Hersh: US planning to nuke Iran for real

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2006...earmilitary

― Grey, Ian (IanBrooklyn), Sunday, 9 April 2006 05:13 (eighteen years ago) link

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060409/ts_nm/iran_hersh_dc;_ylt=AoeiSQxbIMYfWNAtgIp1kXBZ.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

― Mr Jones (Mr Jones), Sunday, 9 April 2006 05:32 (eighteen years ago) link

Ever get the feeling you don't know who to believe anymore?

― Porcupine Kiss, Novacaine Lips (Bimble...), Sunday, 9 April 2006 07:17 (eighteen years ago) link

The report also said the administration is seriously considering using "bunker buster" tactical nuclear weapons against Iran to ensure the destruction of Iran's main centrifuge plant at Natanz.

Er, these haven't been built yet.

― Chuck_Tatum (Chuck_Tatum), Sunday, 9 April 2006 07:41 (eighteen years ago) link

which, the bunker busters or the centrifuge plant?

― DV (dirtyvicar), Sunday, 9 April 2006 10:44 (eighteen years ago) link

teh bunker busters

― Chuck_Tatum (Chuck_Tatum), Sunday, 9 April 2006 14:15 (eighteen years ago) link

Rubber baby bunker busters.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 9 April 2006 14:16 (eighteen years ago) link

I was under the impression that we already have bunker busters but that their success likelihood with underground facilities is dubious.

This is terrible, realy really terrible if true. I almost feel like the Neo-cons are coming out fighting like badly wounded animals.

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Sunday, 9 April 2006 14:22 (eighteen years ago) link

I think I screwed that metaphor up, but I'm not sure how.

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Sunday, 9 April 2006 14:23 (eighteen years ago) link

>I was under the impression that we already have bunker busters but that their success likelihood with underground facilities is dubious.

Why would the neocons let success get in the way of what they want?

― Grey, Ian (IanBrooklyn), Sunday, 9 April 2006 14:26 (eighteen years ago) link

I almost feel like the Neo-cons are coming out fighting like badly wounded animals.

Funny you should say that.

We pulled too many punches in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and now we're paying the price. If Tehran drags us into war, we should make the conflict so devastating and painful that even our allies are stunned.

Ralph Peters' latest book is "New Glory: Expanding America's Global Supremacy."

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 9 April 2006 14:30 (eighteen years ago) link

You could attach a nuke to an existing conventional bunker-buster, sure, but that's a different thing. A workable nuclear bunker-buster design doesn't exist yet (and probably can't exist, either).

― Chuck_Tatum (Chuck_Tatum), Sunday, 9 April 2006 14:39 (eighteen years ago) link

(The problem is quite basic: to get a nuke underground and into a bunker, you have to make a big hole. Radiation would then escape out of the hole to the surface -- so the idea of a "pure" nuclear bunker-buster -- i.e. one that keeps the radioactivity underground -- is basically an impossibility.)

― Chuck_Tatum (Chuck_Tatum), Sunday, 9 April 2006 14:44 (eighteen years ago) link

Ralph Peters' latest book is "New Glory: Expanding America's Global Supremacy."

-- Ned Raggett (ne...), April 9th, 2006.

Haha, I was just about to quote that same part.

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Sunday, 9 April 2006 14:44 (eighteen years ago) link

http://www.nypost.com/img/cols/ralphpeters.jpg

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Sunday, 9 April 2006 14:45 (eighteen years ago) link

"WATCH OUT, TOWELHEADS! RRROAWWR!"

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Sunday, 9 April 2006 14:45 (eighteen years ago) link

He looks like Nader. And he's called Ralph. Scary.

― Chuck_Tatum (Chuck_Tatum), Sunday, 9 April 2006 14:47 (eighteen years ago) link

evil twin?

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Sunday, 9 April 2006 14:53 (eighteen years ago) link

President George W. Bush views Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a "potential Adolf Hitler,"

certainly in the "bad moustache" category

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Sunday, 9 April 2006 15:06 (eighteen years ago) link

Hersh's full article is here:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

― Eazy (Eazy), Sunday, 9 April 2006 15:11 (eighteen years ago) link

To play devil's advocate, the Bush admin must be well aware by now of the weight Hersh carries, and this is also an admin that knows how to strategically leak things. So it's possible they're letting this info out on purpose -- maybe to scare Iran? Dunno.

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Sunday, 9 April 2006 15:17 (eighteen years ago) link

this is also an admin that knows how to strategically leak things

Back up.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 9 April 2006 15:17 (eighteen years ago) link

maybe to scare Iran?

IT'S ONLY SCARING US, PPLS

― Jimmy Mod: My theme is DEATH (The Famous Jimmy Mod), Sunday, 9 April 2006 15:19 (eighteen years ago) link

xpost Well, I mean they don't always do it so well, but they've certainly used the tactic.

