Saturday, April 08, 2006
Truly Terrifying---UPDATE
Sy Hersh has an article in the April 17th New Yorker that details a couple of the military options against Iran being weighed by the White House and the Joint Chiefs.
One of the options, which is being given serious consideration, is to use a "bunker-buster" bomb equipped with a small nuclear warhead.
That's right. A nuclear warhead.
Some paragraphs:
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.’ ”
UPDATE----
The New York Times is going to publish an article in tomorrow's paper that contains a denial of Hersh's account by "four Pentagon, military, and administration officials who participate in high-level deliberations on Iran." They're saying that the Government is not seriously considering using nuclear weapons against Iran.
It's going to be interesting to see how this develops. Did Hersh jump the gun? Can the Pentagon do anything other than deny it?...
UPDATE2----
In Sunday's Washington Post there is an above the fold article that supports Hersh's claims. It seems the Post talked to Hersh and also some other people. But it's not clear to me if they also talked to Hersh's sources, are just using Hersh's article, or have their own sources.
Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home
One of the options, which is being given serious consideration, is to use a "bunker-buster" bomb equipped with a small nuclear warhead.
That's right. A nuclear warhead.
Some paragraphs:
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.’ ”
UPDATE----
The New York Times is going to publish an article in tomorrow's paper that contains a denial of Hersh's account by "four Pentagon, military, and administration officials who participate in high-level deliberations on Iran." They're saying that the Government is not seriously considering using nuclear weapons against Iran.
It's going to be interesting to see how this develops. Did Hersh jump the gun? Can the Pentagon do anything other than deny it?...
UPDATE2----
In Sunday's Washington Post there is an above the fold article that supports Hersh's claims. It seems the Post talked to Hersh and also some other people. But it's not clear to me if they also talked to Hersh's sources, are just using Hersh's article, or have their own sources.
<< Home
