PDA

View Full Version : Any U.S. strike may not destroy Iran nuclear sites



LiberalNation
02-24-2007, 08:12 PM
That's not good, scratch off that idea alone with stopping them.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070223/ts_nm/iran_usa_military_dc;_ylt=AhHM0N9292TRrqwusfCCen93 4T0D

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Any U.S. attack against Iran could involve thousands of sorties and missile launches lasting weeks, but it still would not eliminate the country's nuclear program, U.S. military officials and analysts say.

A strike -- something the Pentagon insists is not planned -- would be hampered by lack of intelligence on the number and location of nuclear facilities dispersed throughout Iran, the analysts said.

And the most sophisticated U.S. "bunker-buster" bombs might be unable to dig deep enough to reach buried, hardened nuclear sites, according to analysts and defense officials.

"It is highly unlikely all the critical sites are known to U.S. and Western intelligence services, so parts of the program would doubtless survive, perhaps even the most critical elements," said Bruce Riedel, a former National Security Council and Defense Department official, and now a Brookings Institution analyst.

An air strike, raised as the most likely option if any military action were ordered, would at best set Iran's nuclear program back a few years.

"The people who are most optimistic favor it because they think it will delay, not derail, the Iranian nuclear program," said Justin Logan, a Cato Institute analyst in Washington.

Many officials and military analysts say a U.S. attack on Iran is unlikely. The U.S. military is stretched thin by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and there is little international support for it.

U.S. officials consistently stress diplomacy as the best way to resolve the dispute over Iran's nuclear program, which the United States and others say Tehran is using to develop nuclear weapons. Iran denies the charge, saying it seeks only peaceful nuclear energy.

Despite the Bush administration's focus on talks, military maneuvers and the rhetoric coming from Washington and Tehran have fostered speculation about an armed confrontation.

WEAK INTELLIGENCE HURTS OPTIONS

Defense officials who spoke on condition of anonymity in broad terms about military options, mentioned alternatives ranging from limited air strikes to a more sustained air campaign. Analysts offer more detail, but acknowledge their assessments are only an educated guess.

The officials say a U.S. strike would target Iran's known nuclear facilities and other military installations, including missile sites and anti-aircraft systems.

It would involve bomber aircraft dropping bunker-buster bombs to hit the underground nuclear sites, defense officials and analysts said. Another component would be cruise missiles launched from U.S. naval vessels in the Gulf, they added.

Some military officials have discussed a campaign that could involve hundreds of sorties over a few days. But some scenarios that expand targets to other government and weapons facilities could require thousands of sorties over many weeks, analysts said.

Analysts and military officials in Washington said neither option was considered likely to wipe out Iran's nuclear program.

The first problem is finding the targets. The Center for Strategic and International Studies analyst Anthony Cordesman has said that while international inspectors have identified at least 18 sites, there could be as many as 70.

Beyond intelligence, U.S. munitions might not be able to do the job. Cato's Logan said the most effective U.S. bunker-buster bomb could not drill deep enough through hardened concrete and rock to hit nuclear facilities believed to be buried at least 15 meters (50 feet) underground.

A series of sorties would be necessary with bombs guided repeatedly to the same site to inflict heavy damage.

"Those limitations would clearly affect us," said one defense official.

But Pentagon officials say the United States could damage Iran's nuclear program.

"Clearly the United States has tremendous capability, but it has no intent and is not planning to go to war with Iran," said spokesman Bryan Whitman.

Dilloduck
02-24-2007, 08:16 PM
That's not good, scratch off that idea alone with stopping them.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070223/ts_nm/iran_usa_military_dc;_ylt=AhHM0N9292TRrqwusfCCen93 4T0D

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Any U.S. attack against Iran could involve thousands of sorties and missile launches lasting weeks, but it still would not eliminate the country's nuclear program, U.S. military officials and analysts say.

A strike -- something the Pentagon insists is not planned -- would be hampered by lack of intelligence on the number and location of nuclear facilities dispersed throughout Iran, the analysts said.

