11 April 2006 - Amsterdam,
Netherlands — An exposé this week by respected
insider journalist Seymour Hersh reveals that
the US is considering the use of tactical nuclear
weapons against Iran. But where would those weapons
come from, and where would they strike? Those
questions bear deep implications for NATO and
innocent civilians in Iran.
Under something known as ‘nuclear burden sharing’
there are currently some 480 US/NATO nuclear bombs
spread across six countries: the UK, Italy, Belgium,
Germany, the Netherlands, and Turkey.
The US could decide to use any
or all of these without consulting the host countries
governments, or people, to use against Iran.
Hersh writes in the New Yorker that "Air
Force planning groups are drawing up lists of
targets and teams of American combat troops have
been ordered into Iran under cover to collect
targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government
ethnic-minority groups..."
Here's what a set of likely strike targets might
look like, drawn from publicly available information.
Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) made
an analysis of likely casualties using the US
Department of Defense's own methodology and concluded
there would be around 3 million immediate deaths.
We estimate that within 48 hours... over 3 million
people would die as a result of the attack. About
half of those would die from radiation-related
causes, either prompt casualties from the immediate
radiation effects of the bomb, or from exposure
to fallout. For example, the entire city of Isfahan
would likely be covered in fallout producing 1000
rems of radiation per hour, a fatal dose. Over
600,000 people would suffer immediate injuries...
...within 48 hours, prevailing
winds would spread fallout to cover a large area
in Iran, most of Afghanistan and then spread on
into Pakistan and India. There is little likelihood,
in most seasons, that rain would mitigate the
spread of fallout.
In this scenario, over 35 million
people in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India
would suffer significant radiation exposure of
1 rem per hour or above within four days..
PSR used a different warhead
for its calculations than Hersh suggests is likely
to be used. But rather than argue shades of destructive
magnitude, we'd think it a good idea if the Bush
administration simply put this option back in
the box. But some folks have suggested that already...
Practice bombing runs
According to Hersh US Navy pilots operating from
the Arabian Sea have been practicing nuclear bombing
runs against Iran since last summer. He says,
“Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought
to remove the nuclear option from the evolving
war plans for Iran - without success." Some
senior staff have even threatened to resign.
One insider is quoted as saying that the military
attack is premised on the belief that "a
sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate
the religious leadership and lead the public to
rise up and overthrow the government." Hersh
says the official added, "I was shocked when
I heard it, and asked myself, 'What are they smoking?'"
Preventive war: illegal, unethical, ineffective.
Everyone's invited
The preventive war doctrine - threatening to attack
before any attack or overt threat appears -- is
being operationalised. Preventive war is the US
military standard now - rather than the exception
- as enshrined in the Nuclear Posture Review of
2001, the National Security Strategy from March
2006, and particularly the new Global Strike Mission
-- otherwise known by the catchy name of "CONPLAN
8022."
Citizens of many European countries need to know
that The Global Strike Mission means that if the
US decides to strike with nuclear weapons, their
own countries will likely be part of that war
effort -- whether they like it or not.
Innocent people, and perhaps unwilling governments,
will share in the responsibility and repercussions.
According to Hans M. Kristensen in a report for
Federation of American Scientists "Global
Strike incorporates not only strategic long-range
weapons launched from the United States, but also
- potentially - nuclear bombs deployed in Europe
or weapons that could be moved into a theatre
in case of a crisis. A preemptive strike could
use a B61 nuclear bomb deployed in Turkey or a
strategic warhead launched from a Trident submarine
off Japan."
British Foreign Secretary Jack
Straw told BBC Television that a US military strike
was "not on the agenda" and any idea
that Washington could use tactical nuclear weapons
against Iran was "completely nuts."
But according to the Washington Post, "The
British government has launched its own planning
for a potential US strike, studying security arrangements
for its embassy and consular offices, for British
citizens and corporate interests in Iran and for
ships in the region and British troops in Iraq.
British officials indicate their government is
unlikely to participate directly in any attacks."
So it appears that British thinking runs, "It
may be nuts, but crazy people do crazy things
so its best to be prepared!" What a special
relationship.
Fortunately for British personnel, we know from
the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations which
was published on the Pentagon's internet site,
(and then yanked), that the military chiefs have
had some discussion about the etiquette of alerting
allied troops that a nuclear attack is coming
their way.
Time for a preventative peace strike
If the US decides on a nuclear attack against
Iran, they could use US nuclear bombs currently
spread throughout a number of NATO countries:
the UK, Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands, Italy
and Turkey.
We're seeking the assurance from the Heads of
State and Foreign Ministers of these countries
that they will not provide any political or practical
support for any military action against Iran,
especially action that involves nuclear weapons.
You can join us in that call. All we ask is a
simple promise that the US would be prohibited
from using European bases, equipment, and intelligence
for any military strike, and that the US would
not be granted over-flight rights.
As part of the diplomatic path to a nuclear-weapons-free
Middle East and a nuclear-weapons-free world,
the six NATO countries which currently host US
nuclear weapons should immediately instruct the
US to take the weapons back and dismantle them.
Military action at any juncture in this crisis
would have catastrophic consequences, unleashing
years or decades of regional and global violence.
Nuclear disarmament is essential to the cause
of peace.
