Article

2006-04-08 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2006-04-08 05:34|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Seymour Hersh. That which isn't common sense is Seymour. That which is, isn't.

Posted by Jinens Slilet8504 2006-04-08 06:20|| 2006-04-08 06:20|| Front Page Top

#2 go to hell US your turn will come again to be nuked

Posted by Snereth Wheang2184 2006-04-08 07:09|| 2006-04-08 07:09|| Front Page Top

#3 LOL. Wow, you have issues, sonny!

Posted by Jinens Slilet8504 2006-04-08 07:36|| 2006-04-08 07:36|| Front Page Top

#4 Seymour is an idiot, man never been right in his life.

Posted by djohn66 2006-04-08 08:21|| 2006-04-08 08:21|| Front Page Top

#5 'your turn will come again' ??? WTF they already been nuked before - news to me son.

Posted by ShepUK 2006-04-08 08:38|| 2006-04-08 08:38|| Front Page Top

#6 ROFL. Not a single quote. Not one!! LOL!! We used to call these preacher's stories. Fantasies preacher's make up and present as real, to illustrate their sermon.

the report quoted a former senior intelligence official.

A senior unnamed Pentagon adviser

The former intelligence officials

One former defence official said

the report said.[from the New Yorker, from an unnamed source]

One .. options ..involves a nuclear weapon, Mr Hersh writes.

the former senior intelligence official said the .. nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the military, and some officers have talked about resigning [but none did, did they Seymour?] according to the report.

strong sentiments within the military against .. nuclear weapons .." the magazine quotes .the Pentagon adviser as saying
The a[unnamed] adviser warned

"If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle," the adviser is quoted as telling The New Yorker.

"Damn, where do I sign up to get paid to write trash like this," said an unnamed blogger, known as 2b.

Posted by 2b 2006-04-08 08:39|| 2006-04-08 08:39|| Front Page Top

#7 preachers

Posted by 2b 2006-04-08 08:40|| 2006-04-08 08:40|| Front Page Top

#8 Someone needs to go back on their medication...

Posted by DarthVader 2006-04-08 08:46|| 2006-04-08 08:46|| Front Page Top

#9 But the former senior intelligence official said the attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the military, and some officers have talked about resigning after an attempt to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans in Iran failed, according to the report.

Probability that this is a load of bullshi*, between 99 and 100%. Thank you for the load Seymour, but I think your spreader has a couple of flat tires.

Posted by Besoeker 2006-04-08 09:11|| 2006-04-08 09:11|| Front Page Top

#10 This is illogical for one primary reason: the US doctrine on the use of tactical nukes is to *save* US lives. And not just a large number of lives, but a very large number of lives.

When push comes to shove, it really does boil down to this: is it worth the lives of a Division of soldiers to *not* use a nuclear weapon?

For example, all agreed that it would *not* be better to nuke Baghdad instead of to attack Iraq conventionally. That decision cost more than 2,000 US lives. And yet nobody in retrospect still thinks it would have been better with nukes.

So what is the alternative in Iran? Strategically, they have only one weapon: missiles. If we can counter their missiles, then the rest of their country can be pounded at our leisure. If one conventional bunker-buster won't do, then what about a dozen in the same hole?

The key to the whole thing is both that we destroy their immediate nuclear weapons capability, and we take away their ability to re-constitute it in the future.

This can only be done in one way: to annihilate their military and revolutionary guard, and to partition Iran, to deny them the resources to rebuild their program. Their military and RG must go, as they are what holds their country together by force in the first place.

This is a far easier proposition than going after their bunkers first. A 3-plane chalk of B-52s dropping a total of 153 - 500lb iron bombs will reduce about 1/2 square mile. Infantry on the ground will cease to exist.

But by partitioning Iran, in essence reducing it to Persia only, takes away what Persia would need to re-create its nuclear program. Especially the oil money in the Arab southwest.

