Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Saturday, April 8, 2006 11:13 p.m. EDT
Report: Bush Considers Nuclear Strikes on Iran


The Bush administration is planning to use nuclear weapons against Iran, to prevent it acquiring its own atomic warheads, according to a new report.

Longtime investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, who claims to have high-level Pentagon and intelligence contacts, said President Bush is said to be so alarmed by the threat of Iran's hard-line leader, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, that privately he refers to him as "the new Hitler." Hersh, who broke the story of the Abu Ghraib Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal, makes his new claims in The New Yorker magazine, according to the London Telegraph.

Some U.S. military chiefs have unsuccessfully urged the White House to drop the nuclear option from its war plans, Hersh writes in The New Yorker. The conviction that Ahmedinejad would attack Israel or U.S. forces in the Middle East, if Iran obtains atomic weapons, is what drives American planning for the destruction of Tehran's nuclear program.

Hersh claims that one of the plans, presented to the White House by the Pentagon, entails the use of a bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One alleged target is Iran's main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, 200 miles south of Tehran.

Although Iran claims that its nuclear program is peaceful, U.S. and European intelligence agencies are certain that Tehran is trying to develop atomic weapons. In contrast to the run-up to the Iraq invasion, there are no disagreements within Western intelligence about Iran's plans.

The Telegraph disclosed recently that senior Pentagon strategists are updating plans to strike Iran's nuclear sites with long-distance B2 bombers and submarine-launched missiles.

The military option is opposed by London and other European capitals. But there are growing fears that the British-led push for a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear stand-off, will be swept aside by hawks in Washington. Hersh says that within the Bush administration, there are concerns that even a pummelling by conventional strikes, may not sufficiently damage Iran's buried nuclear plants.

Iran has been developing a series of bunkers and facilities to provide hidden command centers for its leaders and to protect its nuclear infrastructure, the Telegraph reports. The lack of reliable intelligence about these subterranean facilities is fueling pressure for tactical nuclear weapons to be included in the strike plans as the only guaranteed means to destroy all the sites simultaneously.

The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings among the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, and some officers have talked about resigning, Hersh has been told. The military chiefs sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran, without success, a former senior intelligence officer said.

The Pentagon consultant on the war on terror confirmed that some in the administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among defence department political appointees.

The election of Ahmedinejad last year, has hardened attitudes within the Bush administration. The Iranian president has said that Israel should be "wiped off the map." He has drafted in former fellow Revolutionary Guards commanders to run the nuclear program, in further signs that he is preparing to back his threats with action.

Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official told Hersh. "That's the name they're using. They say, 'Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?'"

Despite America's public commitment to diplomacy, there is a growing belief in Washington that the only solution to the crisis is regime change. A senior Pentagon consultant said that Bush believes that he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do," and "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy."

From the article:

In contrast to the run-up to the Iraq invasion, there are no disagreements within Western intelligence about Iran's plans.

What's this?! I thought Western intelligence sources were unanimous in their belief that Saddam Hussein had WMD's. What kind of proofreaders are they hiring over at NewsMax these days?!

BOOM!

Looks like it's finally time to test the RNEP that I've been talking about for the past two years. Say good-bye to Ahmedinejad and the moratorium on nuclear proliferation. To be honest, I have mixed feelings here. Hell, what's wrong with giving Israel the green light? They could level Iran in a week, and you know they're just itching to do it. Why should we get our hands dirty?

A couple of things come into play ...

First - how deep must the bomb penetrate and will it have to deal with any rocky terrain which RNEP doesn't handle very well. Let's say the target is buried a few 100 ft. down with at least has some rocky cover. Many rock-hardened mines are 3,000 ft down so it's not even close to what could be built.

Based on that, the nuke would have to be in the megaton range, ten-folds more powerful than Hiroshima just to do the job. At that power and that shallow depth, it would be impossible to contain the fallout. Also, anything 1000 feet or so deeper would survive. So it's a gamble from the start not to even mention the largest gamble being whether we correctly calculate the precise nano-second timing required for successful nuclear explosions.

We would be looking at hundreds of thousands of tons of radioactive debris, reaching altitudes of 10 miles (or more) and even if detonated in reasonalbly sparsely populated areas, the casualties would be in the thousands. Anywhere near a populated area, the casualties would be a million or more and the right weather conditions could scatter the debris even farther, adding to the body count.

