hawks in Washington. Hersh says that within the Bush administration, there are concerns that even a pummelling by conventional strikes, may not sufficiently damage Iran's buried nuclear plant

[click link to read the rest...]

[Winslowalrob]

There are only two cures that are worse than the disease of having Iran develop nuclear weapons, and this is one of them...

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

There are only two cures that are worse than the disease of having Iran develop nuclear weapons, and this is one of them...

Why? What's being discussed is the use of a tactical nuclear missile that would obliterate each one of their 'secret sites' whereas a conventional warhead may not do the trick. Iran is hell bent on developing their own nuclear program and at the top of their agenda is the destruction of Israel and we would be soon to follow. I see no problem with this as long as there is a very reasonable doubt with regards to the efficacy of coventional warheads in this scenario.

[Winslowalrob]

You don't see any possible reprecussions?

[skinfan133]

There are only two cures that are worse than the disease of having Iran develop nuclear weapons, and this is one of them...

im with you half way here, i would have restraint in preemtive nuclear strikes, but conventional bombing and cruise missles might just do the trick, no radiation, no colateral damage, and it just might save a few tax dollars. No nukes yet please Mr. Bush.

[The Sisko]

I voted for W. twice. However I'm at a point where I'm beginning to think I made a mistake. If we do this it will be a huge screw up. We may succeed in stopping the Iranians from develping nuclear weapons but we'll very likely end up turning Iraq's Shiites against us and ultimately end up with a "Super Iran" composed of the Shiite majority from the former Iraq combined with Iran.

[shagman]

im with you half way here, i would have restraint in preemtive nuclear strikes, but conventional bombing and cruise missles might just do the trick, no radiation, no colateral damage, and it just might save a few tax dollars. No nukes yet please Mr. Bush.

agreed

Iraq Iran I rolled

[Winslowalrob]

World War III...

[dreamingwolf]

something you all have to understand is that when they say nuke strik its not gonna be a hiroshima, it will be a limited tactical nuke thats energy is meant to defeat reinforced bunkers and not level a city.

The heart and soul of Irans nuke program is underground, and heavily fortified.

That said I doubt this story has any validity to it, and if they do truely have sources telling them this its probably more out of posturing to Iran than trying to warn humanity of a nuke strike.

We could easily nuke their nuke program without poisoning all of Iran, so even if we are going to let this article excite us I dont think we need to panic.

[skinfan133]

World War III...

for once i think you might have come close:D

seriously though i think using nukes by just priciple would be a terribley stupid idea, a PR nightmare if you will, the mid east will absolutely hate our guts just because we nuked their "sacred" soil (or sand). europe in all their PC wisdom will be in an uproar and pass it on to the UN who will do nothing about it.

[skinfan133]

something you all have to understand is that when they say nuke strik its not gonna be a hiroshima, it will be a limited tactical nuke thats energy is meant to defeat reinforced bunkers and not level a city.

The heart and soul of Irans nuke program is underground, and heavily fortified.

That said I doubt this story has any validity to it, and if they do truely have sources telling them this its probably more out of posturing to Iran than trying to warn humanity of a nuke strike.

We could easily nuke their nuke program without poisoning all of Iran, so even if we are going to let this article excite us I dont think we need to panic.

trust me i understand that, but from an iranians or mid easterners stad point they wont know or even give a **** about that fact, they'll only see the US usig nukes against ther country, look what they did when some guy drew a cartoon of the prophet, imagine what they'll do if we use nukes on their home turf....:2cents:

[Winslowalrob]

something you all have to understand is that when they say nuke strik its not gonna be a hiroshima, it will be a limited tactical nuke thats energy is meant to defeat reinforced bunkers and not level a city.

The heart and soul of Irans nuke program is underground, and heavily fortified.

That said I doubt this story has any validity to it, and if they do truely have sources telling them this its probably more out of posturing to Iran than trying to warn humanity of a nuke strike.

We could easily nuke their nuke program without poisoning all of Iran, so even if we are going to let this article excite us I dont think we need to panic.

