‘Two B-2s could take out Iran’s nuclear assets’

[ECH1969]

Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions will be history by the time US President George W Bush leaves office, said a report.

Veteran foreign correspondent Arnaud de Borchgrave, writing for the United Press International, quotes a “prominent neo-con” with good White House and Department of Defence contacts, as the source of the assertion. Asked what would the US do if sanctions did not make Iran turn away from its nuclear target, the source replied, “B-2s. Two of them could do the job in a single strike against multiple targets.”

Senior British officials met with defence and intelligence chiefs to assess the consequences of air strikes against Iran - as well as European and global repercussions.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C04%5C05%5Cstory_5-4-2006_pg7_62

[saigon68]

1. Two B-2s will start WW III

Count on it.

A single dirt bag with a pistol started WW I

[atreides1]

39. Now be fair

The guy who started WW I wasn't a "dirt bag", he was a Serb Nationalist, a "freedom fighter" if you will.

[saigon68]

44. Yes you are Correct my Bad

One Man’s Terrorist Another Man’s Freedom Fighter


One Man's Terrorist is Another Man's Prophet

LINK: http://www.phoblacht.net/SMKLTR120306.html



FROM ABOVE LINK


One Man's Terrorist Is Another Man's Secretary of Homeland Security

lINK: http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/002109.php

As defined by the FBI, "the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives". This definition includes three elements:

(1) Terrorist activities are illegal and involve the use of force. (2) The actions are intended to intimidate or coerce. (3) The actions are committed in support of political or social objectives. (FEMA-SS)

[peacebird]

2. and Iraqi's will greet our soldiers with candy and flowers........

these idiots are determined to start WWIII aren't they?

[SharonAnn]

61. It'll be a "Slam, dunk".

[WCGreen]

3. Yea, and they will greet us a liberators.....

[wookie294]

6. It will be a cakewalk

"Nobody knows how long the conflict could last. Maybe six weeks. I doubt six months." LOL!

[leftchick]

4. and gas goes to $10.00 a gallon, and our fleet in the gulf gets bombed

with sunburn missiles, and well, Armageddon happens! It sounds just like a PNAC fantasy!

[Rick Myers]

5. These freaks are capable of ANYTHING!!!

Never forget that! They are predators, and probably dangerous when cornered.

[54anickel]

23. Iran’s war games see oil futures rise by $2 (Markets are jittery)

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/2e6afff6-c33a-11da-a381-0000779e2340.html

Crude oil prices jumped to their highest level since Hurricane Katrina on Monday amid uncertainty about Nigerian supplies and as Iran announced it had tested new weapons during war games in the Strait of Hormuz.

Tehran’s declaration that it had test-fired a missile and a newly developed torpedo in the strait, the world’s main oil shipping route, propelled Brent crude oil futures nearly $2 higher to $67.93 a barrel, before prices settled 93 cents higher at $66.84.

Market nerves have been jangled by the timing and location of Iran’s latest military tests, which follow last week’s 30-day deadline set by the UN Security Council for Iran to suspend its nuclear programme.

[enlightenment]

7. So, this "prominent neo-con" is channeling

Curtis LeMay?

argh.

[pdurod1]

19. F#ckin Brassheads...

"The big, red dog is digging in our backyard, and we have the right to shoot him!"

[enlightenment]

21. He sure did bring new meaning to paranoid, didn't he?

At the same time, he reinvigorated SAC. His motives (and sanity) may have been suspect, but he did know how to make an organization tick . . . whoops, straying off topic. Stopping now, sorry.

[saigon68]

53. Lemay ran SAC

Like Guderian ran his Panzer Divisions.

LeMay's IG was one mean son of a bitch

[enlightenment]

63. Too true.

My dad tells a funny/frightening (mostly funny) story of when he was ops commander for the first 'Looking Glass' squadron at Offutt. Kennedy was President-elect and was visiting SAC command -- a pretty big deal.

So, they put on a great show, everything tip-top and squared away -- then the President boards one of the squadron's modified KC-135's for the trip back to Andrews. They'd gone over that plane with a fine-tooth comb.

My dad is sitting in a car at the edge of the tarmac; it has a radio installed so he can talk to the pilot of the plane. The plane is cleared for take-off -- starts its roll-out -- rotates -- and my dad, to his horror, sees a fluttering red flag . . . the ground crew had neglected to remove the wheel lock on the nose gear.

