US considers use of nuclear weapons against Iran

[Warpy]

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The administration of
President George W. Bush is planning a massive bombing campaign against
Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a key Iranian suspected nuclear weapons facility, The New Yorker magazine has reported in its April 17 issue.

The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said that Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler.

The former intelligence officials depicts planning as "enormous," "hectic" and "operational," Hersh writes.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060408/wl_mideast_afp/usirannuclearmilitary

Sy Hersh is right more often than he's wrong. This one is deeply frightening.

[Taxloss]

1. Yes, this is very worrying.

I recently bought the DVD of the 1980s BBC drama "Threads", which is about how a nuclear holocaust might break out almost by accident. The trigger is an East-West confrontation in Iran.

:scared:

[enid602]

2. *

Looking for Hitler in all the wrong places.

[tatertop]

3. This part kills me:

"One former defense official said the military planning was premised on a belief that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government,"

So the people of Iran are going to rise up against
their own country and side with.... america.
After we bomb the fuck out of them.
Even after they have seen how we treat
the occupied Iraqis.
Whew, that kind of logic makes me all dizzy.

[madrchsod]

4. the bush administration is planning

a massive campaign for the american people. "i will protect the american people from the terrorists who wish the american people to live in freedom and peace with the rest of the world."

[salin]

5. Wonder how the 'Brand W' GOP in congress will spin their backing

of this to their constituents?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

6. "a potential Adolf Hitler" eh? No irony there, I guess.

[Clarkie1]

7. The bombing campaign will be massive.

It has to be to prevent Iran from retaliating. Using nukes would to stop a country from getting nukes would insane. I hope Clark speaks to this soon.

<snip>

Bridgette Quinn: : And I guess that would let them produce enough bomb-grade uranium for a single atomic weapon if it's operating at full capacity. Anyhow, would that be the number one target for military action, if it were to come to that?


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, it would be one target for military action, but there are two different ways that the military option could unfold. On the one hand, there could be an effort to interdict the nuclear program at a sensitive node or two. Or on the other hand, there could be a broad-scale take-down of the Iranian nuclear capability and their defense capability so as to forestall an Iranian response against the United States and our friends in the Persian Gulf.


Bridgette Quinn: : Mm hm. Which do you think would be the better way to go?


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well-


Bridgette Quinn: : Again, if it came to that.


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: If it comes to this, then I would favor a broader military option. I think the broader military option is the one that forestalls the Iranian options coming back at you.


Bridgette Quinn: : Hm. But with a, a broader-scale take-down, would you need maybe, if not better intel, just more, more intel.


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: You need a longer period of time. It's a more sustained set of strikes. And the Iranians should be, I, I think they should understand. They should not be under the illusion that the United States or, or a western power or any other country could simply, would simply go in there and drop a couple of bombs and say 'that's it'. Because I'm sure that the Iranians have planned for that contingency. The broader option would make certain that there is- that Iran is a much reduced military threat for a long time to come.

http://securingamerica.com/node/856