Seymour Hersh on war plans against Iran

[Skybird]

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060417fa_fact

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. 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.

One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One target is Iran’s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. Natanz, which is no longer under I.A.E.A. safeguards, reportedly has underground floor space to hold fifty thousand centrifuges, and laboratories and workspaces buried approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface. That number of centrifuges could provide enough enriched uranium for about twenty nuclear warheads a year. (Iran has acknowledged that it initially kept the existence of its enrichment program hidden from I.A.E.A. inspectors, but claims that none of its current activity is barred by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.) The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete.

There is a Cold War precedent for targeting deep underground bunkers with nuclear weapons. In the early nineteen-eighties, the American intelligence community watched as the Soviet government began digging a huge underground complex outside Moscow. Analysts concluded that the underground facility was designed for “continuity of government�—for the political and military leadership to survive a nuclear war. (There are similar facilities, in Virginia and Pennsylvania, for the American leadership.) The Soviet facility still exists, and much of what the U.S. knows about it remains classified. “The ‘tell’ �—the giveaway—“was the ventilator shafts, some of which were disguised,� the former senior intelligence official told me. At the time, he said, it was determined that “only nukes� could destroy the bunker. He added that some American intelligence analysts believe that the Russians helped the Iranians design their underground facility. “We see a similarity of design,� specifically in the ventilator shafts, he said.

[bradclark1]

My thoughts on tactical nuclear weapons is that if once used it will be put on table as an acceptable weapon from then on. That opens up a window to hell.

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

very well said Brad... it seems as if we've learned absolutely nothing from the cold war days of the 50s and 60s...

this guy obviously got whatever degree he has, from the Dr. Strangelove School of MADness...

http://home.att.net/~mikey102/icanwalk.wav



http://home.att.net/~mikey102/mussed.wav



--Mike

[Type941]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

My thoughts on tactical nuclear weapons is that if once used it will be put on table as an acceptable weapon from then on. That opens up a window to hell.

Sounds like someone is willing to see how far one can go before being retaliated against. Sounds like 1939. Iran might become an ally to China and then it will be either no way back or pack your GIs and go home scenarios.

Lately I've seen a spur of publicaions that talk about:

1. Ability of USA to withstand a retaliating nuclear atttack (bull****)
2. US having nuclear weapons that destroy things without contamination in mass scale (hence making it ok to use...)
3. US slowly making a push towards the war and again preparing ground for 'if you are not with us, you are against us scenario'
4. Stating flatly that one of its enemies in long run is China
5. Superiority of US nuclear arms to that of Russia and China
6. Hollywood too prepares us for world end.

I hope the protests withing the US "democracy" will gather power like during Vietnam and will withdraw troops from the Gulf before the country ends up like the Roman Empire but with much more deaths.

But it seems that the Americans decided a while ago that a nuclear scenario has to be tested now on Iran in order to control China and Russia in the future. And the people in the "democracy" have absolutely no control over it. China is not Russia. China can actually retaliate. US people should think about that next time they vote a president.

I believe you posted a wrong pic by mistake.

[moose1am]

Did you people ever hear of psychological warfare? Just wondering.

Iran and evidently you guys have no idea what's really in the plans.

Bush is good at leaking information that he want's out in the press.

Iran blows a lot of smoke. But they better think long and hard about what they do in the future. The USA still has many nukes and can spare to loose a few on Persia if that becomes necessary to stop Iran from getting into the Nuclear Club. That is the last thing this world needs.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by moose1am

Bush is good at leaking information that he want's out in the press.

"Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."
-- George Herbert Walker Bush, 1999

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by scandium

"Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."
-- George Herbert Walker Bush, 1999

Like Seymour Hersch? :hmm:

[MadMike]

Hersh doesn't know what he's talking about. Why bother with nukes when we have the conventional capability, if needed, to destroy Iran's economic, military, and political infrastructure with sub launched TLAM's, air dropped munitions, and air launched cruise missiles?

Yours, Mike

[Ishmael]

I found this link and downloaded the pdf file. I'm only about halfway through it but find it quite distrubing with the links between Bush, Cheney at al and A.Q.Khan and the Pakistani ICI

AMERICAN JUDAS
Selling the Security of America and the World for 30 Pieces of Silver
By
Robert Paulsen


Introduction

This paper is intended as a supplement to The Waterman Paper and an exploration into Goal #3: Why Cheney Exposed Plame. It involves researching possible connections between businesses connected to Vice President Dick Cheney that may be associated with the sale of WMD components to countries in the Middle East and Asia.

In addition to reviewing known information regarding the “leaking� of CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity and the nature of her work, there will be an overview of A.Q. Khan’s network of nuclear proliferation, a listing of compromising positions involving financial ties in Cheney’s past and finally an exploration into possible links connecting Cheney to nuclear proliferation markets for profit.

pdf online-
http://s93118771.onlinehome.us/DU/AMERICANJUDAS.pdf

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Ishmael

In addition to reviewing known information regarding the “leaking� of CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity and the nature of her work

Quantifying "known" information:

But what Bush and Cheney authorized had nothing to do with Valerie Plame. Joshua Gerstein, who broke the story of Fitzgerald’s document in Thursday’s New York Sun, told Crier the information Bush approved for dissemination was unrelated to “the most sensitive information…[the identity of] Valerie Plame or her husband, Joseph Wilson.� Other media outlets also announce this fact.

• - Reuters: “The court documents did not say that Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Plame's identity.â€�
  
  - The Associated Press: “There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity.�
  
  - Even the breathless New York Times noted Fitzgerald “stopped short� of accusing Bush or Cheney or any wrongdoing.

