CONFIRMED BY RUSSIANS AND ABC NEWS
The first reactor at the Bushehr nuclear plant, where Russian engineers are working, is supposed to be spared from destruction. The US attack plan reportedly calls for the Iranian air defense system to be degraded, for numerous Iranian warships to be sunk in the Persian Gulf, and the for the most important headquarters of the Iranian armed forces to be wiped out.
The attacks will be mounted from a number of bases, including the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Diego Garcia is currently home to B-52 bombers equipped with standoff missiles. Also participating in the air strikes will be US naval aviation from aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, as well as from those of the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean. Additional cruise missiles will be fired from submarines in the Indian Ocean and off the coast of the Arabian peninsula. The goal is allegedly to set back Iran 's nuclear program by several years, writes Uglanov, whose article was re-issued (1, 2) by RIA-Novosti in various languages, but apparently not English, several days ago. The story is the top item on numerous Italian and German blogs, but so far appears to have been ignored by US websites.
“We have drawn the unmistakable conclusion that this operation will take place,” said Ivashov. In his opinion, the US planning does not include a land operation: “Most probably there will be no ground attack, but rather massive air attacks with the goal of annihilating Iran's capacity for military resistance, the centers of administration, the key economic assets, and quite possibly the Iranian political leadership, or at least part of it,” he continued.
Ivashov noted that it was not to be excluded that the Pentagon would use smaller tactical nuclear weapons against targets of the Iranian nuclear industry. These attacks could paralyze everyday life, create panic in the population, and generally produce an atmosphere of chaos and uncertainty all over Iran, Ivashov told RIA-Novosti. “This will unleash a struggle for power inside Iran, and then there will be a peace delegation sent in to install a pro-American government in Teheran,” Ivashov continued. One of the US goals was, in his estimation, to burnish the image of the current Democrat administration, who would now be able to boast that they had wiped out the Iranian nuclear program.
Moscow must expert Russia's influence by demanding an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to deal with the current preparations for an illegal use of force against Iran and the destruction of the basis of the United Nations Charter,” said General Ivashov. “In this context Russia could cooperate with China and the non-permanent members of the Security Council. We need this kind of preventive action to ward off the use of force,” he concluded.
Is the U.S. Preparing to Bomb Iran?
By JONATHAN KARL
ABC NEWS
Oct. 6, 2009
Is the U.S. stepping up preparations for a possible attack on Iran's nuclear facilities?
The Pentagon is always making plans, but based on a little-noticed funding request recently sent to Congress, the answer to that question appears to be yes.
First, some background: Back in October 2007, ABC News reported that the Pentagon had asked Congress for $88 million in the emergency Iraq/Afghanistan war funding request to develop a gargantuan bunker-busting bomb called the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP). It's a 30,000-pound bomb designed to hit targets buried 200 feet below ground. Back then, the Pentagon cited an "urgent operational need" for the new weapon.
Now the Pentagon is shifting spending from other programs to fast forward the development and procurement of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator. The Pentagon comptroller sent a request to shift the funds to the House and Senate Appropriations and Armed Services Committees over the summer.
The comptroller said the Pentagon planned to spend $19.1 million to procure four of the bombs, $28.3 million to accelerate the bomb's "development and testing", and $21 million to accelerate the integration of the bomb onto B-2 stealth bombers.
Urgent Operational Need'
The notification was tucked inside a 93-page "reprogramming" request that included a couple hundred other more mundane items.
Why now? The notification says simply, "The Department has an Urgent Operational Need (UON) for the capability to strike hard and deeply buried targets in high threat environments. The MOP is the weapon of choice to meet the requirements of the UON." It further states that the request is endorsed by Pacific Command (which has responsibility over North Korea) and Central Command (which has responsibility over Iran).
The request was quietly approved. On Friday, McDonnell Douglas was awarded a $51.9 million contract to provide "Massive Penetrator Ordnance Integration" on B-2 aircraft.
This is not the kind of weapon that would be particularly useful in Iraq or Afghanistan, but it is ideally suited to hit deeply buried nuclear facilities such as Natanz or Qom in Iran.
COMMENTS BY RUSH LIMBAUGH: "Is the US Preparing to Bomb Iran?" That's the headline on a story here from Jonathan Karl at ABC News: "Is the U.S. stepping up preparations for a possible attack on Iran's nuclear facilities? The Pentagon is always making plans, but based on a little-noticed funding request recently sent to Congress, the answer to that question appears to be yes. First, some background: Back in October 2007, ABC News reported that the Pentagon had asked Congress for $88 million in the emergency Iraq/Afghanistan war funding request to develop a gargantuan bunker-busting bomb called the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP). It's a 30,000-pound bomb designed to hit targets buried 200 feet below ground. Back then, the Pentagon cited an 'urgent operational need' for the new weapon. Now the Pentagon is shifting spending from other programs to fast forward the development and procurement of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator."
