Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 34
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Lousiville, Kentucky
    Posts
    5,840
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    8
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Any U.S. strike may not destroy Iran nuclear sites

    That's not good, scratch off that idea alone with stopping them.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070223/...wusfCCen934T0D

    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.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    7,727
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    8
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    8
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    243660

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LiberalNation View Post
    That's not good, scratch off that idea alone with stopping them.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070223/...wusfCCen934T0D

    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.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    18,758
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    139 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475233

    Default

    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:
    “… the greatest detractor from high performance is fear: fear that you are not prepared, fear that you are in over your head, fear that you are not worthy, and ultimately, fear of failure. If you can eliminate that fear—not through arrogance or just wishing difficulties away, but through hard work and preparation—you will put yourself in an incredibly powerful position to take on the challenges you face" - Pete Carroll.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    572
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    12120

    Default

    Hey, when it comes to nuke sites, close works..............
    If ya can't prove it, don't say it.
    Bikes, babes, and beer, it don't get no better than that.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Lousiville, Kentucky
    Posts
    5,840
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    8
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dilloduck View Post
    It might be tough to get people to work at a nuke plant that is still glowing in the dark.
    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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Georgia!
    Posts
    11,810
    Thanks (Given)
    738
    Thanks (Received)
    666
    Likes (Given)
    1133
    Likes (Received)
    819
    Piss Off (Given)
    24
    Piss Off (Received)
    1
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1203901

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LiberalNation View Post
    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’ll work more better than prevention for sure, and everyone will still love/hate us. Great idea, kid.
    UNITED STATES ARMY AVIATION

    Above the Best

    Why the Hell should I have to press “1” for ENGLISH?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    332
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    229

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. P View Post
    Yup, yer right! We need to let em get em first. Then we can have a nuclear exchange that everyone fears so much. That’ll work more better than prevention for sure, and everyone will still love/hate us. Great idea, kid.


    "More better"?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Georgia!
    Posts
    11,810
    Thanks (Given)
    738
    Thanks (Received)
    666
    Likes (Given)
    1133
    Likes (Received)
    819
    Piss Off (Given)
    24
    Piss Off (Received)
    1
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1203901

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grunt View Post
    "More better"?
    It's a Southern thang.
    UNITED STATES ARMY AVIATION

    Above the Best

    Why the Hell should I have to press “1” for ENGLISH?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Lousiville, Kentucky
    Posts
    5,840
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    8
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. P View Post
    Yup, yer right! We need to let em get em first. Then we can have a nuclear exchange that everyone fears so much. That’ll 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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    47,819
    Thanks (Given)
    34251
    Thanks (Received)
    26352
    Likes (Given)
    2315
    Likes (Received)
    9915
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    12
    Mentioned
    368 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LiberalNation View Post
    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."
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Lousiville, Kentucky
    Posts
    5,840
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    8
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunny View Post
    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.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    4,853
    Thanks (Given)
    960
    Thanks (Received)
    3749
    Likes (Given)
    535
    Likes (Received)
    854
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    17759692

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LiberalNation View Post
    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!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    7,727
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    8
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    8
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    243660

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LiberalNation View Post
    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.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    47,819
    Thanks (Given)
    34251
    Thanks (Received)
    26352
    Likes (Given)
    2315
    Likes (Received)
    9915
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    12
    Mentioned
    368 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LiberalNation View Post
    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.
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    7,727
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    8
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    8
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    243660

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LiberalNation View Post
    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 !

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums