[R-G] Pentagon Prepares For Possible Use Of Nuclear Weapons

[DavidMcR at aol.com]

 The Effects Of Nuclear War:
 http://www.mothersalert.org/nuclearwar.html
 
 
 http://www.latimes.com
 http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-f
 g-nuke25jan25,0,2718283.story?coll=la%2Dhome%2Dhea
 dlines
 U.S. Weighs Tactical Nuclear Strike on Iraq
  For what one defense analyst says is a worst-case
 scenario, planners are studying the use of atomic
 bombs on deeply buried targets.
 
 
            Related Stories
 
       The Nuclear Option in Iraq
       January 26, 2003

                  IRAQ
 
                  WAR
 
                  NUCLEAR STRIKE

 By Paul Richter, Times Staff Writer
 
  WASHINGTON -- As the Pentagon continues a highly
 visible buildup of troops and weapons in the
 Persian Gulf, it is also quietly preparing for the
 possible use of nuclear weapons in a war against
 Iraq, according to a report by a defense analyst.
 
 Although they consider such a strike unlikely,
 military planners have been actively studying
 lists of potential targets and considering
 options, including the possible use of so-called
 bunker-buster nuclear weapons against deeply
 buried military targets, says analyst William M.
 Arkin, who writes a regular column on defense
 matters for The Times.
     
 Military officials have been focusing their
 planning on the use of tactical nuclear arms in
 retaliation for a strike by the Iraqis with
 chemical or biological weapons, or to preempt one,
 Arkin says. His report, based on interviews and a
 review of official documents, appears in a column
 that will be published in The Times on Sunday.
 
 Administration officials believe that in some
 circumstances, nuclear arms may offer the only way
 to destroy deeply buried targets that may contain
 unconventional weapons that could kill thousands.
 
 Some officials have argued that the blast and
 radiation effects of such strikes would be
 limited.
 
 But that is in dispute. Critics contend that a
 bunker-buster strike could involve a huge
 radiation release and dangerous blast damage. They
 also say that use of a nuclear weapon in such
 circumstances would encourage other nuclear-armed
 countries to consider using such weapons in more
 kinds of situations and would badly undermine the
 half-century effort to contain the spread of
 nuclear arms.
 
 Although it may be highly unlikely that the Bush
 administration would authorize the use of such
 weapons in Iraq -- Arkin describes that as a
 worst-case scenario -- the mere disclosure of its
 planning contingencies could stiffen the
 opposition of France, Germany and Middle East
 nations to an invasion of Iraq.
 
 "If the United States dropped a bomb on an Arab
 country, it might be a military success, but it
 would be a diplomatic, political and strategic
 disaster," said Joseph Cirincione, director of
 nonproliferation studies at the Carnegie Endowment
 for Interna- tional Peace in Washington.
 
 He said there is a danger of the misuse of a
 nuclear weapon in Iraq because of the chance that
 "somebody could be seduced into the mistaken idea
 that you could use a nuclear weapon with minimal
 collateral damage and political damage."
 
 In the last year, Bush administration officials
 have repeatedly made clear that they want to be
 better prepared to consider the nuclear option
 against the threat of "weapons of mass
 destruction" in the hands of terrorists and rogue
 nations. The current planning, as reported by
 Arkin, offers a concrete example of their
 determination to follow through on this pledge.
 
 Arkin also says that the Pentagon has changed the
 bureaucratic oversight of nuclear weapons so that
 they are no longer treated as a special category
 of arms but are grouped with conventional military
 options.
 
 A White House spokesman declined to comment Friday
 on Arkin's report, except to say that "the United
 States reserves the right to defend itself and its
 allies by whatever means necessary."
 
 Consideration of the nuclear option has defenders.
 
 David J. Smith, an arms control negotiator in the
 first Bush administration, said presidents would
 consider using such a weapon only "in terribly
 ugly situations where there are no easy ways out.
 If there's a threat that could involve huge
 numbers of American lives, I as a citizen would
 want the president to consider that option."
 
 Smith defended the current administration's more
 assertive public pronouncements on the subject,
 saying that weapons have a deterrent value only
 "if the other guy really believes you might use
 them."
 
 Other administrations have warned that they might
 use nuclear weapons in circumstances short of an
 all-out atomic war.
 
 In January 1991, before the Persian Gulf War,
 Secretary of State James A. Baker III warned Iraqi
 diplomat Tarik Aziz in a letter that the American
 people would "demand the strongest possible
 response" to a use of chemical or biological
 weapons. The Clinton administration made a similar
 warning to the Libyans regarding the threat from a
 chemical plant.
 
 But officials of this administration have placed
 greater emphasis on such possibilities and have
 stated that preemptive strikes may sometimes be
 needed to safeguard Americans against adversaries
 who cannot be deterred, such as terrorists, or
 against dictators, such as Saddam Hussein.
 
 Instead of making such a warning from time to time
 as threats arise, the Bush administration "has set
 it out as a general principle, and backed it up by
 explaining what has changed in the world," Smith
 said.
 
 In a policy statement issued only last month, the
 White House said the United States "will continue
 to make clear that it reserves the right to
 respond with overwhelming force -- including
 through resort to all of our options -- to the use
 of weapons of mass destruction against the United
 States."
 
 One year ago, the administration completed a
 classified Nuclear Posture Review that said
 nuclear weapons should be considered against
 targets able to withstand conventional attack; in
 retaliation for an attack with nuclear, chemical
 or biological weapons; or "in the event of
 surprising military developments." And it
 identified seven countries -- China, Russia, Iraq,
 North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria -- as possible
 targets.
 
 The same report called on the government to
 develop smaller nuclear weapons for possible use
 in some battlefield situations. Both the United
 States and Russia already have stockpiles of such
 tactical weapons, which are often small enough to
 be carried by one or two people yet can exceed the
 power of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima, Japan,
 in World War II.
 
 The administration has since been pushing Congress
 to pay for a study of how to build a smaller, more
 effective version of a 6-year-old nuclear
 bunker-buster bomb called the B-61 Mod 11. Critics
 maintain that the administration's eagerness for
 this study shows officials' desire to move toward
 building new weapons and to end the decade-old
 voluntary freeze on nuclear testing.
 
 The B-61 is considered ineffective because it can
 burrow only 20 feet before detonating. The
 increasingly sophisticated underground command
 posts and weapon storage facilities being built by
 some countries are far deeper than that. And the
 closer to the surface a nuclear device explodes,
 the greater the risk of the spread of radiation.
 
 The reported yield of B-61 devices in U.S.
 inventory varies from less than 1 kiloton of TNT
 to more than 350. The Hiroshima bomb was 20
 kilotons.
 
 Discussion of new weapons has set off a heated
 argument among experts on the value and effects of
 smaller-yield nuclear weapons.
 
 Some Pentagon officials contend that the nation
 could develop nuclear weapons that could burrow
 deep enough to destroy hardened targets. But some
 independent physicists have argued that such a
 device would barely penetrate the surface while
 blowing out huge amounts of radioactive dirt that
 would pollute the region around it with a deadly
 fallout.
 
 Wade Boese of the Arms Control Assn. in Washington
 said there is no evidence that conventional arms
 wouldn't be just as effective in reaching deeply
 buried targets.
 
 http://www.latimes.com
 http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-o
 p-arkin26jan26,0,4889056.story?coll=la%2Dhome%2Dhe
 adlines
       January 26, 2003   E-mail story    Print