So it is a three step plan: missile defense, extended conventional attack, and partition.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-04-08 09:16|| 2006-04-08 09:16|| Front Page Top

#11 From your keyboard to God's eyes, 'Moose.

Posted by mac 2006-04-08 09:28|| 2006-04-08 09:28|| Front Page Top

#12 'moose knows tactics. Stay away from engineering tho.

:>

Posted by 6 2006-04-08 09:40|| 2006-04-08 09:40|| Front Page Top

#13 I just wanna read what the B1B pilots say when they've finished whipping em. Those jets rock!

Posted by ShepUK 2006-04-08 10:50|| 2006-04-08 10:50|| Front Page Top

#14 ROFLMAO!!!Seymour has been had with a planted story designed to get the turbans tied a little tighter. Seymour's the best weapon in our psyops arsenal. Waytago Seymour!

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-04-08 10:53|| 2006-04-08 10:53|| Front Page Top

#15 My advice would be to use the bunker-busting nuke warheads; but detonate them at night during a raining session to washback the fallout!! FAS has indicated that the resultant explosion if not reached to a depth of 400 feet would result in a crater blowout rather than an encapsulated crystalized dome, they assumed the US prefers!!

Posted by smn 2006-04-08 10:53|| 2006-04-08 10:53|| Front Page Top

#16 "Seymour is an idiot, man never been right in his life."

I disagree. Hersh is no idiot. If anything, he has proven to be very skilled at manipulating reality to bolster his speculations. Rightly or wrongly, his reports carry more weight because of his perceived credentials. Also, other journalists that report on these issues would sever their own appendages to have access to half of his sources. However, I believe he has tarnished what credibility he had with his frequent denunciations of what he refers to as a neo-con agenda. Which in turn suggests that some of his reportage must be viewed as agenda driven prose.

Posted by DepotGuy 2006-04-08 10:55|| 2006-04-08 10:55|| Front Page Top

#17 Seymour is an idiot. He was the clown that proclaimed that the Afghanistan war was lost...the day before the Taliban and AQ fled.

Follow his work and you find that virtually all of his citations of sources on the most pivot of charges are unnamed.

He is the male version of Kitty Kelly.

Posted by Captain America 2006-04-08 11:46|| 2006-04-08 11:46|| Front Page Top

#18 What's Seymour's batting average? Somewhere around .010?

Posted by xbalanke 2006-04-08 12:01|| 2006-04-08 12:01|| Front Page Top

#19 I put him more on the level of Arbatov or Goebbels. He is an anti-American propabandist. He's not stupid, just evil.

Posted by Jackal">Jackal 2006-04-08 12:04|| http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2006-04-08 12:04|| Front Page Top

#20 I saw the headline and was interested in the story, then saw Hersh's name and my interest just vanished.

Hersh is the King of unnamed (non-existant?) sources.

Posted by Laurence of the Rats">Laurence of the Rats 2006-04-08 12:19|| 2006-04-08 12:19|| Front Page Top

#21 The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said that Mr Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler.

Hersh or no, this would represent a desireable evolution in executive thinking. The more Islamists are equated with Nazis, inside and out of the war room, the sooner America will purchase a clue.

As to America making first use of nuclear weapons, it is clearly against our doctrine of "response in kind." As always, first use by the USA would also be an open invitation for any and all terrorist organizations to mount a nuclear attack against America. I do believe this is why they're testing a 700 ton fertilizer bomb in Nevada. Who needs nukes when similar effects can be obtained without any fallout? Yes, nuclear weapons would have greater concussive effects, which are quite good at cracking rock and, yes, drilling them in before detonation would be even more effective.

Still, however much I continue to question the overall intelligence or prudence of Bush, I am extremely confident that he understands the ramifications of first use by America and knows well enough that such a thing is verbotten.

