Plan to Use Nukes on Iran is Operational

[danarhea]

According to Pentagon sources, a massive bombing campaign strategy for Iran is operational. This campaign would include the use of a B61-11 bunker busting nuclear weapon. Where is the conscience of the United States in using nuclear weapons against another nation? Fortunately, the conscience is within our own military. According to a Pentagon adviser, "There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries". Some officers are talking about resigning after failing in their try to remove the nuclear option from the plan. Those officers should consider staying, and if Bush gives the order to use nukes, they have not only the right, but the obligation under the oaths they took, to relieve Bush of his command.

Folks, what we are witnessing today are the attempted implementations of plans which are coming from a complete lunatic. If we go in with nukes, the world will never be the same again. Hopefully, some voice of reason within the Bush administration will prevail. Otherwise, be happy for what you have at the moment. You wont have it long.

Article is here.

 

[justone]

If we go in with nukes, the world will never be the same again. Hopefully, some voice of reason within the Bush administration will prevail. Otherwise, be happy for what you have at the moment. You wont have it long.

Article is here.

I am scared by the idea of using nukes. not a pretty choice, and you're right,
the world will never be the same again...
but, just 3 questions related to the matter.
1. Will Iran use nukes to strike first?
2. Do you want Iran to have nukes?
3. what is your plan for Iran?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Otherwise, be happy for what you have at the moment. You wont have it long.

It would be wise to adopt this attitude regardless. As frightening as the concept is... America's problems are bigger than Bush.

 

[Kandahar]

As usual, the article says nothing of the kind.

It says that the US military has a plan to use nuclear weapons against Iran. I'm sure we have similar contingency plans for lots of other nations. That doesn't mean that the United States is planning to use them, or that any military action against Iran would necessarily include them.

I don't see why it's necessarily a taboo idea though; not all nuclear weapons are created equal. Bunker-busting tactical nukes are not the same as the nukes dropped on Hiroshima. I see no reason the idea shouldn't at least be considered...

Those officers should consider staying, and if Bush gives the order to use nukes, they have not only the right, but the obligation under the oaths they took, to relieve Bush of his command.

So you're advocating a military coup. Brilliant. You'd better hope that no FBI agents read this forum or you might be receiving a visit.

 

[Alias]

According to Pentagon sources, a massive bombing campaign strategy for Iran is operational. This campaign would include the use of a B61-11 bunker busting nuclear weapon. Where is the conscience of the United States in using nuclear weapons against another nation? Fortunately, the conscience is within our own military. According to a Pentagon adviser, "There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries". Some officers are talking about resigning after failing in their try to remove the nuclear option from the plan. Those officers should consider staying, and if Bush gives the order to use nukes, they have not only the right, but the obligation under the oaths they took, to relieve Bush of his command.

Folks, what we are witnessing today are the attempted implementations of plans which are coming from a complete lunatic. If we go in with nukes, the world will never be the same again. Hopefully, some voice of reason within the Bush administration will prevail. Otherwise, be happy for what you have at the moment. You wont have it long.

Article is here.

Who, what, where, or how does the military have the right to remove a civilian commander in chief. Show me.

 

[danarhea]

As usual, the article says nothing of the kind.

It says that the US military has a plan to use nuclear weapons against Iran. I'm sure we have similar contingency plans for lots of other nations. That doesn't mean that the United States is planning to use them, or that any military action against Iran would necessarily include them.

I don't see why it's necessarily a taboo idea though; not all nuclear weapons are created equal. Bunker-busting tactical nukes are not the same as the nukes dropped on Hiroshima. I see no reason the idea shouldn't at least be considered...


So you're advocating a military coup. Brilliant. You'd better hope that no FBI agents read this forum or you might be receiving a visit.

You should either read the article or stop lying about what was in it.

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

Hence my use of the word "operational". Yes, it is a contingency plan, but it IS part of the operational plan, which means that it can be ordered.

As far as your accusation accusing me of advocating a military coup, call the FBI if you dont like what I said. I just wish I could be in on the conversation so I can hear them laughing their asses off at you.

 

[Alias]

You should either read the article or stop lying about what was in it.



