| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| ‘Two B-2s could take out Iran’s nuclear assets’ |
| 2006-04-05 |
| WASHINGTON: Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions will be history by the time US President George W Bush leaves office, said a report published here. Veteran foreign correspondent Arnaud de Borchgrave, writing for the United Press International, quotes a “prominent neo-con” with good White House and Department of Defence contacts, as the source of the assertion. Asked what would the US do if sanctions did not make Iran turn away from its nuclear target, the source replied, “B-2s. Two of them could do the job in a single strike against multiple targets.” De Borchgrave writes in an amused vein, “So we looked up B-2s. The US Air Force only has 21 of them. Perhaps price had something to do with it. They came in at $2.2 billion a copy. But they can carry enough ordnance to make Iranians nostalgic for the Shah and his role as the free world’s gendarme in charge of the West’s oil supplies in the Gulf. These stealthy bombers have one major drawback in the Persian magic carpet mode. They can only attack 16 targets simultaneously; one short of the 17 underground nuclear facilities pinned red on Mossad’s target-rich PowerPoint presentations to the political leadership. Presumably, that’s why two B-2s would be required.” De Borchgrave points out that most of Iran’s secret nuclear installations are not only underground, but also close to population centres. “The first pictures of a B-2 raid would be dead women and children on al-Jazeera television newscasts, now as globally ubiquitous as CNN and FOX. The collateral damage would then rival Abu Ghraib’s devastating impact on America’s good name. The perceived American indifference over the loss of Arab lives would now be seen as spreading to another Muslim country,” he writes. The neo-con informant told the correspondent that there is “absolutely no way” Bush will accommodate to an Iranian nuke or two, the way he blinked first with North Korea. Bush uncompromising view of the Iranian nuclear danger and his determination to prevent it by force of two B-2s if necessary is “as solid as his resolve to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein,” he said. According to de Borchgrave, “This is also the British assessment of Bush’s intentions against Iran, a power whose president has vowed to wipe Israel off the map. Today (April 3, 2006), senior British officials met with defence and intelligence chiefs to assess the consequences of air strikes against Iran - as well as European and global repercussions. Neo-cons are unfazed by the fact that Iran is an ancient civilisation of 70 million people with retaliatory assets that range from a choke-hold on the world’s most important oil route in the Strait of Hormuz, to an anti-US Shiite coalition in Iraq with two private militias, funded and armed by Iran, to terrorist groups throughout the Middle East that have a global reach. Iran is also a power that not only resisted an Iraqi invasion, but fought Saddam Hussein’s legions to a standstill in an eight-year-war of attrition that killed about 1 million soldiers on both sides. If, as Bush has indicated, US troops were still in Iraq in 2009 under the next president, Tehran, in retaliatory animus, would pull out all the stops to ensure a Vietnam-like send-off for remaining US forces in Iraq. For the time being, Tehran is delighted to keep US troops in Iraq as protective cover for Iran as it consolidates its influence throughout 60 percent of the country.” |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #22 Prove it! |
| Posted by: DMFD 2006-04-05 20:05 |
| #21 lol ok you win - which just further proves my point i guess - Russia fought in vain for a years and all they got was badly bruised and beaten from it, it serves to show just how good coalition forces are i guess :) |
| Posted by: ShepUK 2006-04-05 15:57 |
| #20 Afghanistan. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-04-05 14:06 |
| #19 indeed shock and awe did work fantastically, anyone who thinks otherwise shouyld go read up the history books and see that what was accomplished was something that no other war has every accomplished so quickly by any measure of historical standards. 3 fckin weeks to anhilate a military, move your forces into the neemys capital city and remove its Dictator and his Baathist cronies. Name me another conflict as successful and i'll give you a tenner. I challenge you to find me a defeat as swift and total as that my leftie friend :) |
| Posted by: ShepUK 2006-04-05 13:52 |
| #18 Shock and awe was a resounding success (pun intended), or at least, around here it was. |
| Posted by: Slaise Angitch9964 2006-04-05 13:09 |
| #17 Just what we need. another "SHOCK & AWE ATTACK" We saw how well that workded didnt we? |
| Posted by: Angolusing Omert2083 2006-04-05 13:00 |
| #16 Phase 1 - Take out every naval and airforce asset in Iran that we can hit. Also use massive bombardment to destroy any road or railway that connects the hump of Iran with the Shia Arab/Kurd/ and Baluchi regions (which would basically mean they may have to fight to get to their own borders). Also hit any nuclear asset we can with minimal casualties. Phase 2 - Use propoganda and diplomacy as we hope for an uprising and for assets to become visible. Phase 3 - Repeat as necessary with targets getting increasingly riskier regarding civilian casualties. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-04-05 12:34 |
| #15 more popularly known as VOTE FOR HILLARY, for that kinder, anti-arrogant, anti-Fascist, Motherly Amer Holocaust, Socialism and future OWG. AI or not, I'm with Joe on this one. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2006-04-05 12:11 |
| #14 B-2s would only be used for deep strike. There are many other vehicles to deal with targets on the periphery. |
| Posted by: RWV 2006-04-05 12:07 |
