|
|
Post by bounce on Apr 8, 2006 17:48:12 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by MARIO on Apr 8, 2006 19:23:32 GMT -8
Let's hope this story is true.
|
|
|
|
Post by bounce on Apr 10, 2006 5:52:33 GMT -8
I got this in an e-mail from an F-16 homie of mine. I must admit he has some good points.
Although I was very familiar with the B-61, I have never heard of the B-61-11. My buddy says we don't have any. That could be true.
As far as the "planning goes," my buddy is exactly right. There are "plans" already in place for virtually ANY contingency. We've had "plans" for decades.
I didn't even see the "resignations" part of the article.
*************************************************************************
Don't break out the champagne yet. There's several problems with this article.
First of all, it uses a Seymour Hersh article as the source. This guy is a columnist for The New Yorker and is a notorious Bush hater and liar. He's the one that broke the abu Ghraib story and then milked it for the following two months (think what it says about who the media is rooting for when they run the abu Ghraib pictures at the weakest excuse, but won't run pictures of people jumping from the WTC even on the anniversary because "it might inflame passions"). He's also tried to break other "stories" such as Cheney's "leak" of Valerie Plame's name, Bush's "determination to go to war with Iraq before 9-11" and Bush's "doctoring" of intel to convince congress to go to war. In short, this fucker is highly unreliable as a news source. He has an agenda and no morals against lying to push it. His being involved with the story puts everything in it in doubt, including even the words "and" and "the".
The story tries to make a big deal out of the fact that part of the planning may include the use of nukes. Well BIG FUCKING DEAL. That's the job of the JCOS, to give the President all his possible options. The military has contingencies for everything, from a nuclear armed Iraq to an invasion from Canada. The fact that they have the plans doesn't mean they'll use them, another fact that makes the article questionable, because it states that there are some on the staff that want to take out the nuclear option from their planning. If they did that, then they wouldn't be doing their jobs.
And do you REALLY think that some officers in the staff are threatening to resign over the possiblity of having to nuke Iran? Not fucking likely. I think what we have here is Hersh getting his information from civilian staffers and then trying to make standard military planning look like a trigger happy administration getting ready to nuke Iran.
We don't HAVE any B-61 "bunker busters." Bush tried to get authorization from congress for tactical nuke bunker weapons and was rebuked. The goo goo lefty morons said "how can we possibly keep nuke proliferation down if we keep inventing new weapons," and killed the deal. In the meantime, Pakistan, N. Korea, and Iran don't really give a shit that we're setting a good example and have either developed or are developing their nukes while we do nothing. What the Daily Telegraph claims is a bunker buster is the standard B-61 that wouldn't penetrate more than 20 feet and then do some damage through overpressure. If you read the Telegraph's little inset on the B-61, you'll learn that the only way that a B-61 can damage a bunker buried 200 feet underground like the Iranian bunkers would be to dial up the yield to 200 kilotons--12 times the force of the Hiroshima blast. Think there would be some political fallout from that?
|
|
|
|
Post by bounce on Apr 10, 2006 13:24:28 GMT -8
Here's what Bush says:
WASHINGTON — President Bush said Monday that force is not necessarily required to stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon, and he dismissed reports of plans for a military attack against Tehran as "wild speculation."
Bush said his goal is to keep the Iranians from having the capability or the knowledge to have a nuclear weapon.
|
|
|
|
Post by sgt0311usmc on Apr 10, 2006 15:36:03 GMT -8
Curious - did some searches, can't seem to find anything about this point:
Is this the bomb that they developed using the old 8" & 11" naval gun barrels?
Kinda curious also that it only penetrates 20' - the stuff I found says that it's NOT when it's set to det - that it only penetrates 20' - even if dropped from 40k'
By the way - you all have seen the "asteroids coming to kill earth - send astronauts up to drill & drop nukes down the hole" movies, right?
This seems to me to be the (at least interim) attempt at a solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by tits on Apr 10, 2006 17:43:35 GMT -8
with a Federal Endangerment lawsuit. They have gotten their BushBashing confused with the endangerment of Americans world wide.
|
|
|
|
Post by MrDoublel on Apr 10, 2006 22:51:38 GMT -8
Sadly, they have no real concept of "National Security". They would rather see hundreds die so they can play the blame game and at the same time deny their self centered, agenda driven actions have anything to do with leaving us vulnerable to the attack that kills those hundreds. These idiots would leave the doors wide open then blame the police when the house gets cleaned out. Personal responsibility is a concept they are unable to comprehend.
|
|
|
|
Post by jfree on Apr 11, 2006 1:01:41 GMT -8
I heard on the news that those supposed bunker nukes do not even exist. If they don't then obviously the story is bunk. I would hope that they wouldn't ever use nukes, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't threaten those nasty BUGGERS (I used and meant it this time bounce  ). They do have bunker busters though, can't they just use those??? |
|
|
|
Post by bounce on Apr 11, 2006 4:11:02 GMT -8
I heard on the news that those supposed bunker nukes do not even exist. If they don't then obviously the story is bunk. I would hope that they wouldn't ever use nukes, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't threaten those nasty BUGGERS (I used and meant it this time bounce ). They do have bunker busters though, can't they just use those??? I used to have extensive knowledge of a certain "TYPE" of B-61. I had never heard of the B-61-11, but there is enough advertised on that web site about it (that used to be classified and that IS TRUE about the type I knew about) that it made the whole thing believable to me. I have no idea for sure whether the "dash-11" exists and is operational, but so what??? We still have the tools to put Iran's nuclear program out of business. The smart play would probably be to let Israel do it although they'd need our help. Or, we could do what Clinton did with N. Korea and let Madeline Albright, Hazel O'Leary and Bill Richardson handle it. AND LOOK, even if we don't have them, how long do you think it would take us to "construct" a few should they be needed??? Do you doubt we have the technology and manufacturing ability to get it done? The problem ISN'T our ABILITY to shut down Iran's nukes. The problem is " POLITICAL WILL" to use the tools we'd need to get the job done. People hear the word "NUKES" and envision the collapse of the world. That's horse dookey! It just a weapon that makes a bigger boom, that's all. Yeah there is the matter of some "fallout," but I'd rather have Iran have to deal with some fallout than have the rest of the world deal with Iran's NUKES! We've used them before. They helped end WWII and saved 100,000 lives. |
|
). They do have bunker busters though, can't they just use those???