Hence my use of the word "operational". Yes, it is a contingency plan, but it IS part of the operational plan, which means that it can be ordered.

As far as your accusation accusing me of advocating a military coup, call the FBI if you dont like what I said. I just wish I could be in on the conversation so I can hear them laughing their asses off at you.

That's funny. I thought that was what you were proposing when you said the military has the right and the obligation to remove Bush from the presidency. That's a really funny funny thought. I was just wondering where you even get the idea it would enter anyone of the military's minds? Did you ever see a movie called "Six Days In May"?

 

[Tashah]

Respected journalist claims Bush wants "regime change" in Iran

Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh, in a an article in the New Yorker magazine, claims the US administration is stepping up plans for possible air strikes on Iran, despite publicly pushing for a diplomatic solution to a dispute over Tehran´s nuclear ambitions. Hersh quotes unidentified current and former officials who state George W Bush sees a "regime change" in Tehran as the ultimate goal.

Seymour Hersh cannot be easily dismissed, as he also broke the story on the Abu Ghraib prison atrocities.

I have unofficially heard from Israeli sources that the CIA has already inserted targeting teams into Iran. Since many of Iran's nuclear facilities are located underground, it may indeed be necessary to use low-yield tactical nuclear weapons to ensure mission success.

I also tend to think that 'regime change' in this sense does not mean an internal popular overthrow of the ruling clerics, but rather 'targeted assassinations' of the Iranian hierarchy in the mode of IDF missile attacks against Hamas terrorists.

Although a US preemptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities would indeed change everything, I can conjur no other viable alternative in the face of continued Iranian intransigence.

 

[AndrewC]

Although a US preemptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities would indeed change everything, I can conjur no other viable alternative in the face of continued Iranian intransigence.

Do you think Israel will assist the US if it attacks Iran?

 

[Tashah]

Do you think Israel will assist the US if it attacks Iran?

Perhaps covertly, but not directly. Firstly, US forces do not require IDF military support to engage in heavy and sustained air attacks upon Iranian nuclear facilities. Secondly, overt Israeli support in such an endeavor would tend to reframe the situation politically... and not to the benefit of either the US or Israel.

I would expect that Israeli intelligence will lend all possible assistence to the United States. The Israeli Sayeret (Special Forces) has worked closely with Kurdish forces in both Iraq and Iran and could greatly assist the US in infiltration missions. On another level, Iran is constantly monitored by Israeli surveillance satellites. The most important asset in any military strike is bona-fide intelligence... an Israeli specialty in the Middle East.

I would also expect that in the event of a US preemptive strike against Iran, Israel would place its military forces on high alert. I have no doubts that Iran would direct its Pasdaran forces and Hizb'allah allies in Lebanon to launch counterstrikes and terrorist attacks against Israel. Be aware also that Iranian missiles have the range to target Israel. This implies that either US air power must destroy Iranian missile sites at the outset, or Iran had better be prepared to suffer devastating retaliation in the event Iranian missiles strike Israel. As an understatement, this could get very ugly very quickly.

 

[MSgt]

Do you think Israel will assist the US if it attacks Iran?

I hope not and I would think that any assistance (and there would be), it would be indirectly. Israel would be acting in their defense, but to the Muslim world it would be all bout "Zions" versus Muslims. There would be hell to pay. People should realize that we act often, because if our allies acted there would be a worse repercussion (and Israel is not our only Ally that we have stepped in for).

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

According to Pentagon sources, a massive bombing campaign strategy for Iran is operational. This campaign would include the use of a B61-11 bunker busting nuclear weapon. Where is the conscience of the United States in using nuclear weapons against another nation? Fortunately, the conscience is within our own military. According to a Pentagon adviser, "There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries". Some officers are talking about resigning after failing in their try to remove the nuclear option from the plan. Those officers should consider staying, and if Bush gives the order to use nukes, they have not only the right, but the obligation under the oaths they took, to relieve Bush of his command.

Folks, what we are witnessing today are the attempted implementations of plans which are coming from a complete lunatic. If we go in with nukes, the world will never be the same again. Hopefully, some voice of reason within the Bush administration will prevail. Otherwise, be happy for what you have at the moment. You wont have it long.