Second - Nuclear weapons are intended to kill people; to take out entire areas and countries and as a means of genocide -- plain and simple. They are not intended to be used while there is a conventional method that will do the job.

Agreeably, that is a de facto protocol at best but if we decide to go ahead with unleashing nukes on a sovereign country, pre-emptively and millions or even thousands of people perish, we would deserve what we receive from the international community. War crimes will be the least of our worries.

Dop,

Forget the technicalities, if the U.S. decides to use neclear weapons, North Korea will feel justified in hitting South Korea, China will have zero problem using them against Taiwan, Japan or the U.S. Pakistan and India seem to hate each other and of course there is Israel and Iran when the Iranians acquire nuclear weapons. This is one genie that has got to stay in the bottle, dammit.

Hell, what's wrong with giving Israel the green light? They could level Iran in a week, and you know they're just itching to do it. Why should we get our hands dirty?

Israel isn't going to wait to get the green light from ANYBODY if they feel the Iranians are about to start flipping nukes. Mark my words on that one, dammit.


What's this?! I thought Western intelligence sources were unanimous in their belief that Saddam Hussein had WMD's. What kind of proofreaders are they hiring over at NewsMax these days?!

Western intelligence WAS united around the idea that Iraq and Saddam had WMDs. Go back to '98 or '99 when Clinton was still infesting the Whitehouse and that poor excuse for a man went to the U.N. and said that Saddam had WMDs and that he was a threat and the world couldn't stand by and let that man go unmolested. Clinton got applause after applause for his little speech, even from the Germans and, I believe, the French. Not to mention ALL the democrats backing Clinton to the hilt. Of course things got different in a hurry when Bush started getting this war with Iraq thing rolling, all of a sudden, Saddam was as clean as the wind driven snow.

I don't think there was ever any disagreement between Western and Russian intelligence agencies over whether or not Saddam had WMDs. It was more the way the press reported the fallout that occured when U.S. troops were unable to locate WMDs after the invasion. I think a more pertinent question is where the WMDs wound up at.

Forget the technicalities, if the U.S. decides to use neclear weapons, North Korea will feel justified in hitting South Korea, China will have zero problem using them against Taiwan, Japan or the U.S. Pakistan and India seem to hate each other and of course there is Israel and Iran when the Iranians acquire nuclear weapons. This is one genie that has got to stay in the bottle, dammit.
That's a very sensible assessment, Darth. It wouldn't surprise me at all if you were completely right.

Dop,

Forget the technicalities, ...

(cut to save bandwidth)

... where the WMDs wound up at.

Good post Darth.

I like the idea of the jew boys going after Iran. The problem, is it would make more Arabs hate Israel. (If that's possible)


BOOM!

Looks like it's finally time to test the RNEP that I've been talking about for the past two years. Say good-bye to Ahmedinejad and the moratorium on nuclear proliferation. To be honest, I have mixed feelings here. Hell, what's wrong with giving Israel the green light? They could level Iran in a week, and you know they're just itching to do it. Why should we get our hands dirty?

[[I]QUOTE=Darth Be'lal]Dop,



Western intelligence WAS united around the idea that Iraq and Saddam had WMDs. Go back to '98 or '99 when Clinton was still infesting the Whitehouse and that poor excuse for a man went to the U.N. and said that Saddam had WMDs and that he was a threat and the world couldn't stand by and let that man go unmolested. Clinton got applause after applause for his little speech, even from the Germans and, I believe, the French. Not to mention ALL the democrats backing Clinton to the hilt. Of course things got different in a hurry when Bush started getting this war with Iraq thing rolling, all of a sudden, Saddam was as clean as the wind driven snow.

I don't think there was ever any disagreement between Western and Russian intelligence agencies over whether or not Saddam had WMDs. It was more the way the press reported the fallout that occured when U.S. troops were unable to locate WMDs after the invasion. I think a more pertinent question is where the WMDs wound up at.[/QUOTE]


Give this guy a cigar!!!

I like the idea of the jew boys going after Iran. The problem, is it would make more Arabs hate Israel. (If that's possible)

If Israel pre-emptively strikes Iran, Yes, Israel would have a major problem.

