'10,000 would die' in A-plant attack on Iran

[ECH1969]

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 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.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/13/wiran13.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/13/ixworld.html

[aquart]

1. That's okay by Georgie.

We'd just have to support him then. Wouldn't we?

And elect a Republican Congress? And give him all our money?

Georgie's plans don't call for thousands dead. They call for millions dead. There is no other way to control the MidEast. Except even liebenraum wouldn't work. Because Russia, China, India, and Europe has more of a stake in that area than we do.

They will let us die removing the Muslim threat that scares all of them, and then move in as saviors in one combination or another. We, the attackers, are the enemy and we can't ever win. Not in this fight.

[Zhade]

41. And, alarmingly, with some fools here on DU.

And I'm not talking about obvious newbie trolls!

:scared:

[Higans]

42. well, we lost over 10,000 so far in Iraq. Eye for an eye right?

Never mind that it was Bush who sent them there to die with not enough armor, and a widow tax. screw it. screw em all. blow up the world. why not? we don't need this planet any way right? just so long as a few people get ritch, nothing else matters right?

[wookie294]

2. And we don't have enough troops to fight a GROUND war started by Iran

Not Enough Troops To Hold Ground
Charlotte Observer
June 3, 2005

U.S. Army officers in the deserts of northwest Iraq, near the Syrian border, say they don't have enough troops to hold the ground they take from insurgents in this transit point for weapons, money and foreign fighters.

From October to the end of April, there were about 400 soldiers from the 25th Infantry Division patrolling the northwest region, which covers about 10,000 square miles.

"Resources are everything in combat ... there's no way 400 people can cover that much ground," said Maj. John Wilwerding, of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, which is responsible for the northwest tract that includes Tal Afar.

"Because there weren't enough troops on the ground ... the (insurgency) was able to get a toehold," said Wilwerding, 37, of Chaska, Minn.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_enough_060305,00.html

[Adelante]

36. 400 troops covering 10,000 square miles

unfrigginreal - this all so make believe

[951-Riverside]

3. As long as we don't draw up any offensive cartoons we'll be fine

Shameful but true I've never seen the same outrage for all the muslims murdered in iraq and illegally kept captive in secret prisons that I've seen over the Danish cartoons.

[wookie294]

4. It's like being outraged over a blow job, but not outing a CIA agent

Human beings are strange creatures!

[sabra]

5. kick

:kick:

[clyrc]

6. 'Attack on Iranian nuke sites would kill thousands, spark war'

A US air assault on Iranian nuclear and military facilities would likely kill thousands of people, spark a long-lasting war and push Iran to accelerate its atomic program, a British think tank predicted in a report published on Monday.

The Oxford Research Group, which specializes in arms control and nonproliferation issues, said military action against Iran, �either by the United States or Israel, is not an option that should be considered under any circumstances.�... he report by University of Bradford professor Paul Rogers said a US attack would likely consist of simultaneous air strikes on more than 20 key nuclear and military facilities, designed to disable Iran�s nuclear and air-defense capabilities. Such strikes would probably kill several thousand people, including troops, nuclear program staff and �many hundreds� of civilians.

The report said a military attack would spur Iran to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, accelerate its nuclear programs and step up support to insurgents in Iraq and Hezbollah in Lebanon, and would fuel anti-American sentiment around the world.

Escalating military confrontation would draw in other states in the region, it warned, making �a protracted and highly unstable conflict virtually certain.�... http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2006/February/middleeast_February405.xml§ion=middleeast

[global1]

7. Given This Info - There's No Doubt In My Mind That * Will Attack Iran...nt

[warsager]

9. I completely understand your

feeling that, but i am still grasping at some hope of sanity and would like to believe this will not happen. Do you think that its possible there are enough sane people out there that will not allow this to happen??

[Viva_La_Revolution]

8. ya think? How much did they pay for this study?

cause I could have told them this, and I really need some cash. :shrug:

[bigdarryl]

10. Iran

This sound like the Bush administration inflating numbers like that so when an attack does happen and not that many people are killed they can claim a victory. WHAT ASSHOLES!

[Auntie Bush]

31. Welcome!

:hi:

[Karmakaze]

11. In the long term the deaths would be far higher

I have never seen anyone mention this, but what the US is threatening to bomb are Uranium enrichment facilities, right? And what is at Uranium enrichment facilities? Uranium of course. Lots of it. Highly radioactive variants of it at that. On top of that easily dispersed variants of it, such as gaseous uranium hexafluoride. So let's say the US bombs one of these facilities. What happens? Well basically a huge cloud of highly radioactive smoke.

In fact, if you think about it, bombing an enrichment plant would be as hazardous as bombing a nuclear reactor. Now depending on the wind direction, this could send a cloud of fallout over Iraq or Turkey or Pakistan.

Basically, in such a scenario, 10,000 deaths may be the immediate effect, but I would suspect in the long term it would be in the hundreds of thousands if not millions, from radiation related diseases such as cancer and birth defects.

[truthInCO]

13. Long term

Let them build their nukes. Then we can see some real long-term death.

[Karmakaze]

19. First of all...

there is NO EVIDENCE they are trying to build nuclear weapons.

Second, even if they were, there is NO EVIDENCE they would use them.

However, there is PLENTY of evidence that the US Government led by Bush would LIE about any evidence they claim to have in regards to nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. They've done it before to start a war, so I assume they will do it again.

As such NOTHING the US government says on this matter can be believed, PERIOD.

So take that "we don't want the evidence to be a mushroom cloud" type bullshit somewhere else.

[EVDebs]

27. Fareed Zakaria says Iran is at least three years away...

from what I've been able to gather

""This does not mean accepting a nuclear-armed Iran. Tehran is many years away from nuclear weapons. Its program is not that sophisticated, and moving to a serious weapons capability isn't that easy, particularly if there is a concerted global effort to slow it down. The regime in Iran is not stable and the fissures in Iran will only grow. Regime change, however, is not going to take place at our will and on our timetable. Outside forces can help. But we will slow change in Iran if we feed the feeling that America is humiliating it. Let us not believe one more time that people in a foreign country will welcome American bombs with sweets and flowers.""

http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/newsweek/013006.html

Plus Iran's neighbors aren't thrilled with nukes. If the Russian offer to do the processing of uranium is taken, Iran stands a better chance of avoiding the sanctions. Rational minds know that Sun Tzu 101 is don't fight if you can get what you want without fighting. Continuing to arm yourself WITH nukes guarantees the military pre-emptions. Iran shouldn't give the Bush/Neocon/Vulcans the same excuse Saddam allowed !

[Karmakaze]

34. Ok firstly...

Iraq did NOT give the Bush cabal the excuse - they had been saying ALL ALONG that they had dismantled their NBC programmes and they werent lying. The Bushian excuse that he lied to make people think he had them when he didnt is patently bullshit because he never said he had them still nor even intimated that, unlike the North Koreans. So that example is wrong.

Secondly, if Iran develops and becomes reliant on a nuclear power system, the LAST thing they would want is for their fuel supplies to be at the whim of a foreign government precisely BECUASE of the possibility of sanctions of some kind in the future. So that reasoning is also wrong.

Finally, Iran's neighbours include two nations that HAVE nukes, one that had US nukes based there in the past, and another in which US forces are currently the occupational authorities. Many of Iran's neighbours probably hope Iran DOES get nukes so that they themselves don't have to develop them yet can rely on the "Iran Factor" for negotiations - which is precisely why Israel and the US do not want Iran to have nukes.

Make no mistake this is NOT about terrorists getting nukes. This is about ensuring the "axis of evil" have no nukes to use to even up the balance at the bargaining table.

I seriously doubt any serious strategist actually thinks the few weapons that Iran would be able to build would be any kind of serious threat. What they would recognise is that the threat of US and Israeli nukes would become far less. All Iran would have to do is make it clear that should Israel or the US contemplate using nukes, then Iran would respond in kind.

That is the threat that worries the US and Israel - the fact that a nuclear armed Iran would have far less to fear from US and Israeli nukes.

[WinkyDink]

22. Do you have ANY idea of the geography?

Or the quite real possibility of retaliation?

[stubtoe]

12. Well it's one, two, three

What are we fightin' for?
Don't ask me I don't give a damn
Next stop could be Iran

[LaCrosseDem]

28. well it's five, six, seven open up the Peraly Gates

no time to ask dubya why
whoopee we're all gonna die

[stubtoe]

29. I just love a good sing-along!

welcome LaCrosseDem

[Ezlivin]

14. Correction - NONE would die because we don't count 'em

That's the whole secret of keeping collateral damage to a minimum, you know?

[VegasWolf]

24. Exactly, like those Pakistani families we blew to pieces because

Monkey thought that there was some no 3 or no 4 operative eating dinner there.

:puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke:

[jpak]

15. Only 10,000 dead????....yawn

Hey, ya gotta break a few eggs to make this omelet - right???

Cheney shoots his huntin' buddy and who the fuck cares???

10,000 I-ranians???

That ain't nothin' to these folks....

[WinkyDink]

23. I KNOW! "30, 000, more or less...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz."

"I want a pretzel!"

[Tempest]

16. Some of those scientists and technicians are Russian

It'll be interesting to see what Putin has to say about that.

[gordianot]

17. Extremely dangerous conflict and extremely dangerous pResident.

Made to go together. A marriage made in Hell.

By the way I thought they turned over Diego Garcia to Bush?

[Gregorian]

18. Corporations do not care about life.

This is about profit. This is about ammunition manufacturing, oil, power. People do not matter. The truth does not matter. And that is why they lie and kill.

America is going the same way that south America went in the 70's, Germany in the 30's, and every other fascist state.

[mzmolly]

20. "Mission Accomplised Part Deux ?"

Disgusting. But, I'm sure all 10,000 casualties will be "terrorists" anyhow? :sarcasm:

*sigh*

[noonwitch]

21. There's going to be a war there once they develop a weapon, anyways

As long as the mullahs are running things. If they strike another country, like Israel, they will start a war. It's for Allah, in their minds, so they won't have any problems killing the Palestineans who live in that same country, whose treatment they are allegedly outraged by. What if they develop the ability to hit a major european city? Does anyone really think they wouldn't do it if they could?

I am not saying all muslims believe this way, but the lunatics who have been running Iran for the last 28 years don't exactly value life the way most of the rest of the world does.

I support precision bombing of the sites where they are developing the weapons as long as it's not just the US and Britain involved, and the intel is good. That would be a good plan if the diplomatic route fails, especially if there is some sort of insurrection going on within the country that we are supporting.

[populistdriven]

25. NO

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

26. Why don't we precision bomb Israel's nuclear facilities

The Likudniks there don't strike me as being one iota saner than the mullahs in Iran.

Besides that, we know for sure Israel has nukes.

[noonwitch]

38. I don't hear the Israelis threatening to wipe another country out

That's one reason not to strike their facilities.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

30. what an illogical stance you have on this-ends do NOT justify means

Sorry but that is Leo Strausian and is exactly what PNAC is all about.
I don't buy into that extremist neo con crap for one minute--and you should reconsider supporting it.

Ends do not justify means and there is no way to go around this world
predicting who the "bad guy" is going to be and eliminating "him" along with thousands of innocent lives.

ENDS do NOT justify the means..lives are lives --it's not a video game-

If you have a hard time with that concept just picture all your relatives being the
"collateral" damage and see if you'd still support an action such as that.

Please think about it.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. Yeah I really think that it is improbable that Iran

or any other nation would commit suicide by launching a nuke in the general direction of any other nuclear power. The 'mullahs' might be vile asshats, but there is no evidence that they are insane or have a death wish, nor is there any evidence of any aggressive military behavior on their part. They generally have constrained their odious behavior to killing and maiming their own people.

So far we have about a dozen or so nuclear powers, and none of them, with one glaring exception, have ever used their weapons.

As for not valuing life the way we do - who is 'we'? Western European civilization? I've got some news for you in that department: take a look at the body count over the last 150 years or so and get back to me about who values life.

[noonwitch]

39. Iran wouldn't commit suicide? The same nation that sponsors terrorism?

The mullahs want to do it for Allah. They won't care about whether they die or not. Suicide bombers in Israel don't care if they die or not, they only care about how many of their "enemies" they can take out with them. You can only use so much diplomacy with such lunatics. I truly hope that the Iranian people remove the mullahs from power and take their country back before it comes to any kind of confrontation.

I was against the war in Iraq. I did not feel Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world or his neighbors anymore. I hope that it still works out over there so that lots more people (americans and iraqis) don't die.

The leaders of Iran are a whole different matter. They can not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. They will use it. The international community does need to do something about it and they have to be prepared to back up their demands.

[Warren Stupidity]

40. We have sponsored terrorism.

Other than the fact that you hate Iran did you have a good reason why we should kill them?

[Karmakaze]

35. Bull

You have bought into the US propaganda.

The Iranians may be extremely fundamentalist, but they are not stupid. They know any such act would result in immediate and total destruction of Iran, and unlike some fundamentlist Chirstians, they are NOT trying to bring about "the end times".

The reality is, Iran with nukes would be no more dangerous than Pakistan with nukes, or India with nukes, or Israel with nukes, or the US with nukes. Whats scares the US and Israel is not the possibility that Iran might nuke someone, but the reality that if Iran had nukes, you couldn't get away with nuking THEM.

[mogster]

37. Well, let's first find out wether they're developing those weapons?

[humbled_opinion]

33. The End Begins..

If its WWIII you want its WWIII you will get and it will be a true Religious war. Christians against Muslims.... Doesn't the second coming start about now??