I did not vote for Bush.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All this is going on has me scared to death!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please don't hate all Americans. Thank you LaVona
--- "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi John, > > I suppose you refer to the Hersch article. Makes you > wonder where the new > Hitlers really live: in Teheran or in Washington? > > I suppose this is already old news for mail artists > in the USA but here > it is a hot item in the press. This confirms also > what Ritter said in a > speech a few months ago. Messiah Bush & cy are > actually thinking of using > nuclear weapons against Iran... Opposition against > this crazy plot comes > from the military! There is also a retired group of > generals who came out > and asked that Rumsfeld gets the sack... > > Fragment of the latest article by Seymour Hersch in > the New Yorker > > For the full article, check: > > http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact > > > > One of the military's initial option plans, as > presented to the White > House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use > of a bunker-buster > tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against > underground nuclear > sites. One target is Iran's main centrifuge plant, > at Natanz, nearly two > hundred miles south of Tehran. Natanz, which is no > longer under I.A.E.A. > safeguards, reportedly has underground floor space > to hold fifty > thousand centrifuges, and laboratories and > workspaces buried > approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface. > That number of > centrifuges could provide enough enriched uranium > for about twenty > nuclear warheads a year. (Iran has acknowledged that > it initially kept > the existence of its enrichment program hidden from > I.A.E.A. inspectors, > but claims that none of its current activity is > barred by the > Non-Proliferation Treaty.) The elimination of Natanz > would be a major > setback for Iran's nuclear ambitions, but the > conventional weapons in > the American arsenal could not insure the > destruction of facilities > under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, > especially if they are > reinforced with concrete. > > There is a Cold War precedent for targeting deep > underground bunkers > with nuclear weapons. In the early > nineteen-eighties, the American > intelligence community watched as the Soviet > government began digging a > huge underground complex outside Moscow. Analysts > concluded that the > underground facility was designed for "continuity of > government"-for the > political and military leadership to survive a > nuclear war. (There are > similar facilities, in Virginia and Pennsylvania, > for the American > leadership.) The Soviet facility still exists, and > much of what the U.S. > knows about it remains classified. "The 'tell' "-the > giveaway-"was the > ventilator shafts, some of which were disguised," > the former senior > intelligence official told me. At the time, he said, > it was determined > that "only nukes" could destroy the bunker. He added > that some American > intelligence analysts believe that the Russians > helped the Iranians > design their underground facility. "We see a > similarity of design," > specifically in the ventilator shafts, he said. > > A former high-level Defense Department official told > me that, in his > view, even limited bombing would allow the U.S. to > "go in there and do > enough damage to slow down the nuclear > infrastructure-it's feasible." > The former defense official said, "The Iranians > don't have friends, and > we can tell them that, if necessary, we'll keep > knocking back their > infrastructure. The United States should act like > we're ready to go." He > added, "We don't have to knock down all of their air > defenses. Our > stealth bombers and standoff missiles really work, > and we can blow fixed > things up. We can do things on the ground, too, but > it's difficult and > very dangerous-put bad stuff in ventilator shafts > and put them to > sleep." > > But those who are familiar with the Soviet bunker, > according to the > former senior intelligence official, "say 'No way.' > You've got to know > what's underneath-to know which ventilator feeds > people, or diesel > generators, or which are false. And there's a lot > that we don't know." > The lack of reliable intelligence leaves military > planners, given the > goal of totally destroying the sites, little choice > but to consider the > use of tactical nuclear weapons. "Every other > option, in the view of the > nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap," the former > senior intelligence > official said. " 'Decisive' is the key word of the > Air Force's planning. > It's a tough decision. But we made it in Japan." > > He went on, "Nuclear planners go through extensive > training and learn > the technical details of damage and fallout-we're > talking about mushroom > clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and > contamination over years. This > is not an underground nuclear test, where all you > see is the earth > raised a little bit. These politicians don't have a > clue, and whenever > anybody tries to get it out"-remove the nuclear > option-"they're shouted > down." > > The attention given to the nuclear option has > created serious misgivings > inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he > added, and some > officers have talked about resigning. Late this > winter, the Joint Chiefs > of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from > the evolving war plans > for Iran-without success, the former intelligence > official said. "The > White House said, 'Why are you challenging this? The > option came from > you.' " > > The Pentagon adviser 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 Pentagon > civilians and in policy circles. He called it "a > juggernaut that has to > be stopped." He also confirmed that some senior > officers and officials > were considering resigning over the issue. "There > are very strong > sentiments within the military against brandishing > nuclear weapons > against other countries," the adviser told me. "This > goes to high > levels." The matter may soon reach a decisive point, > he said, because > the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a > formal > recommendation stating that they are strongly > opposed to considering the > nuclear option for Iran. "The internal debate on > this has hardened in > recent weeks," the adviser said. "And, if senior > Pentagon officers > express their opposition to the use of offensive > nuclear weapons, then > it will never happen." > > The adviser added, however, that the idea of using > tactical nuclear > weapons in such situations has gained support from > the Defense Science > Board, an advisory panel whose members are selected > by Secretary of > Defense Donald Rumsfeld. "They're telling the > Pentagon that we can build > the B61 with more blast and less radiation," he > said. > === message truncated === http://www.picturetrail.com/lavonasherarts __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mailinglist from Sztuka Fabryka http://www.sztuka-fabryka.be/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ma-network/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