No doubt the US has some crazies in charge, but I seriously doubt the US has ever planned with serious intent to use Nuke's in Iran.

Beyond the obvious ramifications on the ground, the political fallout would be even greater - the US making a pre-emptive nuclear strike on a nation with no nukes and a "public policy" of never having them.

The US may well attack Iran, but not with nukes.

Just because a plan is on the table doesn't mean it is going to be used. There were 1001 plans on the table for attacking Russia from 1945 - 1990 and that's all they were - plans, not intent.

Also keep in mind -- Bush does not have his finger on the button. He can not order the attacks. He does not have that power.

yes he does. He is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces - he can order the military to do whatever he wants. They will do what he orders.

He'd be in a whole heap of shit if he did, though...

yes he does. He is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces - he can order the military to do whatever he wants. They will do what he orders.

Doesn't he need some kind of acceptance from Congress? I remember him getting one when he attacked Afghanistan :confused:

Doesn't he need some kind of acceptance from Congress? I remember him getting one when he attacked Afghanistan :confused:From the Wikipedia:

Sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, the United States Constitution, Article One, Section 8, Clause 11, vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war.

Five wars have been declared in American history: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II. Some historians argue that the legal doctrines and legislation passed during the operations against Pancho Villa constitute a sixth declaration of war.

However, beginning with the Korean War, American presidents have not sought formal declarations of war, instead maintaining that they have the constitutional authority, as commander in chief (Article Two, Section Two) to use the military for "police actions".

In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which requires the president to obtain either a declaration of war or a resolution authorizing the use of force from Congress within 60 days of initiating hostilities. Its constitutionality has never been tested as Congress has always passed the required authorization when requested by the president.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Clause

That's why we've never declared war on anybody since Germany in WW II

The President gets congress approval on military action because they have to fund it and not getting their approval would cause all kinds of problems, but he could use the military anytime without their approval.

Dop stated that his finger isn't on the button - that is incorrect, it is on the button.

I don't think there was ever any disagreement between Western and Russian intelligence agencies over whether or not Saddam had WMDs. It was more the way the press reported the fallout that occured when U.S. troops were unable to locate WMDs after the invasion. I think a more pertinent question is where the WMDs wound up at.

Yeah thats why Bush and Cheney outed an undercover CIA agent working on Iran when her husbadn came out and said there were no WMD in Iraq...

Or how about the fact that the main source of these claims was "curveball" a CIA described "drunken liar".

And you can pretend that the UN weaponsinspectors themselves said there was nothing there but they wanted to check more to be sure all you want. But the fact remains that Bush forced the inspectors out of the country, not Saddam.

Or this...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
But two years earlier, Powell said just the opposite. The occasion was a press conference on 24 February 2001 during Powell's visit to Cairo, Egypt. Answering a question about the US-led sanctions against Iraq, the Secretary of State said:

"We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..."
follow link for link to state dept page...
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

and more...

But Powell wasn't the only senior administration official telling the truth before the truth became highly inconvenient. On 29 July 2001, Condoleezza Rice appeared on CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer (an anonymous reader sent me the full transcript from Lexis-Nexis). Guest host John King asked Rice about the fact that Iraq had recently fired on US planes enforcing the "no-fly zones" in Iraq. Rice craftily responds:

"Well, the president has made very clear that he considers Saddam Hussein to be a threat to his neighbors, a threat to security in the region, in fact a threat to international security more broadly."

Notice that she makes it clear that Bush is the one who considers Hussein a threat. She doesn't say, "I consider..." or even, "We consider..."

Then King asks her about the sanctions against Iraq. She replies:

"But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

King doesn't think to ask Rice, if Hussein hasn't been getting arms and his forces weren't rebuilt after the 1991 Gulf War, why Bush considers him a threat.

yes he does. He is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces - he can order the military to do whatever he wants. They will do what he orders.

I don't think he can Drew. It's my understanding that only the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) can actually authorize a nuclear attack and push the button.

Yep and the joint chiefs report to him. They have no authority to authorise any military action unless approved by the president.

but can the president authorize action without them?

That's like saying can the president fight a war without the armed forces - the question is meaningless.

The joint chiefs report to the president, they have no authority to authorize military action - only the president has that power.

Question.Whats the difference between a country run by a religious extremist threatening other countrys with nuclear weapons.AND IRAN.

I don't think he can Drew. It's my understanding that only the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) can actually authorize a nuclear attack and push the button.
That's not my understanding, Dop. I believe the ONLY person who can authorize a nuclear attack is the president. Ever hear of "The Nuclear Football"?

Question.Whats the difference between a country run by a religious extremist threatening other countrys with nuclear weapons.AND IRAN.
Nothing. They're one in the same.

Actually Prae, there is one difference. One has the Backstreet Boys.

Where is the US going in regards to Foreign Policy.Half the world has turned anti American,the blame for this has to be lead squarely at the feet of the State Dept.Soon the US will have a select list of friends,isnt that wrong,for the world leader,who should be helping the world instead of dividing it.

Soon the US will have a select list of friends,isnt that wrong,for the world leader,who should be helping the world instead of dividing it.
What do you mean? Please explain.

There's a finer point here ...

The president and JCS are indeed supposed to work together but it is the JCS that actually has access to the big red button. If they say no, then it's no. The only alternative the president would have at that time is to storm the pentagon, arrest the JCS and push the button himself (if he has the codes).

That's my understanding of how it works in real life.

Actually Prae, there is one difference. One has the Backstreet Boys.
The Backstreet Boys are in LIBYA!?

There's a finer point here ...

The president and JCS are indeed supposed to work together but it is the JCS that actually has access to the big red button. If they say no, then it's no. The only alternative the president would have at that time is to storm the pentagon, arrest the JCS and push the button himself (if he has the codes).

That's my understanding of how it works in real life.

Your understanding is wrong.

From the Wikipedia:

The term National Command Authority (NCA) is used in United States military and government circles to refer to the ultimate lawful source of military orders. The term refers to the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense.

Only the NCA can order the use of nuclear weapons, including the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP). Neither individual, by himself, can order that strategic nuclear weapons be used against any country or region. If the NCA determines that a nuclear strike is necessary, they must jointly inform the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who in turn will direct a general officer on duty in the National Military Command Center (NMCC) at the Pentagon to execute the SIOP.

The use of the term dates from the Cold War era in which the United States and Soviet Union had nuclear missiles on constant alert and a responsible official had to be available to authorize a retaliatory strike within a matter of minutes. Detailed Continuity of Government plans provided for monitoring the whereabouts of certain key government officials who would become the National Command Authority if the President were himself victim of an enemy attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority

The US is the most advanced country in the west,shouldnt it be using its muscle and resources to bring justice and prosperity to the world,instead of sideing with countrys and/or ideas of non Americans who seem to tag on to the USs coattails

From the Wikipedia:

... they must jointly inform the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who in turn will direct a general officer on duty in the National Military Command Center (NMCC) at the Pentagon to execute the SIOP.




If you read that statement carefully, you will see the JCS is the only authority that can call for the actual launch. Not the president.

I mean isnt it the USs job to bring justice and freedom to all the peoples of the world in equal measures.You know,protect the small guy.

Iran says it joins 'countries with nuclear technology'
Ahmadinejad says uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes
Tuesday, April 11, 2006; Posted: 3:19 p.m. EDT (19:19 GMT)

(CNN) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad confirmed Tuesday that his country has successfully produced low-grade enriched uranium at a level sufficient to power nuclear plants.

"I officially announce that Iran has joined countries with nuclear technology," Ahmadinejad said.

He stressed that Iran's nuclear efforts were for peaceful efforts and that no country should stand in its way.

"Our nation is a peaceful nation," Ahmadinejad said.

The enrichment took place Sunday, the president said, adding that "our nuclear activities have been under complete supervision, unprecedented supervisions" by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

"And today we are interested in operating under IAEA supervision," he said.

IAEA inspectors are at a facility in Natanz, but it is unclear whether they witnessed the enrichment process. Earlier Tuesday, Gholamreza Aghazadeh, head of Iran's atomic energy agency, said that the Natanz facility had enriched uranium at 3.5 percent -- a low-grade level sufficient to run a power plant but not pure enough for weapons.

The U.N. Security Council has demanded that Iran cease its enrichment activities, but Tehran says that the country has a right to produce nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes.

The West, led by the United States, believes that Iran plans to build nuclear weapons.

Earlier, former President Hashemi Rafsanjani told the Kuwait News Agency that Iran's enrichment facility had successfully enriched uranium using a cascade of 164 centrifuges. Last month, Iran said it was producing enriched uranium from a cascade of 20 centrifuges.

Thousands of the devices must operate in a series of cascades to yield enough highly enriched uranium needed for a nuclear bomb.

After Rafsanjani's announcement, White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters that Iran should be taking steps to renew confidence in its nuclear intentions, instead of moving in the "wrong direction."

Iran's new statements would only result in further isolation, and the United States will have to consult with its allies on what the next step in the diplomatic standoff would be, McClellan said.

Talks between Iran and Britain, France and Germany stalled in January when Iran began small-scale uranium enrichment and ended its voluntary cooperation with the IAEA, which had been conducting surprise inspections.

IAEA Director-General Mohammed ElBaradei plans to visit Iran this week. Rafsanjani said ElBaradei would face "new circumstances" when he arrives but did not elaborate.

Rafsanjani said that the attention given by the West had made Iran's nuclear program "extremely complicated," adding that "Iran is very serious about defending its legal rights."
Source: here. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/11/iran.nuclear/index.html)

I used to be ok about Iran becoming nuclear,but statements from their President lately,is unnerving.I hope they can be coaxed to the negosiating table, because i think Iran is a far more dangerous proposition than Saddam ever was.

Murtha says the nuclear option is on the table and being discussed.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/10050

If you read that statement carefully, you will see the JCS is the only authority that can call for the actual launch. Not the president.

Wrong again.

The NCA (the president) calls for the launch. The JC merely implement the order down thru the chain of command.

Wrong again.

The NCA (the president) calls for the launch. The JC merely implement the order down thru the chain of command.

In a perfect world you are correct but how about when the JCS disagrees with the president? They can simply refuse to pass the OK and there is nothing the president can do about it.

This move is called a military coup and accdording to rumors, it had been planned just that way on a couple of occassions in our history ... one of which, IIRC, was during the Korean war.

In a nutshell my premise is ... although the president can order a nuclear attack, there are no guarantees it will happen. Therefore, he does not have absolute control of nuclear attacks.

Furthermore, the idea of having several checkpoints in the movement of nuclear orders is by design the one way to stop a rogue president from firing away and more importantly from stopping a president from mistakingly trying to ride it out.

A Russian nuke would take about 30 minutes to reach our shores if it is fired from thier land bases and much less if fired from a ship or sub -- let's say 15 minutes. For the sake of adding some drama, let's say the president is in AF1 when the pentagon picks up the nuke and decides it's for real, runs the data through their computers and all systems tell the pentagon that the united states must retaliate NOW -- this is the real thing and there is no turning back.

The pentagon notifies (simplified) the pres on AF1 and recommends the president order a nuclear retaliation. The pres being isolated from the Pentagon decision-making process (real-time) could very easily 2nd guess them (hope against hope), not fully understand the situation, be in a state of confusion or just plain choke up, resulting in the pres telling the pentagon to stand down.

This is just one example, abstract as it may be, that illustrates the need for the president to think he has the power but to never really hand over that power. It's always been that way.

Complicated? Not really.

I mean isnt it the US's job to bring justice and freedom to all the peoples of the world in equal measures. You know, protect the small guy.

You have just enunciated the virtual antithesis of what America is "about".

__________________________________________________ _

The purpose of the U.S. military is not to protect the United States, nor to help foster democracy throughout the world. The U.S.A. is an all-powerful state, whose current purpose in life is to protect the right of it's capitalist corporations to exploit resources and labor throughout the world. The US military is a global bully, policing the world for a fascist superpower. Fascism is the name of this game; it is the use of governmental power to protect and further the goals of capitalism without concern for the social welfare of anyone else. George W. Bush is probably the most successful fascist in history, and the US is certainly the most powerful fascist nation in the history of the world.

In a perfect world you are correct but how about when the JCS disagrees with the president? They can simply refuse to pass the OK and there is nothing the president can do about it.

This move is called a military coup and accdording to rumors, it had been planned just that way on a couple of occassions in our history ... one of which, IIRC, was during the Korean war.

In a nutshell my premise is ... although the president can order a nuclear attack, there are no guarantees it will happen. Therefore, he does not have absolute control of nuclear attacks.

Furthermore, the idea of having several checkpoints in the movement of nuclear orders is by design the one way to stop a rogue president from firing away and more importantly from stopping a president from mistakingly trying to ride it out.

A Russian nuke would take about 30 minutes to reach our shores if it is fired from thier land bases and much less if fired from a ship or sub -- let's say 15 minutes. For the sake of adding some drama, let's say the president is in AF1 when the pentagon picks up the nuke and decides it's for real, runs the data through their computers and all systems tell the pentagon that the united states must retaliate NOW -- this is the real thing and there is no turning back.

The pentagon notifies the pres on AF1 and recommends the president order a nuclear retaliation. The pres being isolated from the Pentagon decision-making process (real-time) could very easily 2nd guess them (hope against hope), not fully understand the situation, be in a state of confusion or just plain choke up, resulting in the pres telling the pentagon to stand down.

This is just one example, abstract as it may be, that illustrates the need for the president to think he has the power but to never really hand over that power. It's always been that way.

Complicated? Not really.

Well now you are talking of a military coup - which is different all together to what you said originally.

Assuming a situation with more than 15 mins of lead time - if the JCS do not carry out the Presidents orders then he replaces them. Everybody in the executive branch - which includes the armed forces serve at the pleasure of the president. He can replace any of them at any time for any reason he see's fit.

Well now you are talking of a military coup - which is different all together to what you said originally.

Assuming a situation with more than 15 mins of lead time - if the JCS do not carry out the Presidents orders then he replaces them. Everybody in the executive branch - which includes the armed forces serve at the pleasure of the president. He can replace any of them at any time for any reason he see's fit.

I didn't change my position -- my original premise was that the president can not initiate a nuclear launch because he doesn't have his finger on the button and that is the absolute bottom line. No one single person will ever be in position to launch a nuclear strike - not even the president.

It's an interesting situation to debate because we (the nation) have never faced a real live case of firing nukes (since the birth of NCA, SIOP et al) nor have we been faced with a military coup.

No the bottom line is this

The president & only the president is in charge of nukes being fired. It's that simple.

No the bottom line is this

The president & only the president is in charge of nukes being fired. It's that simple.

Have it your way.

No need to fear.Theres as much chance of Iran getting nukes as there is Bush being re-elected.TV reports in Europe tonite say Iran enriched 1gram of uranium,enough to light a fag.Whatsmore,their ten years off the capability and dont have enough uranium to make a bomb.

No need to fear.Theres as much chance of Iran getting nukes as there is Bush being re-elected.TV reports in Europe tonite say Iran enriched 1gram of uranium,enough to light a fag.Whatsmore,their ten years off the capability and dont have enough uranium to make a bomb.

True - with their 164 centrifuges it will take 10 years to get enough for a bomb. They plan on installing 3000 centrifuges which will cut down the time to 1 year.

If they dont have any power stations,weres the enrichment gonna take place.

Didn't Bush, Chenney and McClellan tell us, just this past week, that the rumor of nuking Iran was no more than wild speculation???

Then what the heck is this??? He now says it's on the table.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-04-18T151553Z_01_L17370115_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-IRAN.xml

When are you yanks gonna stop listening to the shit that comes out of DC.The Republicans are quite rightly low in the opinion polls,its time to start scareing America.America always votes Republican when its scared.

When are you yanks gonna stop listening to the shit that comes out of DC.The Republicans are quite rightly low in the opinion polls,its time to start scareing America.America always votes Republican when its scared.

I don't think too many people are scared anymore paulc. They're too worried about health care, jobs, pensions, education and now petrol prices.

I don't like todays Rep. I don't like todays Dem.
Todays Rep. are a hell of alot better than todays Dem. (as a group)

I guess you could say I am a Ronald Regan Democrat.





When are you yanks gonna stop listening to the shit that comes out of DC.The Republicans are quite rightly low in the opinion polls,its time to start scareing America.America always votes Republican when its scared.