* uranus:
"I've been making a radical claim on this subject in different online forums since the first of the year. While no one refutes it, or even addresses it, I'm sure more than a few people think I've lost my mind. However, I am still convinced there is but one inescapable conclusion to be drawn about the war in Iran.
Before I tell you what that claim is, please make the time to read this very lengthy, authoritative article from Global Research. In fact, I'd go so far as to say if you read nothing else this year, read this article. Click the embedded links, and understand what it all means. It tells about the United States' plan for war with Iran and the role of robust nuclear earth penetrators (RNEPs).
After you read that, take a look at this short flash animation created by the Union of Concerned Scientists regarding the environmental impact of using RNEPs in Iran.
RNEPs were developed to attack command centers in mountain caves. Mounted to missiles, they are very effective for that purpose. When fired into a cave, the people who aren't killed by percussion or incineration die from suffocation, as the explosion consumes the air in the cave. Also, caves are fairly effective at containing the radiation emitted from the explosion.
The U.S. plan is to use this weapon to attack deeply buried, hardened bunkers in Iran where chemical and nuclear weapons and production are located. This tactic and weapon are wrong because (1) we don't have exact coordinates locating the bunkers; (2) RNEPs lack the ability to penetrate the earth deeply enough to destroy those bunkers; (3) the plan is not to mount them to guided missiles but drop them like bombs, so their use is not as accurate as the military pretends to believe; (4) there is no natural structure to contain the radiation, as in a cave, so these weapons are not the clean weapon the military pretends to believe.
If you've read the article and watched the animation, you know (1) using a single RNEP this way will shower radioactive fallout on 35 million people downwind within 48 hours; and (2) the United States plans to attack 400 different sites throughout Iran, some of the sites with more than one RNEP. From these facts, what should we assume? That the military's prewar estimate of 10,000 deaths is accurate?
Do the math yourself. The initial "shock and awe" attack with RNEPs in Iran will kill more like 10-50 MILLION people within days or weeks. The planners pretend to conveniently ignore this aspect of the war in Iran, but that doesn't mean they're unaware of it.
This brings us to my radical claim. Some very respected analysts and writers have stated Russia and China will not stand idly by and allow us to attack Iran, with whom they have big, long-term contracts for petroleum; indeed, they'll do what they can to hurt us, badly, and that's logical. But no one addresses the indisputable fact that millions of innocent people in other countries will perish from the radioactive fallout launched by this poorly designed attack. It's my contention that the world will not stand idly by and do nothing, and that an attack on the continental United States using tactical nuclear weapons, the big hydrogen warheads, is a virtual certainty.
Furthermore, I contend that it is Bush and Cheney's deliberate intention to provoke such an attack. The U.S. response would be to retaliate with tactical weapons. While this could spur mutually assured destruction, it needn't do that render the planet's atmosphere unfit for habitation. Remember, cities are larger than they were in the days of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the warheads are a thousand times larger, or more. The destruction of a handful of the world's major cities would send enough radioactive dust into the atmosphere to exterminate humanity, and most living things.
I contend and insist that it is the intentional, purposeful design of the war as planned with Iran to do just that, and thereby fulfill the PNAC prophecy. PNAC's authors understood the rich can hardly have almighty wealth if they have to share it with a growing population--and the more people they can kill, the more wealth is left for them...
...and these people, who are smart enough to come up with this idiotic plan, are not smart enough to know that a world that has been destroyed by nuclear warfare is not really worth owning (or capable of sustaining even their blessed lives). It's a radical claim. But after seeing these peabrains in action, can you say you doubt it completely?"
* uranus:
"I've come to realize a couple things about war. Government policy can't go too far afield if public opinion holds it in check. In the run-up to Iraq, we didn't have enough people saying no. And, I've learned most people lack the ability to extrapolate, to visualize, to consider the consequences. What I'm saying is my opinion, but it's also just repeating what some good science already said before it was silenced. That's the good thing about being a poor, obscure individual. The bad thing is, people don't listen to poor, obscure individuals. I'm glad you guys do. In spite of the fact I've written and written (and written) about this, and shared those links, before tonight only two people I know have understood how this works, and how dangerous it is. The whole world needs to be telling the Bush administration to not even think about it, and the only way to make that happen is spread the word."