And the most sophisticated U.S. "bunker-buster" bombs might be unable to dig deep enough to reach buried, hardened nuclear sites, according to analysts and defense officials.

"It is highly unlikely all the critical sites are known to U.S. and Western intelligence services, so parts of the program would doubtless survive, perhaps even the most critical elements," said Bruce Riedel, a former National Security Council and Defense Department official, and now a Brookings Institution analyst.

An air strike, raised as the most likely option if any military action were ordered, would at best set Iran's nuclear program back a few years.

"The people who are most optimistic favor it because they think it will delay, not derail, the Iranian nuclear program," said Justin Logan, a Cato Institute analyst in Washington.

Many officials and military analysts say a U.S. attack on Iran is unlikely. The U.S. military is stretched thin by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and there is little international support for it.

U.S. officials consistently stress diplomacy as the best way to resolve the dispute over Iran's nuclear program, which the United States and others say Tehran is using to develop nuclear weapons. Iran denies the charge, saying it seeks only peaceful nuclear energy.

Despite the Bush administration's focus on talks, military maneuvers and the rhetoric coming from Washington and Tehran have fostered speculation about an armed confrontation.

WEAK INTELLIGENCE HURTS OPTIONS

Defense officials who spoke on condition of anonymity in broad terms about military options, mentioned alternatives ranging from limited air strikes to a more sustained air campaign. Analysts offer more detail, but acknowledge their assessments are only an educated guess.

The officials say a U.S. strike would target Iran's known nuclear facilities and other military installations, including missile sites and anti-aircraft systems.

It would involve bomber aircraft dropping bunker-buster bombs to hit the underground nuclear sites, defense officials and analysts said. Another component would be cruise missiles launched from U.S. naval vessels in the Gulf, they added.

Some military officials have discussed a campaign that could involve hundreds of sorties over a few days. But some scenarios that expand targets to other government and weapons facilities could require thousands of sorties over many weeks, analysts said.

Analysts and military officials in Washington said neither option was considered likely to wipe out Iran's nuclear program.

The first problem is finding the targets. The Center for Strategic and International Studies analyst Anthony Cordesman has said that while international inspectors have identified at least 18 sites, there could be as many as 70.

Beyond intelligence, U.S. munitions might not be able to do the job. Cato's Logan said the most effective U.S. bunker-buster bomb could not drill deep enough through hardened concrete and rock to hit nuclear facilities believed to be buried at least 15 meters (50 feet) underground.

A series of sorties would be necessary with bombs guided repeatedly to the same site to inflict heavy damage.

"Those limitations would clearly affect us," said one defense official.

But Pentagon officials say the United States could damage Iran's nuclear program.

"Clearly the United States has tremendous capability, but it has no intent and is not planning to go to war with Iran," said spokesman Bryan Whitman.

It might be tough to get people to work at a nuke plant that is still glowing in the dark. :laugh2:

darin
02-24-2007, 08:44 PM
Defense officials who spoke on condition of anonymity in broad terms about military options,


We have a reporter or reporters who take non-credible sources and their broad sweeping terms and try and make them apply to a specific situation.

:bs:

trobinett
02-24-2007, 08:48 PM
Hey, when it comes to nuke sites, close works..............:lol:

LiberalNation
02-25-2007, 12:58 AM
It might be tough to get people to work at a nuke plant that is still glowing in the dark. :laugh2:
Yes use nukes to stop someone from getting/using but haven't yet nukes. That will make us look very hypocritical and turn people even more against. An all around bad idea, even an invasion would look better on us then that.

Mr. P
02-25-2007, 01:59 AM
Yes use nukes to stop someone from getting/using but haven't yet nukes. That will make us look very hypocritical and turn people even more against. An all around bad idea, even an invasion would look better on us then that.

Yup, yer right! We need to let em get em first. Then we can have a nuclear exchange that everyone fears so much. That値l work more better than prevention for sure, and everyone will still love/hate us. Great idea, kid. :slap:

grunt
02-25-2007, 02:24 AM
Yup, yer right! We need to let em get em first. Then we can have a nuclear exchange that everyone fears so much. That値l work more better than prevention for sure, and everyone will still love/hate us. Great idea, kid. :slap:



"More better"? :clap:

Mr. P
02-25-2007, 02:33 AM
"More better"? :clap:

It's a Southern thang.