A little aside here, why does the government have to come up with these screwball names? This thing, the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, sounds like something you'd see in a porn movie. And then the acronym, MOP, we got a bomb and we're calling it a mop! It's a Massive Ordnance Penetrator, and it obliterates things 200 feet below ground, and we're calling it a mop! "The Pentagon comptroller sent a request to shift the funds to the House and Senate Appropriations and Armed Services Committees over the summer." There is an urgent operational need for this. "The request was quietly approved. On Friday, McDonnell Douglas was awarded a $51.9 million contract to provide 'Massive Penetrator Ordnance Integration' on B-2 aircraft." So we're going to put the MOP on the B-2. "This is not the kind of weapon that would be particularly useful in Iraq or Afghanistan, but it is ideally suited to hit deeply buried nuclear facilities such as Natanz or Qom in Iran." The Massive Ordnance Penetrator and Massive Ordnance Penetrator Integration, MOP integration, on the B-2 stealth bomber. Now, that, folks, is big. And this is ABC Jonathan Karl strategizing here, trying to connect the dots out there, but it still is happening.
14 comentarii :
"Ivashov noted that it was not to be excluded that the Pentagon would use smaller tactical nuclear weapons against targets of the Iranian nuclear industry."
Asta-i o enormitate, semn clar că ruşii doar arată pisica pentru că, nu-i aşa, "The White House on Tuesday said Biden will visit Poland, Romania and Czech Republic from October 20-24."
Adicătelea "nu cumva să îndrăzniţi să mutaţi scutul antirachetă în România că vă dăm peste cap adevăratul plan de atac al Iranului."
Mihai, acolo unde nu pot pătrunde bombele anti-bunker (la mai mult de 80m ),armele nucleare tactice de putere mică pot provoca o undă de şoc (acceleraţie) care distruge tot ce este în subteran.
Planul nu-i chiar asa secret, se lucrează la el înca de la revolutia lui Khomeini. ;-)
Bănuiesc că te referi la B61-11 dar aceasta este o armă pe care americanii nu vor risca să o utilizeze atât de aproape de teritoriul Rusiei, mai ales asupra unor instalaţii presupus nucleare, întrucât ar risca producerea unui dezastru ecologic incontrolabil în zonă.
De aceea, experienţa mea militară (7+ ani) îmi spune că se vor utiliza mai degrabă MOP-urile pentru că, în cazul ţintelor nucleare pasive (unităţi de producţie etc.) este suficient să distrugi infrastructura de acces pentru a le neutraliza.
Nu ştiu exact ce şi cum, dar Bibi Netanyahu, după ce s-a vazut prima oară cu Obama, când erau deja ambii în funcţie, i-a zis "ocupă-te de Iran sau o voi face eu!".
Anul ăsta va fi ceva.
Aici sunt întrutotul de acord, Iranul trebuie să şi-o ia pe cocoaşă şi aşa va fi, mai devreme sau mai târziu.
Anul ăsta, zic eu. Au aşteptat să treaca alegerile din Germania. De curând Israelul a mai primit două submarine clasa Dolphin din Germania, capabile de a transporta rachete.
Este posibil dar improbabil pentru că bombardierele B-52 decolate de la baza Diego Garcia vor avea nevoie de protecţia avioanelor de luptă ambarcate pe portavioanele din Golful Oman ale căror operaţiuni pot fi îngreunate de situaţia meteo din zonă (vânturi extrem de puternice şi violente dinspre nord-est în perioada Octombrie - Aprilie)
Până ajung B-52 pe poziţie, se poate asigura superioritatea aeriană. Iranienii tocmai au pierdut recent singurul avion-radar, într-un accident.
Accident accidental din eroare probabil :)
Era şi Ahmadinejad în apropiere - o paradă, ceva. Mai avea puţin... ;-)
greu de crezut un asfel de scenariu...obama nu are boashe suficient de puternice pt a autoriza un astfel de atac....obama va fi un fel de carter 2, facand compromisuri dupa compromisuri, mai ales in fata iranienilor si a musulmanilor in general..
Ei, cine ştie... era un jucator de tenis, Toma Ovici, dădea mingea mereu pe aceeaşi direcţie, exasperant, apoi, după ce concurentul se obişnuia, schimba brusc direcţia şi lua 15 puncte.
mai curind n'as vrea sa se intimple (as mai zice: pe parcursu' vietzilor noastre, a urmasilor nostri, si'a urmasilor urmasilor nostri), pentru ca nu stii ce'ar cere rusii in schimb ;-((
Ruşii sunt parte, nu terţi. Şi cu Iranul, şi cu Al-Qaeda.
http://www.jrnyquist.com/nyquist_2005_0813.htm
Trimiteți un comentariu