* uranus:
"I've been on the edge of my seat all year after seeing that stuff, and while it's only my opinion, it seems to me the opportunity for global cataclysm is self evident. There was a murmur of provoking a nuclear attack on the U.S. early in the discussion of using RNEPs in Iran, but that talk was quickly hushed. How idiotic, how suicidal, how psychotic the Pat Robertson-FOX News crowd look now, speaking so authoritatively, about the need to attack Iran NOW. You saw the fallout cloud. They want to attack 400 places, maybe more. What if they use 1,000 RNEPs? Nothing like that has ever been done; that is, shower that many people with that much fallout."
* uranus:
"The good news is, we are going to win this one. If politics were this easy, there wouldn't be another war until the end of time.* Uranus has also joined our Global Strike Force. Map updated here. If anyone else wants to join, just lemme know.
5 comments:
I'm glad you found that, Luke. Earlier I found two weeks missing in archives on this site, and I posted the link in Americablog's comments but couldn't find it after searching more than an hour. That's very odd. I've found posts I made in comments months afterward, without fail. I could have rewritten it faster than that.
I'm repeating what some good scientific study concluded earlier. That talk has been silenced. I haven't updated my study on this subject. The weapon in the animation is said to yield 1 megaton. Previously the RNEPs they were planning to use in Iran were 5 kiloton. That's a very big difference. The bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 10 and 15 kiloton, approximately, although the military is still reluctant to be specific about that. Iran war planners hinted they might use 2 or 3 at each site, or some sites.
The recent spin on broadcast news would be funny if not so horrifying. Now we're being told the military knows the precise location of all the targets, and they plan to hit them with "smart bombs." Smart bombs?? Both of these "facts" are dubious; if true, we learned those locations and invented smart bombs last week. I'm not a munitions expert. We have laser-guided missiles, but it was my understanding RNEPs were to be dropped from planes like bombs. While they can be targeted, the method is far from accurate, and the term "smart bomb" is a misnomer (i.e., some bullshit). It's just an excuse to use more than the minimum required number of weapons, because there will be many misses.
That subject has been discussed extensively. I don't have links. The discussion gets too blurry. My original post wasn't angry enough. It's hard to guess how much radiation the initial attack in Iran will release. But the truly chilling fact is the U.S. attack on Iran will shower somewhere in the neighborhood of a billion people with radioactive fallout.
This tells a very different story about our war plans with Iran than the neocon spin, and speaks of a very different imperative than talk about power plants, bombs, pipelines and euros. Are people in general too busy in their everyday lives to take some time out to speak up about it? I know a great many people are aware of it.
If this is what Rove is planning as his "October surprise," we very well may not make it to the end of the year. The Bush administration may be indifferent to human life, but I am not indifferent to my life, or anyone else's.
I look good on the map! Thanks, Luke.
yay Uranus. you did some really important research and work and thank you.
and thanks to AWOL-boy, i mean Luke, for f/p Uranus. wait...that sounds a bit...yer anus-y. never mind.
I don't know what new research would help shed more light on the folly of attacking Iran with nuclear weapons. All I can say is, link as many places and instances as you can to this discussion, because it's extremely urgent. You needn't thank me. All the work was done by other people, and I've been too much in shock to fail to discuss it. I'm grateful for your attention to this serious matter.
thnx for that aunty ism.
URanus - larisa's sources are telling her the question is whether the iran war will be before the election or before xmas.
i'm not sure what is wrong with the archives - they seem to 'forget' the last few days of the month!
also - i don't think the blogsearch function works very well. i use normal google and type in 'wot is' and it usually comes up - e.g. 'wot is uranus nuclear'
Global Security has an article suggesting possible dates for starting the war in Iran, past and future. Regarding using the war as our "October surprise," they say:
7 November 2006
The US Congressional elections of 2006 will be held on Tuesday, November 7, 2006. It is unclear how the United States election cycle would influence the timing of strikes against Iran. If the White House is risk averse, it would be unlikely to launch strikes in the run-up to the 2006 election [or the 2008 election]. However, as soon as the election concludes, risk averse domestic political inhibitions about the uncertain consequences of striking Iran might be greatly diminished. Alternately, it might be conjectured that the White House might judge that military strikes would rally the country around the President and his party. This would argue for timing the strikes as little as a week before the election, a pre-planned October Surprise.
Oh yeah, nothing like slaughtering some bad guys to get people to vote for you. We are Devo.
Post a Comment