LiberalNation
02-25-2007, 11:52 AM
Yup, yer right! We need to let em get em first. Then we can have a nuclear exchange that everyone fears so much. That値l work more better than prevention for sure, and everyone will still love/hate us. Great idea, kid.
They don't have the missile tech to engage us in a nuclear exchange. They are more of a threat to Israel, let Israel handle it with our political support. Israel will do it if she feels the threat is great enough.

Gunny
02-25-2007, 12:31 PM
Yes use nukes to stop someone from getting/using but haven't yet nukes. That will make us look very hypocritical and turn people even more against. An all around bad idea, even an invasion would look better on us then that.

Worrying about "how we look" and what other people think will bring about the downfall of this Nation.

Why is it people like you wait until AFTER it's too late, then when shit goes wrong, you start pointing fingers? I can hear you lefties now when Iran finally unveils some nukes .... "Bush didn't do anything to stop them."

LiberalNation
02-25-2007, 12:34 PM
Worrying about "how we look" and what other people think will bring about the downfall of this Nation.
No, but not caring might. We can't fight the whole world and perception is reality.

CSM
02-25-2007, 12:39 PM
No, but not caring might. We can't fight the whole world and perception is reality.

If perception is reality then all libs are stupid...if you are a neocon.....and vice versa.

Saying that perception is reality is pure bull. The perception that you are invulnerable wont keep you from getting killed....try it if you dont beleive me!

Dilloduck
02-25-2007, 12:40 PM
No, but not caring might. We can't fight the whole world and perception is reality.

The biggest liberal lie of them all-----Perception is NOT---I repeat NOT REALITY.

Gunny
02-25-2007, 12:41 PM
No, but not caring might. We can't fight the whole world and perception is reality.

Bullshit. Reality is doing what's right, regardless how others perceive it.

Dilloduck
02-25-2007, 12:55 PM
No, but not caring might. We can't fight the whole world and perception is reality.

Then you certainly won't mind if we perceive you to be totally brainwashed by liberal bullshit ! :coffee:

Gaffer
02-25-2007, 03:59 PM
Once again I hear the media spouting from anonymous sources and analysts that we can't succeed. It will take more power than we have to knock out all the sites. iran is just too power for for us, we are stretched too thin. On and on, whine whine.

Everything isn't done in a day. The first strikes would be against their anti-aircraft defenses with stealth fighters. The big nuke sites would be taken out with B-1 and B-2 bombers, whcih are also stealth. Cruise missiles from the carrier forces in the gulf would take out any naval installations and could target other nuke sites.

The US is fully capable of fighting a full blown war with iran and still maintain operations in iraq and afganhistan. he libs and naysayers don't comprehend the power "of the force" so to speak.

manu1959
02-25-2007, 05:31 PM
Yes use nukes to stop someone from getting/using but haven't yet nukes. That will make us look very hypocritical and turn people even more against. An all around bad idea, even an invasion would look better on us then that.

i am curious.....

who was with us that has now turned against us? ..... name 2 countries

and say we nuke iran ...

who is with us now that will turn against us? ...name 2 countries

trobinett
02-25-2007, 05:44 PM
Ya know, the powerhouse college teams always play a couple of "tune-up" games before they go up againts the "real deal".

Well, I don't think Iran is the "real deal", but Afghanistan, and Iraq were two "tune-up" games.

I wonder what response you'd get if you asked around on who wants to be next?:salute:

LiberalNation
02-25-2007, 05:49 PM
and say we nuke iran ...

who is with us now that will turn against us? ...name 2 countries

a lot of European countries would.Russia and china also wouldn't like it because they get a lot of oil from Iran and the price will go sky high if we do that.


i am curious.....

who was with us that has now turned against us? ..... name 2 countries
Spain is one, Britian will soon be another has soon as Blairs out of office.