| #13 'Also it is believed that the Northrop Grumman ZSR-63 defensive aids equipment installed on B-2 bombers may be using active cancellation' found by a quick google search about active cancellation, ruskies too may have got this working too for thier latest future fighter jet apparently. |
| Posted by: ShepUK 2006-04-05 11:04 |
| #12 don't worry about dodging flak at 60 odd thousand feet, remember the B-2 goes very high, way way higer them most anti aircraft missles in fact - but you have to not only see it you have to track it - tracking it to get a firing solution is the near impossible part.Rumours also the B2 has a system of counter measures that spoof radar by sending back a signal thats out of phase or something - but essentially it means if a radar did spot it - the B2 knows its been spotted within a fraction of a second it confuses the enemy radar set by 'Active cancellation' (think thats what is called) interestingly the Fwench are supposesed to have incorperated a working active cancellation system for thier Rafale aircraft. Really though the B2s launch phase is the bad bit - i mean you take off from Whiteman and i bet you some Iranian agent will be straight on the blower to the Iranian's. Need to lift off from Deigo Garcia or somewhere like that so as to not give the signal that there. I think the 20 odd B-2s that are operational would be able to provide us with a very good operational tempo for the first week before bringing in the B1's and standoff strikes from B-52's. But as for the B-2 i don't think they have a hope in hell of seeing let alone shooting one down, I think the B-2 can also take around 180+ SDB's also thats perfect for striking defenses around these nuke plants - i dont care how many AA systems they have they ain't gonna stop a massed attack using all those SDB's or alternitvly load up the B-2 with 80 500lb jdams and watch a whole complex go boom in the space of a minuite. B-1 could be the significant player though also, much under rated i think and even in a high threat enviorment a very good bomber - far better then B-52 which is just a flying truck really. Gonna be very interesting for the planners out there working out any air tasking order thats for sure. |
| Posted by: ShepUK 2006-04-05 11:02 |
| #11 I hope that this is just his imitation of a useful idiot. |
| Posted by: Perfesser 2006-04-05 10:00 |
| #10 2 would be fine, if everything went well, if all bombs hit targets, if one didn't develop engine problems, etc. That is why the Air Force would send in at least 6. 3 per target. Just in case. Normal targets in bombing operations are targeted by 2 bombs. Lead plane primary is second plane secondary and visa versa. In a high risk operation with standoff weapons, at least 3 per target is nessisary for the target to be considered "destroyed" since dodging flak, missiles and radar makes it slightly difficult to aim, even with a JDAM. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2006-04-05 09:49 |
| #9 they'd say that anyway even if we took out there goverment within 3 weeks with only 100 odd loses, sound familier? |
| Posted by: ShepUK 2006-04-05 09:39 |
| #8 I wonder if this is yet more "preparing the ground" by the liberal media so that if the war doesn't turn out to be easy they can trot this thing out and say "those darn neocons were arrogant and lied to us again..." |
| Posted by: Phil 2006-04-05 09:06 |
| #7 so what I'm reading in this is..... we can take out Iran's nuclear facilities with only 2 B2's, blah, blah, neocon, blah, blah, George Bush is willing to do it. This whole war reminds me of that scene from Indiana Jones with the fancy sword fighter. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-04-05 03:54 |
| #6 de dum Borchgrave ‘Two B-2s could take out Iran’s nuclear assets’ yep, The B-2 uses the new J-DAMNABLES, every Persian Pony and pistachio nut will reap the Whirly Dervishes. |
| Posted by: RD 2006-04-05 02:36 |
| #5 De Borchgrave: "The perceived American indifference over the loss of Arab lives would now be seen as spreading to another Muslim country" Last time I checked the Arabs and Persians did not like it when you confused them with eachother. That "2 B-2" story has been repeated a few times. Hopefully it is true. However, it is unfair to claim the administration is unaware of the downsides of strikes, even successful ones. These include yet more Iranian backed terror, collateral damage, alienation of an Iranian populace that might otherwise like us and the potential for them to make a move on the Straits. |
| Posted by: JAB 2006-04-05 02:01 |
| #4 De Borchgrave: If, as Bush has indicated, US troops were still in Iraq in 2009 under the next president, Tehran, in retaliatory animus, would pull out all the stops to ensure a Vietnam-like send-off for remaining US forces in Iraq. What Vietnam-like sendoff? We withdrew after beating the shit out of the North Vietnamese Army. They were done. Unfortunately, we also cut off military aid to the South Vietnamese even as the Soviets ramped up their shipments of Migs, tanks and artillery to North Vietnam - which the North Vietnamese used to rebuild. And that is what they used to overrun South Vietnam three years after we got out. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-04-05 01:25 |
| #3 Don't forget the Iranians have said they have no qualms resorting to launching or suppor new terror attacks against the USA, or Amer interests wherever in the world the same may be, in retaliation for any US attack or invasion of Iran, more popularly known as VOTE FOR HILLARY, for that kinder, anti-arrogant, anti-Fascist, Motherly Amer Holocaust, Socialism and future OWG. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-04-05 01:20 |
| #2 DeBor has a neocon fetish. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-04-05 01:15 |
| #1 Arnaud spends most of his time practicing being amused in a mirror and the echo chamber of his chosen ilk, instead of understanding the ramifications, the weapons, or the inconvenient facts that elude his chattering class. |
| Posted by: Creans Chomogum3852 2006-04-05 00:25 |