We could well be 36 hrs from some sort of precedent-setting military action.... so I am 'paying it forward' in terms of calling this 'breaking
news'... or I am simply premature- in which case please place this submission in the appropriate category
The title of the article from which this was excerpted is:
THE NUCLEAR THREAT THAT
DOESN'T EXIST - OR DOES IT?
My reason in posting this as 'breaking news' is simply that I think current world events have made this imminently and immediately relevant. The
article itself was from a financial revue and went to press in 2003...
Fast forward to my present motivation. The more I read these executive briefings and wargame / scenario analyses re: USrael v. Iran, the more firmly
I conclude that low-yield fusion devices will be used... Most all of these reports seem to indicate that the US cannot win against Iran without
resorting to fairly wide use of nuclear weapons. Others models and excercises predict the loss of several US warships... seemingly either way (IMO)
(I am also unhappy to report my opinion as that the above facts bolster the probability of a terrorism pretext in the form of a domestic nuclear
false-flag event in the US in the near term)
One type of device in this "special-munitions" category seems to be the neutron bomb, which does not destroy via blast wave or thermal pulse but by
an engineered high yield of neutron radiation.... advantage: prompt casualties with little effect on physical infrastructure, (and comparatively
minimal residual radiation). This bomb has been around since 1979 and some version of it may have been used to take Bagdad airport by inducing mass
death of defenders without cratering the entire area. Apparently, they (US) did have to "remove and replace the topsoil" there for some
coincidental reason after taking possession. and there were a few eyewitness reports of the type of physical effects observed on the bodies of dead
Iraqi Republican Guard inconsistent with the effects of almost any other weapon.
Apparently there are other weapons correctly placed in the category of "nuclear weapons" but of a variety that escape the strict legal definition of
such for the purposes of Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty N-NPT.
So while I do not expect the horrendous scorched-earth effect that Hiroshima-type weapons produce... or as terrible, the radioactive residual effect
of chronically wide use of Depleted Uranium armor-piercing & pyrophoric (impact incendiary) large-caliber slugs that our military has been raining
upon two middle-eastern countries for the better part a decade- I do expect that the 'nuclear' threshold will be obviously and undeniably breached
in this coming conflict.
If you read the article at the following link, you will see that the author makes the case that these cleaner 'fusion' weapons are not only smaller
and more selective in effect and scope, they require less technical expertise and expense to acquire or build.
Therefore it is also probable that Iran, being a client state to Russia and a trading partner to China et al, probably already has similar weapons in
I think we have the dubious opportunity of watching killing on a scale heretofore un-experienced in international conflict.
(visit the link for the full news article)
other current reportage: "US cannot win without nuclear weapons":
US cannot win in Iran without resort to
[edit on 18-8-2010 by AntiShyster]