Gaffer
02-25-2007, 05:51 PM
Ya know, the powerhouse college teams always play a couple of "tune-up" games before they go up againts the "real deal".

Well, I don't think Iran is the "real deal", but Afghanistan, and Iraq were two "tune-up" games.

I wonder what response you'd get if you asked around on who wants to be next?:salute:

Probably a lot of "not me's".

I do think iran is the real deal. It is the head of the snake. Everything revolves around iran. They supply the money, the weapons and even the people. Without them the islamists will be divided and hopefully begin fighting among themselves even more. And without material support they will lose there ability to fight.

trobinett
02-25-2007, 05:53 PM
a lot of European countries would.Russia and china also wouldn't like it because they get a lot of oil from Iran and the price will go sky high if we do that.


Spain is one, Britian will soon be another has soon as Blairs out of office.

Spain was intimidated, shame on them.

Britain isn't "tuning againts us", they are to the point where they can scale back on their operations in the South of Iraq.

Want to know why? Cause we're WINNING, I know, hard to swallow, but there you have it.:salute:

LiberalNation
02-25-2007, 06:02 PM
Look at the british public, they don't support the war and Blair is loosing in his own country because of the war. I'd call that turning against us which would be escalated by using the taboo nuclear weapon.

manu1959
02-25-2007, 06:17 PM
a lot of European countries would.Russia and china also wouldn't like it because they get a lot of oil from Iran and the price will go sky high if we do that.


Spain is one, Britian will soon be another has soon as Blairs out of office.

hate to tell ya china and russia have never been with us.....

spain is no longer a us ally and you expect to lose england soon....interesting....guess we should stop sending them money...

Gunny
02-25-2007, 09:25 PM
hate to tell ya china and russia have never been with us.....

spain is no longer a us ally and you expect to lose england soon....interesting....guess we should stop sending them money...

As usual, LN is about as informed as a mushroom.

LiberalNation
02-25-2007, 10:17 PM
To an extent they have, of course not has close as Britian or Australia but not flat out enemies like they used to be. China is helping with the NK negotations and Russia with Iran. Would they sell us out if it was in their interests sure but then any country with a lick of self interest would.

Gunny
02-25-2007, 10:25 PM
To an extent they have, of course not has close as Britian or Australia but not flat out enemies like they used to be. China is helping with the NK negotations and Russia with Iran. Would they sell us out if it was in their interests sure but then any country with a lick of self interest would.

Which is EXACTLY why we need to be looking out for OUR self-interest.

You're not going to say it's not okay for us to do it to them first when you obviously have no problem with them doing it to us, are you?

LiberalNation
02-25-2007, 10:29 PM
Its okay for us to anything in our own self interest but it first must be proved to be in our self interests and the consequences not worse to our interests than the initial action. I’m not convince the solution nuking Iran/or getting into an all out war with them would be.

Gunny
02-25-2007, 10:31 PM
Its okay for us to anything in our own self interest but it first must be proved to be in our self interests and the consequences not worse to our interests than the initial action. I知 not convince the solution nuking Iran/or getting into an all out war with them would be.

How many threats does it take before it is sufficient to assume Iran is probably not kidding? Or does it take a US city going up in a mushroom cloud in order to be "sufficient?"

LiberalNation
02-25-2007, 10:37 PM
His threats have mainly been against Israel not us. Following that line it is okay to assume when they become a threat Israel will be the first to act and remove the problem. Their inteligience in the region is better than ours as well.

Dilloduck
02-25-2007, 10:44 PM
His threats have mainly been against Israel not us. Following that line it is okay to assume when they become a threat Israel will be the first to act and remove the problem. Their inteligience in the region is better than ours as well.

Oh really ?------then how in the hell did the get ambushed by Hezbullies ?

Gunny
02-25-2007, 10:55 PM
His threats have mainly been against Israel not us. Following that line it is okay to assume when they become a threat Israel will be the first to act and remove the problem. Their inteligience in the region is better than ours as well.

Iran has been threatening us since 1979. Pretending it is solely Israel's problem is playing ostrich.

Gaffer
02-26-2007, 12:18 PM
Its okay for us to anything in our own self interest but it first must be proved to be in our self interests and the consequences not worse to our interests than the initial action. I知 not convince the solution nuking Iran/or getting into an all out war with them would be.

There is already tons of proof about what iran is doing. They have 40,000 agents at last count in iraq and other agentsaround the world. They have threatened Israel AND the US. The have stated outright many times their intention to wipe out both Israel and the US. PUBLICLY.

The solution is to take out their ability to make nukes and their ability to continue to support terror organizations. The US will never use a nuke to take out anything in iran unless its in response to a nuke attack from them.

Even if we don't take out all their facilities they will still be set back on their developement program by many years.

LiberalNation
03-04-2007, 11:41 PM
Still don't think we will bomb Iran so wont matter if I'm right.

Air strikes on Iran could backfire: report

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070305/ts_nm/iran_nuclear_report_dc;_ylt=AhEJfpFWCbafBi3k2xrICS F34T0D

LONDON (Reuters) - Military strikes to destroy Iran's nuclear ambitions could backfire, increasing Tehran's determination to obtain atomic weapons and bolstering hostility toward the West, a report said on Monday.

The report "Would air strikes work?," written by a leading British weapons scientist, said strikes would probably be unable to hit enough targets to cause serious damage to Iran's nuclear facilities.

"With inadequate intelligence, it is unlikely it would be possible to identify and subsequently destroy the number of targets needed to set back Iran's nuclear program for a significant period," said the report.

"In the aftermath of a military strike, if Iran devoted maximum effort and resources to building one nuclear bomb, it could achieve this in a relatively short amount of time."

Such a weapon would then be wielded in "an environment of incalculably greater hostility," said the report, which was published by the Oxford Research Group and written by Dr Frank Barnaby, a nuclear physicist and weapons expert.

Barnaby, one of the few remaining people in the world to have witnessed an above ground nuclear test, urged greater diplomatic efforts to end a standoff with Tehran.

Iran refused to meet a United Nations deadline last week for halting uranium enrichment -- a process that can produce nuclear fuel for use in power plants or weapons.

Iran's defiance prompted Washington to say all options are on the table for dealing with what it sees as a potential nuclear threat from Iran, and an Iranian deputy foreign minister responded by saying Tehran was prepared even for war.

BLIX BACKS REPORT

Iran is likely to have built secret facilities underground as well as "false targets" designed to look like nuclear sites and act as decoys, Barnaby's report said.

An attack on those facilities would boost support for the country's authorities, the author told Reuters in an interview ahead of the report's release.

"If Iran is bombed the whole community is going to be totally united behind the government to speedily produce a nuclear weapon," he said. "It would be an absolutely idiotic thing to do."

Strikes would also interrupt oil supplies and impact the global economy, he said.

Hans Blix, former U.N. chief weapons inspector, backed the conclusions and warned Washington and its allies to learn from Iraq, where a decision to invade was based partly on a false belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

"In the case of Iran, armed action would be aimed at intentions -- that may or may not exist. However, the same result -- tragedy and regional turmoil -- would inevitably follow," Blix wrote in a foreword to the report.

Barnaby said bombing targets such as the Bushehr nuclear power reactor in southwest Iran once they were operational could cause potentially catastrophic contamination.

"To bomb that would be absolutely criminal -- you'd have another Chernobyl on your hands," he said.

Barnaby, 79, witnessed an atomic weapons test and saw the awful power of the explosion in 1953 in the Australian desert.

"You can't avoid being profoundly affected by that kind of experience. Seeing these things explode in the atmosphere, it makes you imagine what would happen if it exploded over a city. It's absolutely horrifying -- and it convinces you quite rapidly that these weapons have to be negotiated away."

Gaffer
03-04-2007, 11:56 PM
If iran gets a nuke there will be thousands of people that will get to witness a nuclear explosion. Many of them right up close.

Any nuke sites we hit are going to leak radiation all over the place. But that's irans problem.

Making strikes against nuke facilities and military targets are not so likely to unite the population against us. It may actually encourage them to outright revolt.