Article is here.

LMFAO, this plan isn't a go it is one option that no one is really considering. The Pentagon has hundreds of people sitting around day in and day out just thinking **** like this up this is one of the things that they thought up if they were actually going to do it do you think you'de be reading about it in the Sunday paper?

 

[MSgt]

LMFAO, this plan isn't a go it is one option that no one is really considering. The Pentagon has hundreds of people sitting around day in and day out just thinking **** like this up this is one of the things that they thought up if they were actually going to do it do you think you'de be reading about it in the Sunday paper?

No, we wouldn't. You are correct. The Pentagon has attacks plans for every region of the earth that involve countless different tactics and scenarios. We call it the "think tank." This "think tank" exists under Republican and Democratic representation alike. It is what allows us to study and predict future scenarios. It is what allows us to reach out and strike our enemies with the quickest of retaliatory or pre-emptive needs we must meet for the American people and the people of other nations.

 

[Stinger]

Quote: The former intelligence officials depicts planning as "enormous," "hectic" and "operational,"

Hence my use of the word "operational". Yes, it is a contingency plan, but it IS part of the operational plan, which means that it can be ordered.

Well DUH what us is a plan unless it is operational and kept that way. We have plans for actions in lots of places as contingency plans and they are kept operational in case we need them.

 

[DivineComedy]

http://forums.prospero.com/ti-os/messages?msg=14601.1

It is about time we talked about the New MAD Policy!

 

[MSgt]

If one was interested, one should check out 29 Palms, California. It is the largest training ground in the country and one would find a whole sort of training that goes on there for any given situation. Nothing means that tomorrow those exercises will be executed on the real world stage. It only means that we are prepared to.

 

[Alias]

We take out thier nuclear facilities, and when they retaliate by invading Iraq, we nuke Tehran. Then when they attack Israel, we nuke Mecca. I like that plan.

 

[Kandahar]

We take out thier nuclear facilities, and when they retaliate by invading Iraq, we nuke Tehran. Then when they attack Israel, we nuke Mecca. I like that plan.

Mecca isn't in Iran, genius.

 

[Rhadamanthus]

And I think it would be obviouse that, if we were to nuke Tehran, and, Mecca, it would be considered by Muslims to be a direct attack upon themselves and their faith. I think it wise that we NOT provoke more anger then necessary from one of the largest religions in the world.

 

[alphamale]

Let's nuke this story in the bud.

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

Don't believe everything you read somewhere designed to sell magazines - ESPECIALLY in the New Yorker.

 

[Rhadamanthus]

Yes, that flightly liberal hype-tank the New Yorker and the most obviously slanted and overly biased Washington Post, I am glad that someone here still cites that cool-headed, even-keeled, middle-of-the-road bastion of clear eyed reporting, Fox News!

It is rediculous to believe that there are not war plans against Iran on the presidents desk. However only an idiot would launch a nuclear attack, and I believe that Donald Rumsfeld will stop the presidents hand before he pushes too many buttons.

 

[MSgt]

Mecca isn't in Iran, genius.

Bwahahaha.

 

[DivineComedy]

All Muslims are not allies of terrorists. So nuking Mecca is like, stupid! We should instead thank the historically aggressive black stone idolaters for abuse of pilgrims to the Holy Land, the rise of western civilization, and the discovery of America.

Iran is an ally of terrorists.

Let the terrorists nuke us first, when a woman is president, when our president is on the rag. That will teach them.

Hillary 2008.

 

[Alias]

Mecca isn't in Iran, genius.

I never said it was Einstein. You ASSummed I thought it was. I guess I have to be more specific for you because you obviously think I am stupid because I didn't think for you. Another product of a liberal education I see.

 

[Kandahar]

I never said it was Einstein. You ASSummed I thought it was. I guess I have to be more specific for you because you obviously think I am stupid because I didn't think for you. Another product of a liberal education I see.

So if Iran is aggressive toward Israel, we should retaliate by nuking Saudi Arabia?

And I thought Bush's foreign policy was bad...:roll: