US nuked Iran in 1991

Hey i have done a quick search but couldnt find if this had been posted before, but pretty damn disturbing if it is true anyway, how many other places have they used it without saying?

US nuked iran in 1991

Better Link

A senior Iranian cleric has urged an inquiry into a report that the US dropped a small nuclear bomb on an area near the Iraq-Iran border.

Speaking at the Friday prayers sermon, former Iranian president and currently Chairman of the Assembly of Experts, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said, "The bomb blast killed many people and spread cancer and other diseases in the area but no news items have been published about it."

[edit on 14-3-2009 by Skinon]

i wouldnt put it past the us but i cant see how it didnt get out on a arab news network like al jazera

There was a thread about this on here not long ago. There is no way that we dropped a nuke in 1991. There would be radiological evidence that isn't there. The flash would have been seen my satellites anywhere near the area. The most likely culprit of the "nuclear" blast was a BLU-82 Daisy Cutter fuel air explosive.

I'm not surprised...

second line

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
I'm not surprised...

second line

Why am I not surprised that people buy into this without a shred of proof. What was it? a micro-nuke? While im sure these exist, I tend to doubt they are just dropped and forgotten about.


anyway,

Originally posted by NightoftheComet

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
I'm not surprised...

second line

Why am I not surprised that people buy into this without a shred of proof. What was it? a micro-nuke?

While im sure these exist, I tend to doubt they are just dropped and forgotten about.

anyway,

I agree, nothing just gets brushed under the carpet when the US is concerned.
Yes I have seen time and time again that the US Presidents admitting they supplied Suddam with chemical weapons.
They are also the most vocal that they trained and funded Osama.

If they dropped an illegal weapon I am sure they would have sent out letters to every news agency along with pictures.

The Chernobyl accident released an estimated 100 Roentgens an hour of gamma rays. That converts to about 1193 rems. Exposure to 600 rems is considered lethal within a few weeks. That radiation went from the Ukraine to Sweden, where it still has caused an increase in cancer levels. A 5kt nuke would release roughly 3000 rems from the initial blast alone. Did that radiation just disappear somehow? It should have been all over the region, and detected thousands of miles away, but yet it never was.

reply to post by Zaphod58


There was just a few minutes ago a documentary on TV about Kazakhstan. They had to endure most of the nuclear explosion by USSR. The cancer rate there was very high. Babies with defect and congenital deformation, the kind of which I only saw on documentaries about Chernobyl. So IMHO, if the US dropped a nuke, even a small one, there would be a lot of radiation and cancer-sickness-deformation ... and the Iranian would gladly show proof of US horrors.

Hmm apparently the report hasn't been officially confirmed but was expected to recieve widespread media coverage, but ended up getting censored in the media?

Now although it wouldn't surprise me if this happened i do tend to wonder if maybe they could have developed a Nuclear bomb that doesnt have the severe radition that a normal one would have but would still keep the explosion and non radiated damage potential off a 'normal' nuke.
Would that be possible? does the US army have a bomb that can cause as much destruction as a nuke but without (or substantially less) the radiation?

reply to post by grandnic


It does mention something about tumor rates going up.

RaiNews24 says it has conducted an independent inquiry and discovered that “a seismic event took place on that day equal to a five-kilotonne blast”, citing as its source the online archives of the International Seismological Center, a non-profit UK-based organisation, as confirmation of its research according to Adnkronos International (AKI).

The documentary included an interview with an Iraqi doctor, Jawad al-Ali, who told RaiNews24 that before the beginning of the first Gulf War in 1989 there were 32 cases of tumours, while in 2002 the number had risen to 600 in the Basra area as reported by AKI on 8 October.

Al-Ali also told RaiNews24 that tumours that used to affect older citizens had started to impact younger children. He then showed alleged photos of the tumours in the documentary.

The closest weapon they have to a nuke without the nuke effects is a Fuel Air Explosive. The BLU-82, which was in use during the Gulf War was a 15,000 pound bomb. They were first used in Vietnam, to clear about a 250 foot diameter landing zone for helicopters.

reply to post by Skinon


They supposedly dropped it close to Basra. If they had then it would be a lot more than just tumor rates. You would see horrifying deformities, hundreds or thousands of people killed from the radiation, as well as higher tumor rates. The radiation would have spread to parts of Asia from there. I would expect to see a higher cancer rate somewhere around Japan or Korea, not right next to where they supposedly dropped it.

wouldn't the nuke implosion create a powerful radio signal which would be noted. I doubt a nuke was detonated in iran by the US.

reply to post by BASSPLYR


That's the other problem. Where was the EMP?