Posted on 02/12/2006 5:01:28 PM PST by Flavius
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.
"The problem is that the Iranian people could well be out best allies in the area. Most Iranians are NOT anti-American."
I believe that that statement is a myth ... where is the proof of this? I have heard this mentioned many times without ANYTHING to back it up.
re: We need to take out the leaders
I would like to believe that just such plans are underway. Removal of ten to twenty of their top people would do more good than killing 10,000 Iranians as a result of collateral damage.
You don't see any irony between decrying the death of Western Civilization and calling for the nuking of the oldest university in the English-speaking world?
Oxford counts among its alumni 12 kings, 47 Nobel laureates, 25 British Prime Ministers, eighteen cardinals, seven saints and a Pope. I'm trying hard (and failing) to think of another institution more central to the Western Civ you're ostensibly trying to protect.
And yet you call for nuking it. You're an idiot.
Iranians who have already fled Iran and brought their $ billion personal fortunes with them are definitely with us. Of those left in Iran, aside from a few students and the private citizens who are always present and amazed by their gov't, a great many will go along with the gov't and the mullahs. They see Iran as their home country and will defend it no matter what. The best deal is to overwhelm the defences and take out the nukular capability quickly and then stop without setting boot inside their territory. If the aforementioned radical students and amazed private citizens can then seize power so much the better, but they won't.
Never let it be said that the Iranians are above copying an idea, even if it is French....
And thus it becomes a religous war, a rout of all those that worship a deity that praises terrorism in all forms to any means.
If there was an islamabomb detonated in a civilized country ALL the worlds nations will unite, Islam will form no partnership to a non Islamic country, there will be no Islam/China or USSR or N. Korea alliances, Islam will only accept the complete destruction of non muslim faiths. They will not accept Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormons, Scientology or even Buhdda.
But if we strike first we play the game as tyrants, we must call the bluff, prepare, enforce our borders, maintain vigilance at home by whatever means. If a nuke were to be detonated anywhere in the US it would be small much less than people think. Yes many would die but then it opens the door for a complete excuse to rout the infestation from within our borders and eradicate every symbolic vestige of Islam like turning Mecca to glass.
We are a sleeping giant. And we have a giants strength. Our leaders may appear weak and incompetent but its the silent resolve of millions of freedom borne individuals that will fight to the death to preserve their chosen way of life.
Is 10,000 the best we can do with our weaponry? How about striving for 100 times that for a start?
And one or more nuclear devices in cargo containers in a New York, San Fransicso, San Diego, or any other US port would kill how many? In the millions?
Frankly, I agree with Patton's views on us dying or them dying: I vote for THEM!
Mark
Wise up indeed! We are at war and it is more than a
"war on terror". A religion of hate, fueled by oil money, is looking to the world. The outcome of this war is based on how long we dither.
The actual damage from such a device would be fairly well known and limited, but with all the bureaucrats in the country leveraging their position descriptions for funding demands afterwards the economy would take a huge hit and for a long time. Just tracking the fallout plume would generate a budget greater than the Katrina fiasco.
Sounds like a nuclear quagmire...QUAGMIRE II, the sequel. Coming to a news media outlet near you.
Only 10k, more and bigger bombs are in order!
....the damned bureaucrats would be too busy pointing fingers and blaming anybody who would listen, while not doing a damned thing about retaliation....
yes but we would get those cool fact finding debates on c-spam 2
OMG bump
That's exactly the point isn't it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.