About this time, the pilot radio's to my dad -- something along the lines of "oh, sh*t -- what do we do now, sir?" Choices: turn around and land, making up a story -- not good. Turn around and land, telling the truth -- really not good. Fly it low and slow (and gear down!) to Andrews and pretend nothing is wrong -- Check.

Off goes the plane, and off my dad goes to the wing commander's office. Wing calls LeMay, who is in Washington, and explains the situation -- the oh-so-perfect SAC performance may be in trouble. Le May asks to speak to my dad, who is standing in front of the desk, hat in hand. He introduces himself to my dad and asks him to take a seat, if he's not sitting. He says he's going to stay on the phone until he has word that the President's plane has landed safely at Andrews -- if it doesn't, he says, he wants to be able to be the first one to tell my dad that he's 'fired.' And he meant it.

Dad says they sat in that room in utter silence -- all you could hear on the phone was LeMay puffing away on one of his cigars -- for what seemed like days. Obviously, it turned out fine, but it does make for an interesting mental picture.
:evilgrin:

[saigon68]

65. Interesting story for sure

I'll bet someone in the ground crew got their ass chewed for that one

[enlightenment]

67. Well, lets put it this way --

it never happened again.

[HereSince1628]

8. Lets see, now we get accurate intelligence on Iran's nukes from

a reporter? Well, I guess when it all goes badly that makes blaming it on the media much much easier. Doesn't it?

[bemildred]

9. Another pompous, posturing baboon tries the "crazy guy" gambit. nt

[ECH1969]

10. The guy is right

Two B-2s filled with MIRV nukes could take out the Iranian threat. You notice he didn't say what kind of bombs he was taking about using.

[tocqueville]

13. why use B2s when you have submarines ?

doesn't make sense.

[Lasher]

22. Might have something to do with Iran's new underwater rockets

They travel in excess of 200 MPH underwater and are very powerful. From news reports there seems to be no defense against them, and one could easily take out a submarine.

[DELUSIONAL]

29. During Gulf War I -- the subs were able to launch cruise missiles

from the Suez Canal.

It is my understanding that there has been plans to redesign/reequip Tridents to carry cruise missiles armed with nukes.

The subs don't have to be off the coast and they have lots of practice hiding.

There's a book on the history of the US sub service -- good reading and sailors who lived the history say the book is accurate.

[Shipwack]

35. Time to test the new toys...

The SSGNs Ohio and Florida would be ready to participate... and ready to be sunk. Sure, they have practice "hiding", but that is in deep water in the middle of the ocean. Firing Tomahawks from 870 miles away still puts them to close too close to shore for my taste. Even if they are far from Iran, how far from any Iranian allies will they be? The Middle East has been beefing up their submarine force. Plus, they are a juicy target, with lots of missiles but little defense.

[tocqueville]

41. they can be 1000 km away

you can pinpoint a city in Iraq with MIRVs with a sub in the Atlantic. Even from some harbour on the East Coast.

[jpak]

46. Tomahawk missiles aren't earth penetrators

these things are...

http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.htm

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2006/apr/05/566662772.html

and they are delivered from B-2's

[mr_hat]

18. Wrong acronym. MIRV means >

multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicle. They'd have to enter space to re-enter.

Not sure what the right one is. JDAM, maybe?

[midnight armadillo]

69. mirv's?

A MIRV (Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicle) is the business end of an ICBM. I think you mean "nuclear bomb."

[UpInArms]

11. Why don't we just take the Enola Gay out of the museum

and repeat that flight.

I' sure the world will appreciate it :sarcasm:

[frylock]

17. thirty seconds over tehran?

just sayin.

[MrPrax]

25. Our grandchildren

can read an eye-witness account it in school: 'Tehran' by John Hersey, Jr.

[tocqueville]

12. which of course is complete BS

the B2s would probably cause mostly collateral damage (even with conventional weapons), blow up plenty of decoys and produce outrage in Iran, reinforce the will of getting nuclear weapons (if there was any) anf justify retaliation through terrorism in Iraq and abroad... the nuclear program wouldn't be history, it would be reinforced..

and sen the oil price at $120 the barrel

the worse with those Pentagon idiots is that they believe in their own crap, no matter the consequences

De Borchgrave writes in an amused vein, “So we looked up B-2s. The US Air Force only has 21 of them. Perhaps price had something to do with it. They came in at $2.2 billion a copy. But they can carry enough ordnance to make Iranians nostalgic for the Shah and his role as the free world’s gendarme in charge of the West’s oil supplies in the Gulf. These stealthy bombers have one major drawback in the Persian magic carpet mode. They can only attack 16 targets simultaneously; one short of the 17 underground nuclear facilities pinned red on Mossad’s target-rich PowerPoint presentations to the political leadership. Presumably, that’s why two B-2s would be required.”

