[Machette]

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/a ... 417fa_fact

Also if none of you know who Hersh is, he is the most acclaimed investigative journalist in the states right now. He uncovered the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam. Was the first to uncover torture at Abu Gharib. And just last March uncovered U.S intelligence plans on Iran. So he obviously has some credibility.

I urge you all to read it. Even if it takes 20 minutes to read. Has some shocking relevations in that piece.

[Coleman]

sorry, no time to read all of that stuff. I've got girls to pimp. spank:

[Machette]

It's worth the time. I can summarize bits but the whole piece is required reading. I mean when sources say Bush may use nuclear weapons on Iran is that not worth reading?

You guys are lazy bastards. I'll read a 50 page pdf and it doesnt bother me. This piece is actually worth reading.

[ninty]

Excerpts from Hersh's article "The Iran Plans":


The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium.



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. One target is Iran’s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. Natanz, which is no longer under I.A.E.A. safeguards, reportedly has underground floor space to hold fifty thousand centrifuges, and laboratories and workspaces buried approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface. That number of centrifuges could provide enough enriched uranium for about twenty nuclear warheads a year. (Iran has acknowledged that it initially kept the existence of its enrichment program hidden from I.A.E.A. inspectors, but claims that none of its current activity is barred by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.) The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete.


The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning. Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran—without success, the former intelligence official said. “The White House said, ‘Why are you challenging this? The option came from you.’ ”

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Mag_U ... _0408.html

also

http://www.spacewar.com/2006/060408055453.w3s1dgzz.html

So what would rally american support for a nuclear attack on Iran? Why another terrorist attack of course.

[Machette]

My favorite paragraph:

[code:330b9]One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that 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.' He added, 'I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, 'What are they smoking?''[/code:330b9]

Got to love the logic these guys have..

[Vance]

You guys are so naive. The probability of us using a nuke on anyone is practically zero.

[ninty]

There are those that say the US already did use a nuclear device during the battle of Baghdad in April 2003. The story apparently went that the US forces at the Baghdad airport were counterattacked by 5 regiments of Saddams army and some sort of nuclear device was used. This was the same point in which the Jessica lynch thing came out and that was all the media could talk about. Ture or not, I don't know, but interesting none the less. Also, since that time the US has made it easier to deploy nuclear weapons through legislation.

[Machette]

Originally Posted by Vance

You guys are so naive. The probability of us using a nuke on anyone is practically zero.

Naive or not its interesting to see the adminstration contemplating the use of them.

Also:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 82_pf.html

From that:

[quote:e0e44]Unlike the Israeli air attack on Osirak, a strike on Iran would prove more complex because Iran has spread its facilities across the country, guarded some of them with sophisticated antiaircraft batteries and shielded them underground.

Pentagon planners are studying how to penetrate eight-foot-deep targets and are contemplating tactical nuclear devices. The Natanz facility consists of more than two dozen buildings, including two huge underground halls built with six-foot walls and supposedly protected by two concrete roofs with sand and rocks in between, according to Edward N. Luttwak, a specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.[/quote:e0e44]

So if they are to bomb these sites, vance, how do you propose they do it?

[Vance]

Originally Posted by Machette

Naive or not its interesting to see the adminstration contemplating the use of them.

Actually it's not that interesting. Alot of crazy things get thrown around during planning all the time.



[quote:ce8b5]
So if they are to bomb these sites, vance, how do you propose they do it?[/quote:ce8b5]
We can penetrate targets that are 8 feet underground without breaking a sweat - so I figure we'd used the standard BLU-109 warhead.

[Machette]

And the notion that the officials get that the people will rise up against the mullas?

I assume you are for the attack on Iran? oOo:

[ninty]

The propaganda machine is in full swing.

Deep down everyone knows the US will attack Iran, and the US is preparing the public for the use of Nuclear Weapons.

Deep down everyone knows another terrorist attack will happen, and the US is preparting the public saying in every speech possible that terrorists are trying to hurt you and that the next attack will probably be nuclear.

When it happens, everyone will go around saying "I knew this would happen" beacuse it's been engrained into our brains, and people will be more likley to support the resulting actions.

[Vance]

Originally Posted by Machette

And the notion that the officials get that the people will rise up against the mullas?

I assume you are for the attack on Iran? oOo:

You asked me how we would attack those underground targets, and I answered - I never said attacking Iran would be a good idea, or that the idea of an uprising was a stable one.

ninty - lol, I'll wait for that one.

[Coleman]

omfg, FOX NEWSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,191068,00.html

[Nyck]

^lol its fox news so its mass media coverup bullshits...THIS IS TEH TRUTHZ

[Machette]

Believe what you want to, hersh was criticized when he uncovered abu gharib as well. I'm not saying they are going to use nukes, but its important to note some of the things within the report. Such as the inviability of a attack.

Did you even read the article coleman? You said you had no time to read it because it was to long. Shame how you make all your conclusions based on a report Fox News clearly would create.

Edit*

Seems as if other military sources are confirming hersh's accounts..London Time's jumped on the bandwagon.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 07,00.html

Yes it is long but if you are to lazy to read it just shut the fuck up.