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Sunday, 9 April 2006 15:20 (eighteen years ago) link

I would think Hersh's Pentagon sources go back a few decades now and that it would be hard to plant a story through him.

― Eazy (Eazy), Sunday, 9 April 2006 15:35 (eighteen years ago) link

NOT TO MENTION THE WAPO HAS THE SAME STORY TODAY

― don weiner (don weiner), Sunday, 9 April 2006 16:02 (eighteen years ago) link

http://www.astrosurf.com/lombry/Documents/et-jar-jar.jpg

issa ppls gonna die?

― Jimmy Mod: My theme is DEATH (The Famous Jimmy Mod), Sunday, 9 April 2006 16:06 (eighteen years ago) link

Few wars are rooted in dispassionate analysis. Self-delusion sparks most such catastrophes.

Now who do you think Peters is talking about?

― Billy Dods (Billy Dods), Sunday, 9 April 2006 18:50 (eighteen years ago) link

Peters is clearly, objectively insane. Who the fuck is he speaking for?

― Smacked into a Trance (noodle vague), Sunday, 9 April 2006 21:50 (eighteen years ago) link

The US has all sorts of crazy plans, like a plan for invading iceland using only chopsticks and sarcasm, the likelyhood of them actually happening is slim.

― Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Sunday, 9 April 2006 21:55 (eighteen years ago) link

Iran's not on the agenda. Sorry. This is what's on the administration's agenda:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40532000/jpg/_40532017_041116rice3.jpg

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Sunday, 9 April 2006 22:01 (eighteen years ago) link

I think it could happen, but I think for a conflict to become hot with Iran there would have to be a Gulf of Tonkin event.

It is more likely that this is just some leaked gamesmanship to match some of the military technology claims that Iran has been sending out in the past couple of weeks with their missile and torpedo programs.

I don't doubt that the military is planning for this very event, as they do this kind of stuff all the time. There is someone in the bowels of the Pentagon that comes up with plans for all sorts of contingencies, some much more likely than others. Executing these kind of plans is a whole other thing and I don't think it would happen without some kind of spark.

― Earl Nash (earlnash), Sunday, 9 April 2006 23:30 (eighteen years ago) link

Personally, I would look forward to a chopsticks-and-sarcasm war with Iceland.

― someone let this mitya out! (mitya), Monday, 10 April 2006 00:38 (eighteen years ago) link

you would.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Monday, 10 April 2006 00:47 (eighteen years ago) link

And who is America's inside man in this upcoming Icelandic war?

http://www.studio360.org/images/materials/mb_mouth.jpg

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Monday, 10 April 2006 01:13 (eighteen years ago) link

Get him away from me.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 10 April 2006 01:23 (eighteen years ago) link

Sy Hersh on Radio 4 this morning.

His sources say this tactical nuclear plan has moved from the contingency to operational planning phase. The difference here is that a number of high level Pentagon bods are threatening resignation on ethical grounds if this plan is not removed from the options list as a result of meeting with 'messianical' Dubya (3 weeks from now? something like that).

Blair remains the 'wild card' apparently.

― john clarkson, Monday, 10 April 2006 08:15 (eighteen years ago) link

(Not to be wonk-ish, but there's no such thing as tactical nuclear weaponry.)

― Chuck_Tatum (Chuck_Tatum), Monday, 10 April 2006 09:19 (eighteen years ago) link

eh, it depends what your tactics are.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Monday, 10 April 2006 11:12 (eighteen years ago) link

' Tehran accuses US of mind games'

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41544000/jpg/_41544624_ahmed.jpg

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 10 April 2006 15:34 (eighteen years ago) link

Watch carefully, my dears, and you shall see the Congress of the United States of America deeply disgrace themselves once more around this issue. It's getting to be like the Roman Senate under Caligula.

― Aimless (Aimless), Monday, 10 April 2006 15:40 (eighteen years ago) link

krugman has a not-at-all-comforting column today called "yes he would" -- basic premise being that if there's anything you think george bush is too smart to do, you're putting hope above experience.

i still think we're not gonna bomb iran. but certainly nobody could be shocked if we did.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Monday, 10 April 2006 16:21 (eighteen years ago) link

(or sorry, that column was yesterday, monday)

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Monday, 10 April 2006 16:21 (eighteen years ago) link

(or today is monday, gah -- editing daily news copy totally messes with my sense of the calendar)

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Monday, 10 April 2006 16:23 (eighteen years ago) link

I must agree with Klugman on this. Bush only takes advice that agrees with his already formed position. It doesn't matter if ten hundred experts who actually know something about the matter are anguishedly howling "NOOOOOOO!"

