“Mini-Nukes” Are Not Dangerous To Civilians

By Sherwood Ross
Courtesy Of "Global Research"

Based on the fallacious notion advanced by the Pentagon that “mini-nukes” are not dangerous to civilians, Congress in 2002 gave the Pentagon a green light to use them in “conventional war theaters” alongside traditional weapons. In fact, the so-called mini-nukes may have up to six times the blast power of the atomic bomb that leveled Hiroshima on August 6, 1945!

The Pentagon’s official Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) of 2001 was risky enough. That document created “contingency plans” for an actual offensive “first strike use” of nuclear weapons against Iran and North Korea as well as against Russia and China.  These were adopted without real public debate. The very notion that the U.S. would so much as consider a “first strike” nuclear attack on another country likely would be rejected overwhelmingly by an American public staunchly opposed to starting any war of aggression, much less a nuclear holocaust.

The adoption by Congress of the NPR late the following year legitimized the Pentagon’s illegal (under international law) preemptive nuclear war doctrine both in terms of military planning as well as defense procurement and production. Congress not only rolled back its prohibition on low-yield nuclear weapons, it also funded them. In so doing, it expanded what had been an exclusive presidential prerogative to instead confer decision-making powers on battlefield commanders as well. Thus, a general in charge of a regional war zone, say, covering Central Asia or the Middle East could order the use of tactical nuclear weapons without getting a green light from the President and Commander in Chief.

In 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney ordered U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) to draft a “contingency plan” that included “a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and nuclear weapons.” The scheme identified more than 450 targets in Iran, not just suspected nuclear sites, and was, incredibly, drawn up in the event of a second 9/11-type attack backed by Iran!

Today, President Obama has largely endorsed the same doctrine of pre-emptive, that is to say, first strike, nuclear attack, first formulated by the Bush Administration. Obama has even intimated he would use nukes in the event Iran fights back if attacked by Israel. One ludicrous aspect of the propaganda driving a confrontation is that Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons program, is labeled a threat to global security while the U.S. calls its own nuclear weapons “humanitarian.”

In sum, at no point since the nuclear bombings of Japan in 1945 has humanity been closer to the unthinkable — a nuclear holocaust which could potentially spread radioactive fallout over a large part of the Middle East and possibly across Europe, Asia, and Africa as well. At the very least, the American people need to know the Pentagon and Military-Industrial Complex are pushing the nation towards the use of nuclear weapons in the event of war.

“The US has embarked on a military adventure, “a long war”, which threatens the future of humanity. US-NATO weapons of mass destruction are portrayed as instruments of peace. Mini-nukes are said to be “harmless to the surrounding civilian population”. Pre-emptive nuclear war is portrayed as a “humanitarian undertaking”.

“While one can conceptualize the loss of life and destruction resulting from present-day wars including Iraq and Afghanistan, it is impossible to fully comprehend the devastation which might result from a Third World War, using “new technologies” and advanced weapons, until it occurs and becomes a reality. The international community has endorsed nuclear war in the name of world peace. “Making the world safer” is the justification for launching a military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.

Nuclear war has become a multibillion dollar undertaking, which fills the pockets of US defense contractors. What is at stake is the outright “privatization of nuclear war”.

The Pentagon’s global military design is one of world conquest. The military deployment of US-NATO forces is occurring in several regions of the world simultaneously.

Central to an understanding of war, is the media campaign which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. A good versus evil dichotomy prevails. The perpetrators of war are presented as the victims. Public opinion is misled.

Breaking the “big lie”, which upholds war as a humanitarian undertaking, means breaking a criminal project of global destruction, in which the quest for profit is the overriding force. This profit-driven military agenda destroys human values and transforms people into unconscious zombies.

The object of this book is to forcefully reverse the tide of war, challenge the war criminals in high office and the powerful corporate lobby groups which support them.” (Michel Chossudovsky,Towards a World War III Scenario, Global Research, Montreal,  2012)