Posted by Zenster 2006-04-08 13:11|| 2006-04-08 13:11|| Front Page Top

#22 I think the stated desire to push Israel into the sea is what brings mention of nukes into the 'rumor'. After all, we could bomb Iran over a period of time without loses. Iran mush attack the oil shipping and oil fields or Israel to stay in the game. So, not to defend against our loses, rather to defend against mass loses by allies, we discuss the nuke option.
Faster please.

Posted by wxjames 2006-04-08 13:35|| 2006-04-08 13:35|| Front Page Top

#23 Good times, indeed.

Posted by Florida Gator 2006-04-08 14:27|| 2006-04-08 14:27|| Front Page Top

#24 Also, other journalists that report on these issues would sever their own appendages to have access to half of his sources.

Looking at what he wrote here, that really shouldn't be too hard for them. Everyone knows a former senior intelligence official, a senior unnamed Pentagon adviser, former intelligence officials and former defence officials, and some military officers. I could get you a quote from all of those sources myself, and I'm a nobody. Wouldn't mean jack, but the titles would be accurate.

Posted by 2b 2006-04-08 14:28|| 2006-04-08 14:28|| Front Page Top

#25 of course, I wouldn't tell you their names..

Posted by 2b 2006-04-08 14:29|| 2006-04-08 14:29|| Front Page Top

#26 "the report quoted a former senior intelligence official"

Probably Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson, Sen. Jay, and cronies at the UN

Posted by Danielle 2006-04-08 16:27|| 2006-04-08 16:27|| Front Page Top

#27 The only Seymour worth anything is Seymore Butts!

Posted by Lancasters Over Dresden 2006-04-08 16:30|| http://www.calderonswirbelwind.blogspot.com]">[http://www.calderonswirbelwind.blogspot.com] 2006-04-08 16:30|| Front Page Top

#28 The administration probably leaked the "nuclear option" so they will seem more reasonable when they bomb the hell out of Iran's weapons facilities with conventional weapons.

Besides, I don't think we've actually built/tested the bunker buster nukes yet have we? Didn't they cancel that.

Posted by rjschwarz">rjschwarz 2006-04-08 17:57|| 2006-04-08 17:57|| Front Page Top

#29 The only Seymour worth anything is Seymore Butts!

Au contraire, I would nominate Seymour Cray for that position. Without that True American Genius the following would not be possible.

Besides, I don't think we've actually built/tested the bunker buster nukes yet have we?

My own personal Frink-O-Matic Probability Meter says "yes" to all of the above. Especially since we now have sufficiently high resolution supercomputers, like the Cray series, that can accurately simulate such an event. Given the fact that you could, literally, hide a B-52 underneath the "black projects" paperwork that crosses DARPA's desk each year, I'd also wager they've been built and tested in real life. Just because the program was canceled doesn't mean that all the related R&D died with it. I'd look up "Rapid Mountain Canal Deployment Technology - Compact Land Moving Devices - see Nuclear" for starters.

Posted by Zenster 2006-04-08 18:56|| 2006-04-08 18:56|| Front Page Top

#30 "Besides, I don't think we've actually built/tested the bunker buster nukes yet have we? Didn't they cancel that."

I think what was cancelled (if it really was cancelled) was a deep-penetrator replacement for the B61-11 earth penetrator nuke (some info here) which entered service in 2001 as a replacement for the older B-53 bomb (a 9-megaton surface-burst device which destroyed buried structures by the sheer brute force of its enormous yield).

So we do have bunker-busters.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-04-08 19:41|| 2006-04-08 19:41|| Front Page Top

23:51 Barbara Skolaut
23:23 Shieldwolf
23:21 Glolung Graving3413
22:09 RWV
21:46 Dave D.
21:40 N guard
21:37 Darrell
21:36 JerseyMike
21:24 ryuge
21:23 RD
21:22 RD
21:00 RD
20:58 RD
20:57 john
20:47 Zenster
20:44 Zenster
20:40 WTF!
20:39 Nimble Spemble
20:35 Pappy
20:34 Zenster
20:32 RD
20:14 RWV
20:14 Barbara Skolaut
20:10 RWV