NY Times: Four officials deny report U.S. considers nuking Iran

[cynatnite]

An article set for Sunday's edition of the New York Times calls into question a magazine article which claims that the U.S. is considering a nuclear attack against Iran, RAW STORY has found.

"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," wrote Seymour Hersh for New Yorker magazine.

Along with relying on claims from unnamed officials to refute the article, the Times adds that some critics see Hersh as "too eager to report assertions critical of the government that are difficult to fully substantiate."

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/NY_Times_Four_officials_deny_report_0408.html

Sounds like they're going after Hersh.

[Cooley Hurd]

1. "relying on claims from unnamed officials..."

According to Faux News, "Some people say..." :eyes:

[Atman]

2. The B61-11 is NOT a "tactical" nuclear weapon

Detonating a "fission-fusion-fission" warhead 10 - 20 feet underground will make a *huge* mess. I am not even sure how to put the scale of the fallout into words.

Even if they turn off the H-bomb section and just use it as a 10kt A-bomb, the level of fallout will still be unprecedented.

Even if they just make it do a 0.3kt fizzle, it'll probably be the worst fallout incident in history.

[David in Canada]

9. Tactical Nukes

Tactical nukes are as serious as a heart attack. Don't let the spin calm you one bit!

The Hiroshima bomb had a yield of 14 KT give or take 1 either way. That is considered "rinky-dink" in today's world. Even a 100 KT nuke, 8 TIMES the size of the one dropped on Hiroshima, is considered a "low-yield" tactical nuclear device.

Considering the insane asylum escapees running DC today, this can get out of hand quickly. Once this comes close to becoming reality, we will be closer to nuclear war than any time in history, including the Cuban Missile Crisis.

If you live in a major city and you hear that Iran has been attacked, take you, your family and any personal belongings of value (monetarily and sentimentally) and get out there ASAP. You'll have about 24 hours before the whole geopolitical paradigm crumbles to dust. Once that happened, everything we hold dear and value will be in a state of flux and will remain in that state -- if we're lucky.

I hope I don't unduly scare anyone but history dictates that hatred and stupidity usually get their way at the end. So I just want to give you my thoughts...

[sweetheart]

10. I hope the iranians have cameras mounted

The footage'll pay for teh reconstruction.

I wish the military would erect bleachers at a safe distance and give the public
the right to see the weapons they sponsor, to see those weapons used, even if
it is to sit 20 miles away, or to watch a space-blast 500 miles up. The public
has every right to see their own bloody kit.

But as the public does not have that right, if they leave on the H-bomb section,
we can experience fallout nirvana, and start a major world war of staggering
proportions, 100 megatonne detonations in the arctic attempting to preemptively
sink russian submarines, same same in teh altantic and pacific, hte public not
realizing ow much of the nuclear arsenal is aimed at submarines, just offshore
to provide other nations wth a deterrent.

And after all the fish are dead from the radioation, the water will
be like blood.

But the hasty need after using a nuclear strike and reciving fire, to build another
round of bullets quick before the other guy has the gun reloaded, and the
last man standing is the one they didn't think to shoot.

[berni_mccoy]

22. The B61 can be turned down to a yield as low as 0.3Kt. See here: ===>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=895502&mesg_id=895502

[marylanddem]

3. I hope to hell Hersh IS wrong...

[grytpype]

5. me too

[no_hypocrisy]

4. I didn't expect them to admit it. I've learned not to trust people

trying to pacify me by denying they plan to hurt someone or something.

[David in Canada]

11. no_hypocrisy

I can tell that you're a wise person. When BushCo moved their lips, they're lying. ;-)

[SPKrazy]

6. Probably A Trial Balloon Put Out By *

Get the public debating that, then you slowly steer the debate in the direction of "okay, we can use anything but nukes"

There are weapons that can bust bunkers that are superior to nukes at this time in history.

They can be deployed from the stratosphere, above a country's air space, and can hit with deadly accuracy right where they want them too (that's the story anyway)

and they can penetrate bunkers easily without nukes

[KittyWampus]

17. Article has Joint Chiefs/Military saying only tactical nuclear weaponry

will work because they don't have the intel to use more focused weaponry.

