| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Death toll for destroying Iranian nuclear facilities projected at 10,000 |
| 2006-02-13 |
| A major American attack on Iran's nuclear sites would kill up to 10,000 people and lead to war in the Middle East, a report says today. Hundreds of scientists and technicians would be targets in the opening salvos as the attacks focused on eliminating further nuclear development, the Oxford Research Group says in Iran: Consequences of a War. The research coincides with reports that strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for "a last resort" strike if diplomacy fails. Plans for an assault have taken on "greater urgency" in recent months, The Sunday Telegraph said. Tacticians at central command and strategic command, who report to Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, have been identifying targets and the weapons needed to hit them. The Oxford report says that Britain could be drawn into the conflict if the Prime Minister allowed American B2 bombers, which can carry 40,000lb of precision bombs, to use bases at Fairford, Glos, and on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia. Precision bombing could put Iran's weapons programme back five to 10 years but within a month the situation would become "an extremely dangerous conflict", says Prof Paul Rogers, the report's author. The attack would result in "a protracted military confrontation" involving Israel, Lebanon and some Gulf states. More than 100 American bombers, many based on carriers in the Gulf, would take part in a huge simultaneous surprise air attack on 20 key nuclear and military facilities, the report says. If the targets included the nuclear reactor at Bushehr, which will become fully fuelled this year, a radioactive cloud could spread over the Gulf. Iran's small navy, which includes three submarines, would have to be attacked to negate threats to vital shipping lanes in the Straits of Hormuz. But Iran could still retaliate with suicide speedboats, possibly leading to crippling rises in the price of oil. Prof Rogers, professor of peace studies at Bradford University, says that American military action would also have a unifying effect on the rule of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and exacerbate anti-American hostility in the Islamic world. The report says that a ground offensive in Iran would not be feasible, as it would require at least 100,000 troops - and American forces are already over-stretched with 130,000 soldiers in Iraq and 18,000 in Afghanistan. Iran would probably withdraw from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and speed up its secret nuclear weapons programme. The report concludes: "A military response to the current crisis is a particularly dangerous option and should not be considered further. Alternative approaches must be sought, however difficult these may be." In a similar briefing before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Oxford group predicted that Saddam Hussein's regime could easily be overwhelmed but that the country would become a hotbed of insurgency. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #36 Without a ground war to follow up after the airstrikes there will be no "regime change" in Iran save by popular uprising. In any case, America will still need ground forces in there to ensure any post-Mullah democratic agenda is both protected, promoted, and effec "managed". 10,000 Iranians versus 200Milyuhn, +/-, Chicom-exterminated Americans later - WHAT TO DO, WHAT TO DO, WHICH TO CHOOSE???? NOW LETS ALL BE GOOD CLINTONIAN, FASCISTS = LIMITED SOCIALIST/ COMMUNISTS, AMERIKANS AND REPORT TO OUR LOCAL DEATH CAMP OR STAR TREK MASS-SUICIDE STATION WHILE HOLDING HANDS, CONGRAT EACH OTHER, AND HAPPILY/GLEEFULLY SINGING "KUMBAYA" - ME FIRST IN THE LINE TO DIE, D *** YOU ALL, ME FIRST!? How dare we stop the Chicoms/Commies-Globalists from taking over 1/2 or more of CONUS?? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-02-13 22:53 |
| #35 Somehow this title fails to disquiet me. |
| Posted by: Scott R 2006-02-13 21:33 |
| #34 10,000 Iranian regime supporters vs 1 US? I say go ahead. They've asked for it - actions have consequences in the real world. Time for Islam to find that out for the 57,459th time |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-02-13 18:41 |
| #33 Hey! Did this guy predict the Kartina New Orleans casualties for Mayor Ray Nagin? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2006-02-13 18:02 |
| #32 10,000 minimum here, at least 10,000 there. Mebbe his calculator says "10,000" when he tuerns it on! His 2002 vision of Iraq sure looks stoopid now! |
| Posted by: Bobby 2006-02-13 18:00 |
