Pentagon sees Iran bombing as unsuccessful

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Iran is untouchable and will continue to be no matter what the outcome turns out. NKs new Typodong-2 ballistic missile technology will be given to Iran and we'll use it for Shahab-4/5/6
. Have fun in the two wars you guys are having down there
.



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Top Pentagon officers have told the Bush administration that bombing Iranian nuclear facilities would probably fail to destroy that country's nuclear program, the New Yorker magazine reported on Sunday.

The senior commanders also warned that any attack launched if diplomacy fails to end the standoff over Iran's nuclear ambitions could have "serious economic, political, and military consequences for the United States," the article said, citing unidentified U.S. military officials.

"A crucial issue in the military's dissent, the officers said, is the fact that American and European intelligence agencies have not found specific evidence of clandestine activities or hidden facilities; the war planners are not sure what to hit," according to the report.

The U.S. military's experience in Iraq, where no weapons of mass destruction were found and the war continues, has affected its approach to Iran, the magazine quoted a high-ranking general as saying.

"The target array in Iran is huge, but it's amorphous," the unidentified general was quoted as saying. "We built this big monster with Iraq, and there was nothing there.

"This is son of Iraq."

The United States on Friday spurned Iranian calls for more time to study an offer of incentives to curb its nuclear fuel program, insisting Tehran must reply by the Group of Eight industrialized nations' deadline on July 5.

The article, by journalist Seymour Hersh, also questioned the effectiveness of U.S. targeting potential nuclear sites.

"Intelligence has also shown that for the past two years the Iranians have been shifting their most sensitive nuclear-related materials and production facilities, moving some into urban areas, in anticipation of a bombing raid," it said.

www.irandefence.net...




posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 07:53 AM
link   
Thats true ive also mentioned this before.

You cannot and i repeat cannot ensure the complete destruction of another countries alleged nucluer programs by air raids you need troops and people on the ground to confirm beyound doubt that the program has been eliminated completly 100% otherwise you may have missed secret or hidden facilities which allows the country to continue it's program in secret.

You can only confirm by going into each facility and checking for the complete destruction of equipment by people on the ground not by air raids with b-2 and f-117a they can only drop bombs they cannot do the job of the IAEA.

Bombing Iran will only benifit Iran that way they can say there nucluer program was destroyed 100% and then work on nuke technology in secret.

America would have too have inspectors from the IAEA to confirm 100% of destruction of the nuke program otherwise all they do is create further doubt about the nuke program.

Also i too hope Iran gets the N.Korean TPD-2 missiles so they can launch there own satellites into space and also then Iran can match it with chinese guidence systems to improve the missiles guidence system to make it more accurate.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   
why do you guys want iran to get the taepodong2 missile so bad? is it really so they can "launch satellites?" and why do you want them to launch gps satellites so bad, so they can have guided cruise missiles? who do you think they would attack with those missiles? israel and probably us troops in iraq and warships. im guessing you guys that posted those comments are iranian, however i dont know if you live in the us or not. if you do, you should be ashamed and deported. if not, as an american im deeply offended by what you said.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   
The U.S. can bomb Iran back to the stone age, Korean missile or not; one type of missile isn't some magical defense against something like the U.S. military. What they are saying is they don't think bombing Iran would do any damage to the nuclear capability, which would make bombing of it pointless. We will see though how everything turns out.

By the way, I don't think Iran has to worry as much about the United States, IMO< because Israel will go through and bomb them. They're threatening to bomb Israel, you think Israel will just sit by and relax if the U.S. decides not to bomb Iran and Israel considers Iran a threat?


bih

posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 03:19 AM
link   
bomb Iran with what?? I bet american weapons are used in Iraq already



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 07:29 AM
link   
How do you get "Iran is untouchable and will continue to be" from "If we bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, we can't guarantee they're completely destroyed."?
That's quite the leap in logic there.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 08:39 AM
link   
First of all not all of Irans facilities are know. Secondly bombing a facility does not guarentee the destruction of it's content although it may damage some stuff and destroy some stuff it doesnt mean you destroyed eveything inside allowing Iran to collect whatever survived and use it agian. Also factor in unkown sites if they do have them and then you have a problem.



[edit on 4-7-2006 by iqonx]



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by iqonx

First of all not all of Irans facilities are know. Secondly bombing a facility does not guarentee the destruction of it's content although it may damage some stuff and destroy some stuff it doesnt mean you destroyed eveything inside allowing Iran to collect whatever survived and use it agian. Also factor in unkown sites if they do have them and then you have a problem.



[edit on 4-7-2006 by iqonx]


well said iqonx, if iran is delevoping a secret bomb, they proberly have factored in the fact if they are found out they US or israel will bomb the snot out of anything that looks like a devlopment faciltie. and i suspect that these site will be underground so bombs couldnt wipe them out, and the people working on it will be moved to a palce of safety as soon as the brown smelly stuff hits the fan



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Firstly, I'm sure it suits American military planners for Iran to think it's safe. They're hardly going to say "yup, we know where everything is" because then Iran may try and move stuff and this would mean more intelligence gathering was needed. As it is now, Iran wakes up one morning to find several large craters where its "hidden" nuclear facilities were.

