Bush administration considering using nuclear weapons against Iran

Cthippo · 10 Apr 2006

The original article is here, but it was too long to post. I'll quote some exerpts...

A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror expressed a similar view. “This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war,” he said. The danger, he said, was that “it also reinforces the belief inside Iran that the only way to defend the country is to have a nuclear capability.” A military conflict that destabilized the region could also increase the risk of terror: “Hezbollah comes into play,” the adviser said, referring to the terror group that is considered one of the world’s most successful, and which is now a Lebanese political party with strong ties to Iran. “And here comes Al Qaeda.”

In recent weeks, the President has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of Congress, including at least one Democrat. A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, who did not take part in the meetings but has discussed their content with his colleagues, told me that there had been “no formal briefings,” because “they’re reluctant to brief the minority. They’re doing the Senate, somewhat selectively.”

The House member said that no one in the meetings “is really objecting” to the talk of war. “The people they’re briefing are the same ones who led the charge on Iraq. At most, questions are raised: How are you going to hit all the sites at once? How are you going to get deep enough?” (Iran is building facilities underground.) “There’s no pressure from Congress” not to take military action, the House member added. “The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it.” Speaking of President Bush, the House member said, “The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision.”

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.

A former high-level Defense Department official told me that, in his view, even limited bombing would allow the U.S. to “go in there and do enough damage to slow down the nuclear infrastructure—it’s feasible.” The former defense official said, “The Iranians don’t have friends, and we can tell them that, if necessary, we’ll keep knocking back their infrastructure. The United States should act like we’re ready to go.” He added, “We don’t have to knock down all of their air defenses. Our stealth bombers and standoff missiles really work, and we can blow fixed things up. We can do things on the ground, too, but it’s difficult and very dangerous—put bad stuff in ventilator shafts and put them to sleep.”

But those who are familiar with the Soviet bunker, according to the former senior intelligence official, “say ‘No way.’ You’ve got to know what’s underneath—to know which ventilator feeds people, or diesel generators, or which are false. And there’s a lot that we don’t know.” The lack of reliable intelligence leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites, little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. “Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap,” the former senior intelligence official said. “ ‘Decisive’ is the key word of the Air Force’s planning. It’s a tough decision. But we made it in Japan.”

He went on, “Nuclear planners go through extensive training and learn the technical details of damage and fallout—we’re talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years. This is not an underground nuclear test, where all you see is the earth raised a little bit. These politicians don’t have a clue, and whenever anybody tries to get it out”—remove the nuclear option—“they’re shouted down.”

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it “a juggernaut that has to be stopped.” He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. “There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries,” the adviser told me. “This goes to high levels.” The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. “The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks,” the adviser said. “And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.”

The adviser added, however, that the idea of using tactical nuclear weapons in such situations has gained support from the Defense Science Board, an advisory panel whose members are selected by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. “They’re telling the Pentagon that we can build the B61 with more blast and less radiation,” he said.

The chairman of the Defense Science Board is William Schneider, Jr., an Under-Secretary of State in the Reagan Administration. In January, 2001, as President Bush prepared to take office, Schneider served on an ad-hoc panel on nuclear forces sponsored by the National Institute for Public Policy, a conservative think tank. The panel’s report recommended treating tactical nuclear weapons as an essential part of the U.S. arsenal and noted their suitability “for those occasions when the certain and prompt destruction of high priority targets is essential and beyond the promise of conventional weapons.” Several signers of the report are now prominent members of the Bush Administration, including Stephen Hadley, the national-security adviser; Stephen Cambone, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; and Robert Joseph, the Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.

The Pentagon adviser questioned the value of air strikes. “The Iranians have distributed their nuclear activity very well, and we have no clue where some of the key stuff is. It could even be out of the country,” he said. He warned, as did many others, that bombing Iran could provoke “a chain reaction” of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world: “What will 1.2 billion Muslims think the day we attack Iran?”
Click to expand...