Nor have Bush and Cheney been accused of breaking any law. In his Sun article, Gerstein wrote:

• The court papers from the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, do not suggest that Mr. Bush violated any law or rule…Mr. Bush's alleged instruction to release the conclusions of the intelligence estimate appears to have been squarely within his authority and Mr. Fitzgerald makes no argument that it was illegal.

The Washington Post ran a sidebar indicating, “Legal experts say that President Bush had the unquestionable authority to approve the disclosure of secret CIA information to reporters.�
- The Left's Libby Lie, by Ben Johnson (see original source links therein)

[Ishmael]

Ahh. But, Avon Lady, did you read the linked PDF file? I finished it tonight and find it very disturbing to see the links between Cheney & Rumsfeld with A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani nuclear program, and the apparent nexus of that program, the Taliban and Al Qaeda: the Pakistani Intelligence Service or ICI. Let's remember that A.Q.Khan is still living comfortably in Pakistan after receiving a pardon from Musharraf. I also found interesting the links to the late, unlamented Bank of Credit & Commerce Internatonal or BCCI. Or Rumsfeld's relationship with ABB & their "work" with the North Korean nuclear program.

[moose1am]

I don't know about that. Conventional weapons may not be able to destroy deeply buried labs or factories. They may be buried too deep and fortified too well for convententional weapons to be effective.

That is why I believe that the USA had nuclear weapons that can be dropped from high up and that can penetrate deep into the earth before exploding.

But there has to be a limit on how deep a missile or bomb can travel though the earth.

It worries me that we have guys in the US military who would contemplate using nukes against any country but the fact remains that they do exist.

Originally Posted by MadMike

Hersh doesn't know what he's talking about. Why bother with nukes when we have the conventional capability, if needed, to destroy Iran's economic, military, and political infrastructure with sub launched TLAM's, air dropped munitions, and air launched cruise missiles?

Yours, Mike

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Ishmael

Ahh. But, Avon Lady, did you read the linked PDF file? I finished it tonight and find it very disturbing to see the links between Cheney & Rumsfeld with A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani nuclear program, and the apparent nexus of that program, the Taliban and Al Qaeda: the Pakistani Intelligence Service or ICI. Let's remember that A.Q.Khan is still living comfortably in Pakistan after receiving a pardon from Musharraf. I also found interesting the links to the late, unlamented Bank of Credit & Commerce Internatonal or BCCI. Or Rumsfeld's relationship with ABB & their "work" with the North Korean nuclear program.

Just to give you a clue what a waste of time this is, can you recall who was President of the US in the mid-90's, when ABB was bidding for the NK contract, and what was this president's philosophy and practical policy in dealing with a nuclear North Korea?

Oops. Life's little details.

The rest of the links are just that. Links. Tell the story you want to hear and wave the facts together to fit your wishes.

But by all means. Everyone should shout it louder. At some point, sensible writers will delve into it better than you or I can and assign it to the dustbin, along with the daily conspiracies constantly popping up to deligitimize the pols folks love to hate.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by moose1am

I don't know about that.

Conventional weapons may not be able

They may be buried

That is why I believe

Pattern detected.

What if............................

[Skybird]

I fully agree with Brad. Every way that let appear nukes more "harmless" ("they are so small, aren't they cute!") will make their use more likely. Every nuke used in this affair will make a nuclear terror strike more likely, for retaliation. If that red line is crossed, no matter by whom, nothing good can come from this. And the contamination at location would be enormous, as had been discussed some days ago. To say it is under the earth and thus no contamination takes place is simply a lie, proven wrong by the nuclear tests that had been conducted in the past.

From the beginning, since months, I said that some of the facilties are so deeply hidden inside mountains or under the earth that they may be out of reach for conventional strikes, so that for their destruction they must be infliltrated on the ground, or nuclear bombs must be used. It is a real no win-situation. You better should not go by using them, but you cannot be successful without using them.

There is also a philosophical argument. The one who has used WMDs (and that's whart we are talking about, like it or not) in the first cannot argue any longer that it is only the other side being evil in threatening to use them. A defense (and this is what the bad guys are doing from their perspective) against a nuclear striking america from then on will have the argument of defense on equal terms available.

Preventive strikes for themselves against an attacker that so far has not conducted any deed of attack are already a sensitive enough issue. Using WMD as prevemntive tools is violating any sense of logic and reason, and cannot be justified by use of these. Their use can only be explained by irrational terms. And it will only be like this: "we used WMDs, becausae eventually, maybe, we don't know, Iran would have used them if it would have possessed them. One could never argue that they really were used for self-defending reasons, because one will never know if the future really would have hold an Iranian nuclear attack. Talkijng of prventive strikes? Then europe, Russia or china could reserve the same right to use preventive defense to nuke America if ever a fool like Bush should get elected again, a prooven agressor and propagator of aggressive preventive strikes (and in this case someone who then would have used WMDs for this prupose).

Brad is totally right. This door better remains closed. nuclear weapons are no military, or usable weapons. They are political weapons. Their value lies in their threat, not in their use. I think of this americn General or Colonel from the Vietnam war, where this Vietnamese major city had been c ompletely wiped out by B52 and the place looked like a atomic bomb had gone off, and he said into the cameras: "We had to destroy this city in order to save this city." If that is not queer.

Someone said that Bush is excused from threatening with nukes, since he may only conduct psychological warfare. Well, this could be said about Iran as well. From a strategical perspective, Iran has very good reason to want nukes, even more so since nukes is the only guarantee to keep the preventively striking Americans out (as we have learned in recent years you else get accused of having nukes that you do not have indeed, and get attacked). As I already have summed up here:
http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopi...650&highlight=

Funny. Before 2003 and the war it brought, I once said in a debate that after Iraq Iran will come up to be the far tougher political and eventually military challenge. It seems the laughter that I earned back then had gone silent.