Secondly, I think it was always impossible to 100% wipe out Iran's nuclear program anyway - certainly without a land invasion, which just isn't going to happen (unless Iran do something really stupid...). The most likely scenario is to take out what nuclear stuff they can find, then also some selected strikes on military and command & control targets as well. Basically knock them back a decade or two. Now, I realise the problems with such a tactic is that Iran will probably double its effort to build nukes - but this is infinitely more preferable than just letting them get away with their current behavior. Look at NK now - the US won't let that happen again. Iran need a slap on the wrist, or what kind of message does that send out to the world? Just do what you want without fear of consequence? Great.


Intelligence has also shown that for the past two years the Iranians have been shifting their most sensitive nuclear-related materials and production facilities, moving some into urban areas, in anticipation of a bombing raid,"


Ah yes, the tactic of cowards. "No, no, the bomb didn't hit a military target - it hit a hospital.....for orphans....who are crippled.....and terminally ill"



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   
I was thinking the same as Curio.

Who's to say the US doesn't know exactly where each and every location is now. As said, they would certainly not let them know.

No need to show your hand until the last card is dealt.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   
I was noticing that your threads/posts seem to have a common theme...

If I was to put a label on it, it would be something like military puffing.

I presume you are a proud Iranian. Do you work for the military?

How hard is it to strike a balance between the official position that Iran is developing nuclear technology solely for peaceful purposes... And the nationalist chest thumping we are going to become a nuclear power, be afraid, very afraid, and there is nothing you can do about it?



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   
'Iran is untouchable and will continue to be no matter what the outcome turns out. NKs new Typodong-2 ballistic missile technology will be given to Iran and we'll use it for Shahab-4/5/6. Have fun in the two wars you guys are having down there .'

War is not a game, of who has the best weapons, and my country is better than yours. It involves real people, it's not a my video game guild vs yours, as is the tone of your statement. I am sure if you sure war first hand you would not treat the matter like this.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mehran
Iran is untouchable and will continue to be no matter what the outcome turns out. NKs new Typodong-2 ballistic missile technology will be given to Iran and we'll use it for Shahab-4/5/6
. Have fun in the two wars you guys are having down there
.


Oh thats pathetic, lol. the Taepodong is not really a state of the art missile anyway and a poor little old country like NK can develop them before Iran can goes to show where Iran stands technologically.

anyhow, do something like land a man on the moon if you want alot of national pride. Only one country has done that so that would really impress the world instead of building weapons of mass destruction.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Taken with a big grain of salt

First off the origination article was by Seymour Hersh, the same guy talked about in this Slate article.



Slate
At almost every critical turn since the events of 9/11, Hersh has leapt to the front of the editorial pack with a bracing, well-researched, and controversial explication of the war on terror. And almost every time, Hersh's predictive take on the course of events has been wrong. Boneheaded-dumb wrong.



It can be said I am shooting the messenger..........................truth is truth though, Seymour is not known for making good predictions on future events. I believe he promoted the idea that the Taliban was routing the US military shortly before their defeat.


The other problem I have is the continued use of "un-named sources high in the military/intelligence/government" for these type articles - It always leads me to believe someone is being played to make an agenda.

In this case its a two way street and could fall either way. One direction is have the Iranians think dissent in our military makes them safer from attack and emboldens them to not come to the table - why would they with this kind of thing going on. Ultimately this promotes the path to war.

The other side of the steet consists of partisanship motivations that serve a narrow interest.

Either way this only obfuscates the matter for the American people - in otherwords consider it the propaganda that it is.

The only sensible thing to do with Iran in respect to its obvious path regarding nuclear progams is to insist on cessation of enrichment followed by intensive inspection.

Sans the above, power politics among the security council countries must be set aside in order to effect a total embargo on import/export from Iran.

If thats not enough then yes........war in some form will happen either by Israel or US and western nations.

The 1% chance that Iran ultimately supplies a weapon to a proxy is not worth doing nothing in order to see if they may be trusted with these weapons.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by charliegrs
im guessing you guys that posted those comments are iranian, however i dont know if you live in the us or not. if you do, you should be ashamed and deported. if not, as an american im deeply offended by what you said.


Wow someone here enjoys their free speech. But I would'nt be "offended" if you were reincarnated in North Korea.
In the mean time hail Mr Right, hail Mr Right!!!

P.S Can you please repeat what EXACTLY offended you so I can think about whether or not it is worth saying again? After I'm not totally sure what it is so it might be.

As for Iran the equation is kind of simple. We can do nothing but negioation, sanctions, and assuming the regieme doesn't immunise itself against it maybe some political interference too.
The reason for this is simple Iran already has biological weapons. From a military perspective they will never be as good as nukes but at least they can kill people in the milllions. Should we invade Iran it will be quite conceivable for someone somehow to deliver a couple of killograms of anthrax or whatever into Israel. It will be a bit like what Saddam did in 1991; it doesn't matter if Israel does anything or not as its the fact its certainly an American allie, and probably the motivating reason for any American offensive action against Iran that makes it such a great hostage.