― Aimless (Aimless), Monday, 10 April 2006 16:48 (eighteen years ago) link

Anybody remember the address of that blog that reposts Krugman columns for the Times Select-impaired?

― o. nate (onate), Monday, 10 April 2006 16:59 (eighteen years ago) link

i don't think it does it any more

― Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 10 April 2006 17:00 (eighteen years ago) link

you know, i lived outside the US for most of the last, oh, fifteen years. i've been back not even a year and it still feels like a different place. and america just doesn't have any easy immigration options... :(

― someone let this mitya out! (mitya), Monday, 10 April 2006 17:51 (eighteen years ago) link

err, "emigration"

― someone let this mitya out! (mitya), Monday, 10 April 2006 17:51 (eighteen years ago) link

how does it feel different?

― Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 10 April 2006 17:54 (eighteen years ago) link

Klugman?....aaaargh! Krugman.

― Aimless (Aimless), Monday, 10 April 2006 18:00 (eighteen years ago) link

I doubt we're touching Iran. Hersh's Pentagon sources leaked the info so that Iran will know WE'RE BEING SERIOUS, WHOA NELLY!

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Monday, 10 April 2006 18:02 (eighteen years ago) link

i thought the same thing, alfred

― Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 10 April 2006 18:06 (eighteen years ago) link

This is a tempting thought, but wait a bit. This only works if Iran accepts this as not being a transparent bluff. Saddam received a thousand warnings that Bush would invade, but heeded none of them for reasons of his own.

At some point, even if this was floated as a bluff, there has to be some core of truth in it, and that core of obstinance can easily take on a life of its own. If push comes to shove, Bush would order nukes on Iran. Don't doubt it. OTOH, Iran recently fought a very bloody war with Iraq where they lost something like 800,000 dead. They won't be bluffed all that easily.

― Aimless (Aimless), Monday, 10 April 2006 18:10 (eighteen years ago) link

How does it feel different?

Well, obviously much may relate to more localized changes and me just getting older, but the two things I feel most keenly are a) personalization of politics and b) the nationalist/religious tint of the country. People seem to have much more difficulty having any kind of civilized political discussion. "Democrats" see "Republicans" as fascists, "conservatives" see "liberals" as traitors, etc. etc. Facts that don't agree with your point of view are discarded almost immediately as spin or fabrication by the other side. _Everything_ that appears in the media is a "lie," leaving most people essentially to convince themselves based on inchoate impressions.

Not incredibly sophisticated analysis, and obviously something that has been going on to some degree for 30+ years.

that core of obstinance can easily take on a life of its own

I agree with this, but look how long it took for that obstinance to get the US back into Iraq. Unless Teheran starts taking really overt steps, Bush will be long gone before this problem really gains legs.

― someone let this mitya out! (mitya), Monday, 10 April 2006 18:44 (eighteen years ago) link

I thought this thread said "Hesch" at first.

― Dan (Sealab Gets Topical!) Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 10 April 2006 18:50 (eighteen years ago) link

further to my point above, see this also thread: "Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies"

― someone let this mitya out! (mitya), Monday, 10 April 2006 18:53 (eighteen years ago) link

look how long it took for that obstinance to get the US back into Iraq

i dunno if this is rhetorical but it took bush only two years from after his inauguration, and a year & a half after 9/11

― +-+-++-++, Monday, 10 April 2006 18:55 (eighteen years ago) link

and really only like 8 months of making noise about war in iraq

― +-++--++, Monday, 10 April 2006 18:58 (eighteen years ago) link

the first thing that flashed through my mind when 9/11 happened was "oh shit, we're going to invade Iraq". I'm sure Dubya had been fantasizing about invading ever since Poppy couldn't catch Sadaam the first time.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 10 April 2006 19:00 (eighteen years ago) link

i would argue that without 9/11 the iraq war never would have happened. but the point is he had the ten years 1991-2001 to point back to. given that this administration "prioritized" iraq (and lost credibility after being "wrong") no one is going to let him step on the gas that quickly this time.

― someone let this mitya out! (mitya), Monday, 10 April 2006 19:00 (eighteen years ago) link

Hmm. The first thing that flashed through my mind was "Oh no, all of those people!"

― Dan (Different Strokes, Etc) Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 10 April 2006 19:01 (eighteen years ago) link

on the other hand, if they hadn't screwed up the post-war so badly in Iraq, both Dubya and US citizens would probably be ready to move on Iran now.

― someone let this mitya out! (mitya), Monday, 10 April 2006 19:02 (eighteen years ago) link

that was pretty cheap dan

― --+-+-++++-+, Monday, 10 April 2006 19:04 (eighteen years ago) link

I have no faith that any elected official will successfully stop Dubya from bombing whoever he wants.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 10 April 2006 19:04 (eighteen years ago) link

that was pretty cheap dan

Oh, I know.

― Dan (Couldn't Stop Myself) Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 10 April 2006 19:05 (eighteen years ago) link

i think its pretty fair to worry a recent tragedy which claimed 2,800 lives causing a future tragedy which will claim 100,000 lives

― -++-+-+, Monday, 10 April 2006 19:06 (eighteen years ago) link

Yes, that is fair.

― Dan (... Where Are You Going With This?) Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 10 April 2006 19:11 (eighteen years ago) link

continuing my policy of being an incomprehensible ass on ile today?

― -+++-+--+, Monday, 10 April 2006 19:16 (eighteen years ago) link

I remember sitting around my apartment around 2000 during one of the many no-fly zone retaliatory bombings (Americans taking out anti-aircraft weapons) against Iraq thinking about how it was just a matter of time. Some American administration was bound to invade Iraq eventually, given the ongoing line of thinking.

Iran's somewhat different in that we don't have quite the same public-facing ongoing campaign and it's been rhetoric so far...

― mike h. (mike h.), Monday, 10 April 2006 19:23 (eighteen years ago) link

it's interesting that the iranian reaction to this has been dismissive. which was also how they reacted to the hersh story last year saying there were american special forces teams already scouting things out in iran. i think it means they're reading all of this as scare tactics, and they don't wanna look scared.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Monday, 10 April 2006 19:32 (eighteen years ago) link

here's a pretty sparse wikipedia entry on part of the US's glorious efforts in iranian politics to date - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK

― Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 10 April 2006 19:34 (eighteen years ago) link

and what a wonderfully successful series of coherent and forward-thinking policies it has been...

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 10 April 2006 19:38 (eighteen years ago) link

All Cheney really needs is one nuked US city to get things rolling his way.

Let's have fun--list all the reasons Cheney wouldn't allow this:

― Grey, Ian (IanBrooklyn), Monday, 10 April 2006 19:44 (eighteen years ago) link

1) harry whittington stands in front of a tank

― +-+--+-++, Monday, 10 April 2006 19:46 (eighteen years ago) link

the reasons Cheney wouldn't allow a US city to be nuked? I can only think of one ("too close to undisclosed location")

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 10 April 2006 19:46 (eighteen years ago) link

3) Damage to corporate assets

― Fight the Real Enemy -- Tasti D-Lite (ex machina), Monday, 10 April 2006 19:48 (eighteen years ago) link

4) potential for interruption of steady supply of fresh, nutritious human babies

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 10 April 2006 19:54 (eighteen years ago) link

also possible transplant hearts

― +--++-+-+-, Monday, 10 April 2006 19:55 (eighteen years ago) link

'mr cheney, im sorry but, well, i dont know how to say it, im afraid the only heart with the same AB+++ bloodtype as yours was... in detroit... when the bomb dropped....'

'noooooo!!!!'

― -++--+-+-, Monday, 10 April 2006 19:57 (eighteen years ago) link

just another day... in the twilight zone...

― +++-+-+--, Monday, 10 April 2006 19:57 (eighteen years ago) link

oh shit its 5:00!!!!!!! p34c3 suck4z

― -++-+-+-, Monday, 10 April 2006 19:59 (eighteen years ago) link

two months pass...

good ol' Sy Hersh, source of so many nightmares

― kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Wednesday, 5 July 2006 22:23 (seventeen years ago) link

and the nightmare of unnamed sources

― don weiner (don weiner), Thursday, 6 July 2006 01:58 (seventeen years ago) link

one month passes...

Cheeky! (Ahmadinejad calls for a live TV debate with Bush)

― StanM (StanM), Tuesday, 29 August 2006 12:07 (seventeen years ago) link

Ahmadinejad blamed "special concessions" granted to the United States and Britain as "the root cause of all the problems in the world."

Too strong.

"At the Security Council, where they have to protect security, they enjoy the veto right. If anybody confronts them, there is no place to take complaints to."

Whether we like it or not, Mahmoud OTM.

― StanM (StanM), Tuesday, 29 August 2006 12:19 (seventeen years ago) link

twelve years pass...

"Pompeo Blames"
"U.S. Claims"
"President Is Forced"
The educated class are the most indoctrinated, their warped minds trying to sell yet another war. Feral beasts baying in material comfort. pic.twitter.com/pAY7zSEu9a
— Dennis Perrin (@DennisThePerrin) June 14, 2019

― a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Friday, 14 June 2019 17:13 (four years ago) link

"president is forced to pick his strategy"

well, that should go well

― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 14 June 2019 20:29 (four years ago) link

What's wrong with 'Pompeo Blames' and 'US Claims'?

― Frederik B, Sunday, 16 June 2019 13:01 (four years ago) link

'indeed!'

― anvil, Sunday, 16 June 2019 13:02 (four years ago) link

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.