| #31 Good Heavens! SMN sed something reasonable. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-02-13 17:22 |
| #30 These guys are pathetic. A Professor of Peace Studies in an Oxford Research Group can be counted to be very political and to know next to nothing about the US military beyond what he reads on the net. This is agitprop pure and simple. I suspect that the number of potential dead has been taken into account along with measures to insure that we kill only those we want to kill. My guess is "Game On" before the 4th of July, to get this out of the way before the elections. |
| Posted by: RWV 2006-02-13 14:54 |
| #29 Who cares? When you shout "Death to America" at every opportunity, and openly seek nukes, you have handed your ass to us. Frankly, I hope the mad Mullahs retaliate against the first strikes. I love escalation almost as much as I love the smell of napalm. |
| Posted by: Jomble Glavimp6138 2006-02-13 14:54 |
| #28 1o,ooo max!? Overestimate by far, but even if not...mebbe equal to casualties at the Red October Tractor Factory in the fall of '42? |
| Posted by: borgboy 2006-02-13 14:51 |
| #27 The US need only to break the glass on the table, not try to put it back together! As long as "W" don't go in there with his big S and cape and declare some type of nation building sympathy suggestion afterwards, The Iranians as a nation can focus their energies to their own recovery...20 years down the road! |
| Posted by: smn 2006-02-13 14:29 |
| #26 Practicalities: a single shot on their nuclear installations would be like the Israeli attack on the Iraqi plant--it would do little or no long-term good. So the question becomes: what *else* do we do? I suggest we are planning to partition Iran. This means annihilating their army and RG so much that the Kurds, Baluchs, Arabs and even Azeris can secede. It also means that their nuclear *and* missile capability have to be utterly destroyed, and stripped of oil revenue, it would a very long time before they could recover into a much-reduced warlike state. If our strategy is to partition Iran, then many of the existing axioms change radically. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-02-13 13:09 |
| #25 Who's going to know ? Does the BBC have spys watching those bases so they can catch a story ? They don't need spies. Except at DG, there are always peaceniks watching the airbases and counting the bombers taking off. Once a war seems imminent, these takeoffs are filmed and publicized widely among "activist" groups with the target being the MSM. Remember at the start of OIF? |
| Posted by: Xbalanke 2006-02-13 12:45 |
| #24 This is their assessment of Iraq. If I were these guys, I'd be hiding my head in shame, not coming out with more nonsense. BTW, they concluded their Iraq report with this statement; "The report concludes that destroying the Iraqi regime by force is a highly dangerous venture and that alternative policies should be urgently developed." Sound familiar? |
| Posted by: tipper 2006-02-13 11:57 |
| #23 I don't see the 10,000 death count being projected for US forces so what's the problem? |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-02-13 11:51 |
| #22 Well, I guess that settles it: Make it a parking lot. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-02-13 11:48 |
| #21 What about |
| Posted by: ed 2006-02-13 11:33 |
| #20 Hundreds of scientists and technicians would be targets in the opening salvos as the attacks focused on eliminating further nuclear development, the Oxford Research Group says in Iran: Consequences of a War. And this jerkwit gets paid exactly how much to come up with this BGO? (Blinding Glimpse of the Obvious). There's a lot of value in killing as many nuclear scientists, engineers, and technicians as possible. Almost makes a daytime first-strike worth the risks. Exactol! Since day one I've been advocating a strike while all operations are at maximum capacity. We want to take out both infrastructure and skills at the same time. Yeah, but have they taken the brutal Iranian winter into account? Bwahahahahaha! Good one! Beats nuclear winter, don't it? One more time, this needs to be done strictly out of principle. After the genocidal ravings of Ahmadinejad, he deserves to be taken seriously and his country needs to see what the destructive upshot of such bellicose lunacy is. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-02-13 11:18 |
| #19 Yeah, but have they taken the brutal Iranian winter into account? |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2006-02-13 11:09 |
| #18 A major American attack on Iran's nuclear sites would kill up to 10,000 people and lead to war in the Middle East, a report says today. How are we supposed to take you seriously when you estimate the best possible outcome?! Get in there and make it look realistic! |