De Borchgrave points out that most of Iran’s secret nuclear installations are not only underground, but also close to population centres. “The first pictures of a B-2 raid would be dead women and children on al-Jazeera television newscasts, now as globally ubiquitous as CNN and FOX. The collateral damage would then rival Abu Ghraib’s devastating impact on America’s good name. The perceived American indifference over the loss of Arab lives would now be seen as spreading to another Muslim country,” he writes. The neo-con informant told the correspondent that there is “absolutely no way” Bush will accommodate to an Iranian nuke or two, the way he blinked first with North Korea. Bush uncompromising view of the Iranian nuclear danger and his determination to prevent it by force of two B-2s if necessary is “as solid as his resolve to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein,” he said.

According to de Borchgrave, “This is also the British assessment of Bush’s intentions against Iran, a power whose president has vowed to wipe Israel off the map. Today (April 3, 2006), senior British officials met with defence and intelligence chiefs to assess the consequences of air strikes against Iran - as well as European and global repercussions. Neo-cons are unfazed by the fact that Iran is an ancient civilisation of 70 million people with retaliatory assets that range from a choke-hold on the world’s most important oil route in the Strait of Hormuz, to an anti-US Shiite coalition in Iraq with two private militias, funded and armed by Iran, to terrorist groups throughout the Middle East that have a global reach. Iran is also a power that not only resisted an Iraqi invasion, but fought Saddam Hussein’s legions to a standstill in an eight-year-war of attrition that killed about 1 million soldiers on both sides. If, as Bush has indicated, US troops were still in Iraq in 2009 under the next president, Tehran, in retaliatory animus, would pull out all the stops to ensure a Vietnam-like send-off for remaining US forces in Iraq. For the time being, Tehran is delighted to keep US troops in Iraq as protective cover for Iran as it consolidates its influence throughout 60 percent of the country.”

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C04%5C05%5Cstory_5-4-2006_pg7_62

[HuffleClaw]

14. bullshit

it would take all 20 or so B2s at least. and they'd probably lose a few too. i doubt they'll risk 'em over iran. they'll probably use a whole pile of cruise missiles. iran has been preparing for this strike for a LOOOONG time now and its not the effectiveness of the strike that is in question, its what iran will do in retaliation that matters.

[paparush]

15. Is this when they start writing songs about us...

It goes like this:
Us pre-emptively strikes Iran.
Iran attacks Isreal in retaliation.
Isreal nukes Iran.
Rest of Middle East attacks Isreal.
US tatitcal/battlefied nukes mid East.
Russia and China get real antsy and decide to get rid of the US once and for all.
<insert big BOOM here>
<insert nuclear winter here>
Neo Cons realize their dream of Utopia (but are left scratching their heads as to why the blond-haired, blue-eyed Jesus has yet to descend from Heaven to personally thank them.)

[VegasWolf]

16. Right, and the one shot that was heard around the world. Idiots. nt

[Jacobin]

20. "We can attack anyone with impunity and there won't be consequences"

That kind of thinking got us into Viet Nam, IraqNam, and will start WWIII.

these people are insane

[lithiumbomb]

24. we still use B-2s?

No, we'd use some cruise missles... While I don't doubt our ability to strike, I declare sabre rattling shenanigans on this guy.

[cboy4]

34. You're probably confusing B-52's with B-2's. The B-2's are the

stealth bombers.

But, yes we also still use B-52's

[lithiumbomb]

52. aha, close.

I was actually thinking B-1s, not B-2s. Regardless, I doubt we'd send aircraft as a first offense. Iran still has an air force - a problem whether we're stealthy or not. So I still think that guy is silly. :)

[cboy4]

54. He-He. Yea, I agree.

:)

[JPZenger]

26. NPR 's experts said the opposite

Experts who were interviewed by NPR for a report a couple weeks ago said the opposite. They said that the US or Israel could not easily take out Iran's nuclear capacity with an air strike.

[pitohui]

27. then why haven't they?

wouldn't israel be all over this, they have the most to lose and are not shy w. the surgical strikes

[Roland99]

28. As Slim Pickens would have said..........

[leesa]

30. Since Iran doesn't have any, I suppose that's true. These fools have

learned nothing from their madness, have they? Neocons need to be locked up for everyone's safety.

[sweetheart]

31. hey, send in some sea king helicopters

like last time!...

