This week Seymour Hersh wrote in his much talked about article The Iran Plans
[http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact
]
"One of the military's initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites.
One target is Iran's main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. Natanz, which is no longer under I.A.E.A. safeguards, reportedly has underground floor space to hold fifty thousand centrifuges, and laboratories and workspaces buried approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface. That number of centrifuges could provide enough enriched uranium for about twenty nuclear warheads a year. (Iran has acknowledged that it initially kept the existence of its enrichment program hidden from I.A.E.A. inspectors, but claims that none of its current activity is barred by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.) The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iran's nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete."
This is completely in step with several policy documents the joint chiefs of staff of the US military have been working on for the last five years Here are some examples of their current thinking on the appropriate use of nuclear weapons.The first is called The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations [http://www.nukestrat.com/us/jcs/jp3-12_05.htm] which states in the executive summary:
"The use of nuclear weapons represents a significant escalation from conventional warfare and may be provoked by some action, event, or threat. However, like any military action, the decision to use nuclear weapons is driven by the political objective sought."...
"Integrating conventional and nuclear attacks will ensure the most efficient use of force and provide US leaders with a broader range of strike options to address immediate contingencies... This integration will ensure optimal targeting, minimal collateral damage, and reduce the probability of escalation." ...
"Although the United States may not know with confidence what threats a state, combinations of states, or nonstate actors pose to US interests, it is possible to anticipate the capabilities an adversary might use...
These capabilities require maintaining a diverse mix of conventional forces capable of high-intensity, sustained, and coordinated actions across the range of military operations; employed in concert with survivable and secure nuclear forces" ...
"The immediate and prolonged effects of nuclear weapons including blast (overpressure, dynamic pressure, ground shock, and cratering), thermal radiation (fire and other material effects), and nuclear radiation (initial, residual, fallout, blackout, and electromagnetic pulse), impose physical and psychological challenges for combat forces and noncombatant populations alike. These effects also pose significant survivability requirements on military equipment, supporting civilian infrastructure resources, and host-nation/coalition assets. US forces must prepare to survive and perhaps operate in a nuclear/radiological environment."
Once you stop and think about what they are saying here you realize they are talking about treating nuclear weapons as another acceptable tool in the military tool box and using them on the basis of intelligence reports. It is clear they are palnning to expose both our troops and civilian populations in "host Countries" (this is a classic militarism for countries that we will drop nuclear bombs in) to the devastating effects of nuclear weapons for a political objective.
.
Note: After public exposure, the Pentagon has formally canceled the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations and three related documents. Go here for more information <http://www.nukestrat.com/us/jcs/canceled.htm>.
The decision to cancel the documents simply removes controversial documents from the public domain and from the Pentagon's internal reading list. The White House and Pentagon guidance <[http://www.nukestrat.com/us/guidance.htm>]; that directs the use of nuclear weapons remains unchanged by the cancellation.
<[http://www.nukestrat.com/us/jcs/canceled.htm>];
The second major policy paper that the Joint Chiefs have been working and doing major operational tests for is called JCS Strategic Deterrence Joint Operating Concept (JOC), prepared by STRATCOM., or Space and Global Strike Plan. [http://www.nukestrat.com/us/stratcom/GSchron.htm] A draft of this offensive strike plan published in February 2004, describes the role of nuclear weapons as follows:
"Nuclear weapons provide the President with the ultimate means to terminate conflict promptly on terms favorable to the United States. They cast a lengthy shadow over a rational adversary's decision calculus when considering coercion, aggression, WMD employment, and escalatory courses of action. Nuclear weapons threaten destruction of an adversary's most highly valued assets, including adversary WMD/E capabilities, critical industries, key resources, and means of political organization and control (including the adversary leadership itself). This includes destruction of targets otherwise invulnerable to conventional attack, e.g., hard and deeply buried facilities, "location uncertainty" targets, etc. Nuclear weapons reduce an adversary's confidence in their ability to control wartime escalation.
These programs have undergone extensive testing and implementation over the last few years with very little notice from the public or coverage by the media. [http://www.nukestrat.com/us/stratcom/globalstrike.htm]
One of the things they discuss in these policy papers is the need to make our threat of nuclear weapons use credible. I would say blowing up a few bunkers in Iran would make the threat pretty credible. As far as thinking about the aftereffects (or blowback in the cia's terms) of any given action we can see by the situation in Iraq that long range planning is not their strong suit.