| Posted by: BH 2006-02-13 10:21 |
| #17 Cheep at twice the price? |
| Posted by: .com 2006-02-13 10:14 |
| #16 Well, a nuke hit on Israel wouldn't count cuz they're like, y'know, Jooos 'n evertything. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-02-13 10:02 |
| #15 How many killed if Iran sends a missile to Europe or Israel? |
| Posted by: milford421 2006-02-13 10:00 |
| #14 A major American attack on Iran's nuclear sites would kill up to 10,000 people and lead to war in the Middle East, a report says today. Everything has a cost. Sometimes it's a little, sometimes it's a lot. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2006-02-13 09:33 |
| #13 More liberal elite white tower babble. Kinda like the 100,000 civies dead in the Iraq war. Leave war to the professionals kids. You just end up rupturing brain cells and making yourself look stoooopid. |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2006-02-13 09:25 |
| #12 A major American attack on Iran's nuclear sites would kill up to 10,000 people and lead to war in the Middle East, a report says today If this is the "The sky is falling" report that they weigh against the positive reports Iran should expect to see, or feel the impact of Iran's failed diplomacy. Remember we only use force when diplomacy fails. Iran has taken that axiom and flushed it; they will get what they deserve in good time. BTW 10,000 and a major war? Is that a hat trick number or did they get it from some real info. I doubt it, just another number plucked from the brain of a guy who is trying to influence Rummy. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-02-13 09:21 |
| #11 "possibly leading to crippling rises in the price of oil." Guys and gals, the chances of this are 100% no matter what course is taken, so get used to it,and keep your bicycles tuned up & ready to ride. Any guesses on what the price of oil will be after Iran goes nukular? |
| Posted by: Flerert Whese8274 2006-02-13 09:04 |
| #10 The Oxford report says that Britain could be drawn into the conflict if the Prime Minister allowed American B2 bombers, which can carry 40,000lb of precision bombs, to use bases at Fairford, Glos, and on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia. Who's going to know ? Does the BBC have spys watching those bases so they can catch a story ? It's about time the team played together. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-02-13 09:00 |
| #9 There's a lot of value in killing as many nuclear scientists, engineers, and technicians as possible. Almost makes a daytime first-strike worth the risks. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2006-02-13 08:51 |
| #8 And what's the death toll going to be if we don't? |
| Posted by: JerseyMike 2006-02-13 08:39 |
| #7 Is that all? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-02-13 07:46 |
| #6 The British have no say in what the Americans do at Diego Garcia. Otherwise, Alternative approaches must be sought, however difficult these may be. Of course, none are identified because they don't exist, except do nothing and hope nuclear bombs don't start exploding. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-02-13 07:35 |
| #5 This is nuclear do or die, and we're lucky it's not too late. I would be cautious and be very careful with a clear vision and post plan. We can defeat Iran cleanly if we plan this baby out, that's all I want. There's always consequence and mitigating them is possible. I wouldn't dismiss this study completely, but it's not reality yet. http://www.iranbodycount.org/ |
| Posted by: Phomolet Cloger5880 2006-02-13 07:17 |
| #4 Quagmire! |
| Posted by: Bobby 2006-02-13 07:06 |
| #3 So...what's the bad news? |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2006-02-13 06:19 |
| #2 One wonders if these are the same folks who predicted the US would suffer 10,000+ casualties before we reached Baghdad. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2006-02-13 05:30 |
| #1 What does a professor of 'peace studies' study? Dhimmitude? Iran would probably withdraw from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and speed up its secret nuclear weapons programme. Which is the same result if we don't. A major American attack on Iran's nuclear sites would kill up to 10,000 people and lead to war in the Middle East And not attacking could kill up to a few million and lead to war in the middle east. Just another Professor of Gloom and Doom.... We better give europe back to the Nazi's and the west coast to Imperial Japan.... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2006-02-13 04:11 |