First off, lets say the story is valid, then you still think it would be a good idea, despite the small tactical nuke? And second off, do you really think the administration would pull something like this with a deft, subtle touch? And Hiroshima did not poison all of Japan either, mind you. Do you honestly think we would get anything but terrible PR from such a move?

[Teller]

I'm not familiar...Is the Telegraph a "mainstream" UK paper?

[Winslowalrob]

If Iran built a nuke, and took out one of our facilities with a tactical nuclear weapon, I think you would not be that moderate wolf...

[shagman]

I dont think that this story has any validation and if it does Im sure that its a last resort to anything. We have to weigh our options to every tool that we have. Im sure that we could cripple their nuclear program with conventional warheads anyhow. Remember all the story of Saddams bunkers? Well I got to visit a communications bunker while I was there that had been hit by a bunker buster. Not much of a bunker besides concrete! Needless to say I dont think these bunkers would need a nuclear attack to penetrate IMO, but Ive never been to Iran, yet! (thank god) I could be wrong

[Teller]

Where's england? I really want to know how reputable the Telegraph is. If it's a legit mainstream paper, this is just.... :doh:

[skinfan133]

Where's england? I really want to know how reputable the Telegraph is. If it's a legit mainstream paper, this is just.... :doh:

dont worry knowing him he'll be here soon, its about ohhh 5:30 AM in britain now, so wait 30 minutes or so.

[Destino]

I don't know enough about the paper or the writer to believe this is true. Using nuclear weapons for this reason would open the door for other nuclears nations to do the same. All the work put into keeping nukes as a last and final horrible option would be immediately and completely lost.

[dreamingwolf]

Im not pretending it wouldnt be a PR hit, the nukes we dropped in WWII still are a PR hit to us. You can often hear people who want to hate on America bring it up to this very minute and all the minutes to come.

[skinfan133]

I don't know enough about the paper or the writer to believe this is true. Using nuclear weapons for this reason would open the door for other nuclears nations to do the same. All the work put into keeping nukes as a last and final horrible option would be immediately and completely lost.

tu hablas la verdad destino....

[dreamingwolf]

I don't know enough about the paper or the writer to believe this is true. Using nuclear weapons for this reason would open the door for other nuclears nations to do the same. All the work put into keeping nukes as a last and final horrible option would be immediately and completely lost.

This is really the down side, but at the stage we are at now with Iran its not really like we would strike them willy nilly. They have been urged to comply and out right refuse to accept international compliance. Its not just like we are pissed at them.

The point though is good, if other nations have issues and the international body tells their enemy to comply and they dont then a nuke strike is acceptable. My opinion on this, something has to make people respect the international community cause right now no body does.

[Teller]

dont worry knowing him he'll be here soon, its about ohhh 5:30 AM in britain now, so wait 30 minutes or so.

True. This is worrying me a little though. Bush has done just enough renegade **** to give me pause at least. If this story is true, the 35% of people who still support him (I'm on the fence myself, still leaning very slightly in his favor) are gone.

[Winslowalrob]

Im not pretending it wouldnt be a PR hit, the nukes we dropped in WWII still are a PR hit to us. You can often hear people who want to hate on America bring it up to this very minute and all the minutes to come.

Number of countries with nuclear weapons in 1945...

Number of countries with nuclear weapons in 2006...

Number of countries willing to go to war with us in 1945 after dropping a nuclear weapon (no matter how small)...

Number of countries willing to go to war with us in 2006 after dropping a nuclear weapon (no matter how small)...

Just think about it, don't make the comparisons, as I pointed out, Hiroshima did not poison Japan, unless your country happens to be very small you can get nuked in one part without feeling the effects in another.

[dreamingwolf]

the guardian and telegraph are like the washington post and washington times, you only believe them if you agree with them.

[shagman]

President George W Bush is said to be so alarmed by the threat of Iran's hard-line leader, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, that privately he refers to him as "the new Hitler", says Seymour Hersh, who broke the story of the Abu Ghraib Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal.

I think this is what scares me the most if its true!