[UPDATE: How reasonable are concerns the Bush Administration might use nuclear weapons against Iran ? See information on the Bush Administration's new "Global Strike" plans, towards the end of this post]
If the US or Israel tries to destroy Iran's two key underground nuclear facilities with "bunker busting" tactical nukes the result could mean the deaths of close to 3 million Iranians, the wounding of millions, and the radioactive sickening of tens of millions in the region including in neighboring, nuclear-armed Pakistan. In the picture below, the yellow plume equals the likely nuclear fallout region of death/near death. Red=certain death.
Signs have been growing, very rapidly through the Spring and late summer of 2008, that such a catastrophe may be in the works. If the map, from Physicians For Social Responsibility, below gets turned into reality history's judgment of you and I, and all Americans collectively, might be the least of our personal concerns but I'd advise we stay focused on this: if we take the threat seriously we still can ensure that this most horrendous fate, mass murder of innocent humans - children, women, civilians, never comes to pass. Do we care ?
As Ray McGovern writes for Consortium News,
Unlike the attack on Iraq five years ago, to deal with Iran there need be no massing of troops. And, with the propaganda buildup already well under way, there need be little, if any, forewarning before shock and awe and pox -- in the form of air and missile attacks -- begin.
This time it will be largely the Air Force's show, punctuated by missile and air strikes by the Navy. Israeli-American agreement has now been reached at the highest level; the armed forces planners, plotters and pilots are working out the details.
Emerging from a 90-minute White House meeting with President George W. Bush on June 4, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the two leaders were of one mind:
"We reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian threat. I left with a lot less question marks [than] I had entered with regarding the means, the timetable restrictions, and American resoluteness to deal with the problem. George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it, and intends to act on that matter before the end of his term in the White House."
Does that sound like a man concerned that Bush is just bluff and bluster?
A member of Olmert's delegation noted that same day that the two countries had agreed to cooperate in case of an attack by Iran, and that "the meetings focused on 'operational matters' pertaining to the Iranian threat." So bring 'em on!
A show of hands please. How many believe Iran is about to attack the U.S. or Israel?
Here's the casualty summary estimate from, the 2006 Physicians For Social Responsibility report, that accompanies the graph/image I've included in this post:
From our map we can see that within 48 hours, fallout would cover much of Iran, most of Afghanistan and spread on into Pakistan and India. Fallout from the use of a burrowing weapon such as the B61-11 would be worse than from a surface or airburst weapon, due to the extra radioactive dust and debris ejected from the blast site. In the immediate area of the two attacks, our calculations show that within 48 hours, an estimated 2.6 million people would die. About two-thirds of those would die from radiation-related causes, either prompt casualties from the immediate radiation effects of the bomb, or from localized fallout. Over 1,000,000 people would suffer immediate injuries including thermal and flash burns, radiation sickness, broken limbs, lacerations, blindness, crush injuries, burst eardrums and other traumas. In the wider region, over 10.5 million people would be exposed to significant radiation from fallout (those in the light green to pink zones on the map above), leading to radiation sickness, future excess cancer deaths, genetic abnormalities in future generations, as well as high rates of stillbirths, miscarriages, malignancies and hypothyroidism. Most if not all medical facilities near the two attack sites would be destroyed, or located within the radiation "hot zone" and thus unusable. Little or no medical care would be available to the injured in the aftermath of an attack, leading to many avoidable deaths.
In the immense fallout zone, very few people would have access to adequate medical care, increasing the potential number of casualties of an attack. From studies conducted after the use of nuclear weapons against Japan we know that there would also be a severe psychological trauma for the affected population, which would further exacerbate negative health outcomes for attack victims.
Now, this PSR report assume the use of 2 340 Kiloton "Bunker Busting" B6-11 bombs. The fallout would be dramatically enhanced because these would be ground level explosions.
This, admittedly, is a worst-case scenario but we need to take the possibility seriously. The Bush Administration and media buildup of agitation towards an attack on Iran now resembles the buildup prior to the attack on Iraq, and if George W. Bush orders an attack on Iran that's intended to knock out Iran's two (known) major buried nuclear research facilities the only way to ensure success in that objective would be to use tactical nuclear weapons.
Of course, the objective might be different - the Bush Administration might choose to attack Iran's Revolutionary Guard. But in the long term that more limited approach would tend to have dismal even apocalyptic long term consequences.
*****
Is the gruesome nuclear bunker-buster scenario truly on the table in case of a US attack on Iran ? Indeed it is. As the Federation of American Scientist's report (link to PDF file) on the Bush Administration's new Global Strike plan reveals:
Before it was exposed in public in 2005 and the Pentagon subsequently decided to cancel the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations (Joint Pub 3-12),8 the edits of the revision revealed some of the thinking that underpins the offensive nature of CONPLAN 8022. The draft doctrine
described four conditions where preemptive use of nuclear weapons might occur:
• An adversary intending to use WMD against U.S., multinational, or allies forces or civilian populations;
• Imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy;
• Attacks on adversary installations including WMD, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons or the command and control infrastructure required for the adversary to execute a WMD attack against United States or its friends and allies;
• To demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary use of WMD.
What is Global Strike ? A May 15, 2005 Washington Post story by William Arkin explains:
Early last summer, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld approved a top secret "Interim Global Strike Alert Order" directing the military to assume and maintain readiness to attack hostile countries that are developing weapons of mass destruction, specifically Iran and North Korea.
Two months later, Lt. Gen. Bruce Carlson, commander of the 8th Air Force, told a reporter that his fleet of B-2 and B-52 bombers had changed its way of operating so that it could be ready to carry out such missions...
In the secret world of military planning, global strike has become the term of art to describe a specific preemptive attack. When military officials refer to global strike, they stress its conventional elements. Surprisingly, however, global strike also includes a nuclear option, which runs counter to traditional U.S. notions about the defensive role of nuclear weapons.