They don't know where to hit in areas.... thus would need the biggest 'bang' to ensure hitting all necessary areas.

[mom cat]

19. The aim is not to bust bunkers. The aim is to break the spirit of any

potential opponent and to have Bush realize his dream of becoming the emperor of the world.

[David in Canada]

7. Four Officials, eh?

I guess that probably mean a confirmation, or at least there is some truth in the article, albeit not as accurate or dramatic as Mr. Hersh says.

If it were bunk, they wouldn't have returned the call! Be wary folks!

[blogslut]

8. Sounds like they're going after Hersh.

Let em try. They have gone after Sy before.

[David in Canada]

12. Hersh is right...

Sy Hersh's information is usually spot on. Even most of his "errors" are mostly wrong through technicality or are proven down the road.

He seems to be a modern day "Cassandra" though. Always right yet always ridiculed and attacked for being "nutty". That's the brakes I guess, when you prove the experts with umpteen awards incorrect.

[peacebird]

Hi David 1981! Welcome to DU!

:hi:

Sy Hersh is far more believable than the current misAdministration. My question is this: Will the pressures of Fitz and the multiple corruption scandals increase the likelihood or speed of * acting unilaterally again and bombing Iran? The leaker-in-chief likes to be all powerful and worshipped.... He probably thinks his poll numbers will go through the roof if he drops a nuke on Iran...

[peacebird]

14. Hi David 1981! Welcome to DU!

:hi:

Sy Hersh is far more believable than the current misAdministration. My question is this: Will the pressures of Fitz and the multiple corruption scandals increase the likelihood or speed of * acting unilaterally again and bombing Iran? The leaker-in-chief likes to be all powerful and worshipped.... He probably thinks his poll numbers will go through the roof if he drops a nuke on Iran...

[David in Canada]

20. Shrub, Iran, Fitz & the Polls

peacebird, thanks for the warm welcome. :toast:

First, let me commence with the the possible correlary between Shrub and Fitz. Shrub will need to resort to a show of force of some sort to trip up Fitz's plans. Fitz probably urinates more intelligence in the morning than Shrub has what passes for cerebral matter.

Shrub might well speed up an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. This will likely cause a huge backlash with hours of the United States, both financially and militarily. This will allow Bush to claim a terrorist response is in the works and to "protect" Federal workers, we need to close all Federal buildings. As a result of this, Fitzgerald's office and every Federal courthouse will be closed. Therefore, until they are reopened, Fitz is totally impotent to move forward. BushCo might also go snooping around Fitzgerald's office and the like. Never attribute a shred of human decency to BushCo. If it's evil and possible, ASSUME that they **WILL** do it!

As to the Valerie Plame leak, it was all about power and instilling fear. He is diabolic in a Stalineque way when it comes to those matters. Standard Machiavelli. "It is better to be feared than it is to be feared." As long as he gets to be the honcho, he'll do hat he wants, poll numbers not withstanding. Poll numbers for Shrub are only useful as how it relates to the dynamics of keeping power. With the GOP possibly losing seats in 2006 (if Busby wins in CA-50, except them to be under 170 nationwide), he might want to do all he can before he is removed from office or at least rendered politically impotent.

Just my thoughts... ;-)

[peacebird]

21. good analysis - depressing but good.

:toast:

[joemurphy]

13. Since when has the Times been so concerned about

unsubstantiated reports...Didn't Judy Miller used to work for them?

[NYC]

16. Since the White House told them to.

We know the White House always lies. They are claiming Hersh is wrong. That just reinforces my belief that Hersh is right.

[KittyWampus]

18. touche!

[KittyWampus]

15. I Propose We Use The Term "Tactical" Nukes vs. Tactical Nukes

using quotation marks and rolling eyes to convey the absurdity of using the word tactical or even implying the concept in relation to nuclear weapons.

[berni_mccoy]

23. There is such a thing as a Tactical Nuke ===>

See here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=895502&mesg_id=895502

The Military has had them since the 50's. They can be tuned very small (as low as 0.01Kt) and Depleted Uranium shells are considered tactical nukes.