[kestrel91316]

32. Consider the source: UPI - owned by MOON?????

[Marie26]

49. Quoting Arnaud de Borchgrave

Of Benador Associates. Isn't this the neo-conservative PR firm?

http://www.benadorassociates.com/borchgrave.php

[cboy4]

33. Everything I've heard is Iran's "nuclear assets" are so spread out,

it would take a large number of strikes, and there's no guarantee the U.S. or Israel or anyone would be able to hit them all if it comes to that.

[sweetheart]

36. Yes, and given sun tzu's maxims

"Deception" and all, given that iranians can read and have forebrains of equal
capacity to americans, that the B-2's might even take out their targets, but
still miss.

Such an attach that missed, would appear successful, but in its effort,
finding a need for the product.

Frankly, the most valuable asset, is not the aa, but photographs of the
attack, as the damage to US interests of a failed preemptive attack, which
will inevitably result in civilian demise, foreign policy wise, will be
worse than any iranian missile.

Yet this whole B2 sabre rattling is deception as well, to the point,
where the every word, every deed, is designed, like with the terrorists,
to elicit a reaction. Unfortunately, underground psyops warfare of that
nature is inherently anarchist in its approach. The method betrays its
commanders.

[Tempest]

45. Not only are they spread out

They're so well bunkered, it would take a good size nuclear weapon to do any damage to them.

And considering most of Iran's facilities are located close to populated areas, the death count of innocent people would be too much for the world to stomach.

[cboy4]

50. True concerning the death count and world outrage, but sadly, I

don't put much past this administration.

They couldn't give a rat's ass about how many people are killed in their quest to dominate the world.

I've yet to see a single tear in the eye of anyone in the administration over the number of US troops and innocent Iraqi civilians killed thus far.

So I don't see them caring about killing off a bunch of Iranians, either.

[calimary]

64. No kidding. Let's all listen to the neocons. After all, they've been so

stunningly spot-on about all this, so far, haven't they?

[BiggJawn]

37. "Prominent Neo-Con"...Could it be Rumsferatu?

The hubris of this cabal is appalling.

[Warren Stupidity]

38. Arnaud de Borchgrave is a whacked out rightwing fascist fuckhead.

I don't think I can put it more plainly than that. Nothing he writes should be taken seriously. His utterances are all tainted by his fascist agenda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnaud_de_Borchgrave

[Massachusetts]

40. Klaatu barata nikto!

[LynnTheDem]

42. Wow how very very WRONG that will prove to be.

Hope some of us will be alive afterwards to say so.

[Jim__]

43. I really hope that's a bluff.

For all their demonstrated stupidity and incompetence, I can't believe they'd be that dumb.

[Az_lefty]

47. Someone better get that crazy narcissist under control...

that pampered little bastard of a president we have has spent a lifetime creating problems and just walking away from them. He's going to leave these problems for "future" presidents to resolve, like he already said.
:puke:

[Marie26]

48. Well, yeah, since they don't HAVE any. nt

[baby_mouse]

51. BANG BANG BANG your head against the brick wall, pukes!

Just ONE more time and it'll all turn out GREAT! Go on! Just ONCE more.

[WhiteTara]

55. and we were greeted as liberators in Iraq

those lying sacks of sh*t! We know when they are lying, their lips are moving.

[Gregorian]

56. I suggest we find Bin Laden first.

Since, after all, he is the only one to have actually attacked the US. Oh, right, that wouldn't profit anyone in power. Sorry, I just don't buy all of the warring that people feel is neccisary.

[lovuian]

57. Luke said to the Emperor "Your overconfidence is your

weakness"

We are full of it!!!

[superconnected]

58. We'll be in and out of there for only 100 million

and Amerikkka will be safer.

And if you don't agree with this, it is because you hate America for our freedoms.

[BrotherBuzz]

59. Is that projected budget per day or per week?

:shrug:

[retread]

60. If this murderous group of thugs' political calculations show

it will keep them in power, then it's bombs away.

[YouthInAsia]

62. they will use those new bunker busting nukes they're

testing in Nevada this month. Guaranteed. Rememeber how Cheney got permission to use tactical nukes if we ever had another terrorist attack here on our soil? They could use them regardless of whether that country was the perpetrator of the attack.

[Supersedeas]

66. Negotiate or else?

[Shakespeare]

68. de Borchgrave is a complete nutter.

He's something like a wacked-out proto-neocon. I interviewed him back in '83 or '84, and even as a fledgling reporter, came away thinking, "wow, this guy's nuts."

That he works for UPI pretty much cements that.