Because Iran already has the ability to kill half or more of Isreals 6.25 million population there is little militaryily we can do to stop them being able to kill more. Partly because of this my policy is that if Iran wants a nuke it can have it; but if they ever use it mutarally assured destruction (more to them than us) will be assured. And its quite possible that a nuclear Iran would do a South Africa and give up the bomb in say 10 years time as the younger generation takes hold of power there. Of course they would never do that as long as America remains a threat to them; and clear thinking Americans must face the fact that they currently are.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984

The reason for this is simple Iran already has biological weapons. From a military perspective they will never be as good as nukes but at least they can kill people in the milllions. Should we invade Iran it will be quite conceivable for someone somehow to deliver a couple of killograms of anthrax or whatever into Israel. It will be a bit like what Saddam did in 1991; it doesn't matter if Israel does anything or not as its the fact its certainly an American allie, and probably the motivating reason for any American offensive action against Iran that makes it such a great hostage.

Because Iran already has the ability to kill half or more of Isreals 6.25 million population there is little militaryily we can do to stop them being able to kill more.


The history(modern) of Israel in battle does not support the bravado expressed above. Seems to me they have hands down won every military conflict since 48' - one can hardly call Isreal a hostage of Iran. On the other hand the US can be thought to be held hostage to Isreal in the sense that our policy is predicated upon keeping them on a leash - lest they do something rash on their own like they almost did in 91' in response to the scud missiles from Iraq.

As far as the US being a threat to Iran - yes that is true - only so long as the current junta refuses to provide unfettered access to its complete nuclear endeavors.

Argue all you you want about the NPT right to technology just don't forget what it says about weaponization which is after-all the whole point of the treaty.

Last but not least don't forget Israels suspected response to any type of WMD or non-recoverable military strike called "The Samson Option" which would pretty much close the book on the middle-east for a long time.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Last time I checked it wasn't the military's job to determine their own orders... lest it has changed lately. I'm tired of the globalists taking control over everyone and its time to throw them back.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   


It can be said I am shooting the messenger..........................truth is truth though, Seymour is not known for making good predictions on future events.


He's not a great prognosticator, but he's a reporter not a prophet, and he has a proven record of good sources within the .mil.
Let's not forget this is the man that broke both the My Lai and Abu Ghraib stories.

And frankly, it makes sense that smart people in the military would be pointing out an obvious fact - if Iran even has a nuclear weapons program (something we have no evidence for beyond our own suspicions), if we don't know where it is, we can't very well strike it effectively.

As for those who will start bragging about the US's infallible intellegence capabilities, two words: Iraq's WMDs. If our intel was so good we would have known they didn't exist, or found them if they had in fact existed.

Of course this won't stop some on the fringes from calling for a new war in the Persian Gulf - however we've already started one war there over weapons programs that didn't exist. Making the same mistake again would be an epochal folly.

[edit on 7/4/06 by xmotex]



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Last time I checked it wasn't the military's job to determine their own orders... lest it has changed lately. I'm tired of the globalists taking control over everyone and its time to throw them back.


This isn't a case of the military choosing their own orders. This is a case of the military advising their superiors that they might not be able to complete the mission required of them, and why.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by iqonx
Thats true ive also mentioned this before.

You cannot and i repeat cannot ensure the complete destruction of another countries alleged nucluer programs by air raids you need troops and people on the ground to confirm beyound doubt that the program has been eliminated completly 100% otherwise you may have missed secret or hidden facilities which allows the country to continue it's program in secret.

You can only confirm by going into each facility and checking for the complete destruction of equipment by people on the ground not by air raids with b-2 and f-117a they can only drop bombs they cannot do the job of the IAEA.

Bombing Iran will only benifit Iran that way they can say there nucluer program was destroyed 100% and then work on nuke technology in secret.

America would have too have inspectors from the IAEA to confirm 100% of destruction of the nuke program otherwise all they do is create further doubt about the nuke program.

Also i too hope Iran gets the N.Korean TPD-2 missiles so they can launch there own satellites into space and also then Iran can match it with chinese guidence systems to improve the missiles guidence system to make it more accurate.





I disagree Iqnox. I readz it on NEWSMAX alert in my mail box we can take a atomic bomb and drop it all on I RUN and people will love us cuz we liberated them. It's the LIBERAL MEDIA that dont want us to go to IRUN to drop a 3000 ton nuke. They say the radiation will be good for the babies becuz it gives em a healthy glow. If it's good for the babies we gotta do it.

I also readz on world daily that we can put them all in interrogation camps except for the kids and teenz and they won't mind if we give em comfortable furniture and a desk cuz they don't have good sofas in IRUN.. AND you know how credible the sources are there. WHY DONT the LIBERAL MEDIA go with ACLU AND MOVE TO FRANCE where they belong.

You want bomb inspecturz? They love the terrorists. I listened to Rushbo on the radio and he says they got ties to ACLU and DEMOCRATIC party. We got to take em out. Pat Robertson knows best and he says the president is doing a fine job and the lord told him so. I seen it on 700 club. We know best so that's good enough fer me. Boy, this kool aid is good. Is there anymore?




sarcasm machine breaks and slowly subsides back to reason and logic)





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join