JCG · 10 Apr 2006

/me grabs shovel and starts digging a nuclear bunker (with internetconnection offcourse )

.308AR · 10 Apr 2006

I would think it is one of many plans. A pre-emptive nuclear strike won't happen. Using nuclear bunker busters is the only viable way to breach some of these facilities IMO. Infiltration of their program will be difficult if it's even possible.

riggs · 10 Apr 2006

"When the Germans started bombing, the British ducked and covered. When the British started bombing, the Germans ducked and covered. When America started bombing, everyone ducked and covered."

I'd be very worried if the USA started using nuclear weapons...

Cthippo · 10 Apr 2006

I AM very worried that the US is even talking about using nuclear weapons, even itty-bitty ones. What's even more worrisome is that we are considering using them against a nation with which we are not at war and which presents no real threat to our interests.

Guest-16 · 10 Apr 2006

Well, there's the old terrorism angle that will inevitably be played. Iran hasnt exactly made itself "anti terrorist". The only problem being is that if there is an Iran war, it will create more terrorism.

speedfreek · 10 Apr 2006

JCG said:

/me grabs shovel and starts digging a nuclear bunker (with internetconnection offcourse )
Click to expand...

I think he has an idea here.

Anytime anyone starts talking about using nukes its never a good thing.

Glider · 10 Apr 2006

But it does prove the intelligence of the "leaders" of the "land of the free"... Nukes are just one of those things that never should be discovered/researched.

Iran doesn't have to have nukes to retalliate, just convince (wich isn't that hard) the other OPEC countries to cut the supply of oil... You'll see who will beg to be friends again

speedfreek · 10 Apr 2006

Glider said:

But it does prove the intelligence of the "leaders" of the "land of the free"... Nukes are just one of those things that never should be discovered/researched.

Iran doesn't have to have nukes to retalliate, just convince (wich isn't that hard) the other OPEC countries to cut the supply of oil... You'll see who will beg to be friends again
Click to expand...

Nuclear power in the benificial electrical sense, is the only good thing that came out of the weapon design. There are plenty of things that you wish could be uninvented but it dosent always work that way.

Glider · 11 Apr 2006

speedfreek said:

Nuclear power in the benificial electrical sense, is the only good thing that came out of the weapon design. There are plenty of things that you wish could be uninvented but it dosent always work that way.
Click to expand...

I know nuclear power came from the research, but I did say Nukes, as in the mass destruction stuff... Altough my governement doesn't agree with me, nuclear "produced" electricity is the way of the future...

Monkeyboy · 11 Apr 2006

what i find disturbing is the u.s. is considering another war, even though the hostilities haven't ceased in afganistan, and iraq is still a mess. a third war with 2 unfinished? doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
the fact that nukes could be involved scares the heck out of me even more. i'm having visions of that lbj (i think) campaign commercial with the little girl picking flowers interspersed with a countdown...

RotoSequence · 11 Apr 2006

At least bush is toning down the rhetoric a bit now Hopefully a better solution will come into play, but its a longshot.

kickarse · 11 Apr 2006

I like how he calls it "key stuff", he sounds very knowledgeable.

What's even more grossly stupid is the fact that the administration still hasn't learned that their search for wmd's and their wanting to use wmd's is completely hypocritical. Either that or they don't care, which is most likely the case and even more so idiotic.

The problem is that despite America having wmd's pointing at some countries I am sure that there are many countries with a similar total of wmd's pointing back.

What they haven't learned is that violence begets violence. Although cliche is a truism.

Techno-Dann · 11 Apr 2006

"The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker."

-A. Einstein.

Ab$olut · 11 Apr 2006

JCG said:

/me grabs shovel and starts digging a nuclear bunker (with internetconnection offcourse )
Click to expand...

ditto.... why oh why did bush get voted in? can an american here please enlighten me?

Firehed · 11 Apr 2006

Ab$olut said:

ditto.... why oh why did bush get voted in? can an american here please enlighten me?
Click to expand...

America is full of morons. One of them had to win. Someone really needs to take one for the team and deal with the reprocussions of an assassination (you know, worldwide praise and all that).

So, where are we meeting to start digging the Bit-bunker?

TJK · 11 Apr 2006

hey - I am a true republican - if only some day I could become president of this country of ours....maybe I could change a few things. However, as little as I like bush, I feel obligated to support him because he is the president and we elected him. I still feel he is a better alternative to John Kerry.

Firehed · 11 Apr 2006

Fair point. The problem is that recent elections have been lesser-of-two-evils. If the president's salary didn't relatively suck, someone who's actually smart might run in the future. Up it to $10m a year and maybe we'll get some good candidates. Considering that our national debt is approaching $10 trillion (yes, with a t!) I'd say that a fraction of a fraction of a percent of that to have someone who can effectively lead a country (not just digging at bush here, gore or kerry would hardly have been better) would be a worthwhile investment.

In a society shaped by capitalism, having the top job getting paid less than a decent businessman really isn't a great idea.

tacticus · 11 Apr 2006

TJK said:

However, as little as I like bush, I feel obligated to support him because he is the president and we elected him.
Click to expand...

i think that this is actualley the wrong thing to do

the people are the checks and balances on the govt your obliged to question every decision they make. Demand answers for any question anyone asks of them and make sure they don’t go overboard

I seriously think that every country needs to take a leaf out of the terry pratchet book “small gods”
In ephebe people elect a kind, compassionate, and intelligent person to the position of tyrant. When they do they find out that in fact he is a tyrannical ruler (just like the last) who is out of touch with the philosopher in the street.

Nexxo · 11 Apr 2006

TJK said:

hey - I am a true republican - if only some day I could become president of this country of ours....maybe I could change a few things. However, as little as I like bush, I feel obligated to support him because he is the president and we elected him. I still feel he is a better alternative to John Kerry.
Click to expand...

"Don't settle for the lesser evil: vote Chtulhu." I'm sorry, but anyone who supports Bush in my opinion does not have the right credentials to run a country...

One should never unconditionally accept the acts of a leader one voted into office. Democracy does not end when you tick the ballot paper. It is an ongoing process of feedback. The moment your leader does something you do not agree with, you let him know. If he persists, you put him out of office and elect someone who will represent your interests properly.

As for Bush nuking Iran... tough one. All logic speaks against such a move. However Bush is an idiot. Let's face it, he ain't JFK at time of the Cuba crisis. He is on a mission from God and has got his way thus far, so why not push it a step further? That's the thing about believing you are doing God's will: who can possibly question you? Who can possibly challenge you?

And he is advised and manipulated by people with their own selfish interests at heart. Given that they are no political or military experts but basically, business people on a feeding frenzy, they will be blinded by greed (after all, we believe what we want to believe) and not look at the bigger picture themselves.

The UN won't stop him --they coudln't before. I think it is all seriously scary.

Log in or Sign up

Bush administration considering using nuclear weapons against Iran

Cthippo Can't mod my way out of a paper bag

JCG What's a Dremel?

.308AR What's a Dremel?

riggs ^_^

Cthippo Can't mod my way out of a paper bag

Guest-16 Guest

speedfreek What's a Dremel?

Glider /dev/null

speedfreek What's a Dremel?

Glider /dev/null

Monkeyboy Minimodder

RotoSequence Lazy Lurker

kickarse What's a Dremel?

Techno-Dann Disgruntled kumquat

Ab$olut What's a Dremel?

Firehed Why not? I own a domain to match.

TJK What's a Dremel?

Firehed Why not? I own a domain to match.

tacticus What's a Dremel?

Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Bush administration considering using nuclear weapons against Iran

Cthippo Can't mod my way out of a paper bag

JCG What's a Dremel?

.308AR What's a Dremel?

riggs ^_^

Cthippo Can't mod my way out of a paper bag

Guest-16 Guest

speedfreek What's a Dremel?

Glider /dev/null

speedfreek What's a Dremel?

Glider /dev/null

Monkeyboy Minimodder

RotoSequence Lazy Lurker

kickarse What's a Dremel?

Techno-Dann Disgruntled kumquat

Ab$olut What's a Dremel?

Firehed Why not? I own a domain to match.

TJK What's a Dremel?

Firehed Why not? I own a domain to match.

tacticus What's a Dremel?

Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

Share This Page

Useful Searches