There are more than 30,000 nuclear weapons in the world today
Pre-emptive peace strike, step one: keep NATO out of nuking Iran
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, 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.
According to the physicians,
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...
Physicians for Social Responsibility 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 hosting US/NATO nuclear weapons 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 the government is thinking , "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.
Ask Sectretary of State Jack Straw to state clearly that they won't help with plans to attack Iran.
