What is Happening in America?

Are we headed back to the Middle Ages?

 

Depleted-Uranium (DU)

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

 

History

 

3 Nov. 2007

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents

 

Brzezinski: “The Grand Chessboard”. 2

DU Weapons were Known to the Scientists of the Manhattan Project in 1943  9

U.S. Gave DU Weapons to Allies 10

Washington’s New Doctrine: Nuclear War is a “Management” Process 12

First Uses of DU Weaponry. 15

History of DU. 16

History of DU as a Concept 18

History of the Coverage of DU’s Risks 20

Cui Bono? Who Benefits from DU Weapons? 29

Oil is the American Prize. 34

The Future of American Weaponry. 35

Russia is also Suspected of Using DU Weapons 35

Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal Pointed at Iran. 37

Does Iran also Possess DU Weapons? 39

Parallels Among U.S. Wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. 39

Uranium Tailings left on Native Lands, Dumped in Sea. 40

 

Brzezinski: “The Grand Chessboard”

 

According to his resume Brzezinski, holding a 1953 Ph.D. from Harvard, lists the following achievements:

Counselor, Center for Strategic and International Studies Professor of American Foreign Policy, Johns Hopkins University National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter (1977-81) Trustee and founder of the Trilateral Commission International advisor of several major US/Global corporations Associate of Henry Kissinger Under Ronald Reagan – member of NSC-Defense Department Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy Under Ronald Reagan – member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board Past member, Board of Directors, The Council on Foreign Relations 1988 – Co-chairman of the Bush National Security Advisory Task Force.

Brzezinski is also a past attendee and presenter at several conferences of the Bliderberger group – a non-partisan affiliation of the wealthiest and most powerful families and corporations on the planet.

Brzezinski sets the tone for his strategy by describing Russia and China as the two most important countries – almost but not quite superpowers - whose interests that might threaten the U.S. in Central Asia. Of the two, Brzezinski considers Russia to be the more serious threat. Both nations border Central Asia. In a lesser context he describes the Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Iran and Kazakhstan as essential “lesser” nations that must be managed by the U.S. as buffers or counterweights to Russian and Chinese moves to control the oil, gas and minerals of the Central Asian Republics (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan).

 

He also notes, quite clearly (p. 53) that any nation that might become predominant in Central Asia would directly threaten the current U.S. control of oil resources in the Persian Gulf. In reading the book it becomes clear why the U.S. had a direct motive for the looting of some $300 billion in Russian assets during the 1990s, destabilizing Russia’s currency (1998) and ensuring that a weakened Russia would have to look westward to Europe for economic and political survival, rather than southward to Central Asia. A dependent Russia would lack the military, economic and political clout to exert influence in the region and this weakening of Russia would explain why Russian President Vladimir Putin has been such a willing ally of U.S. efforts to date. (See FTW Vol. IV, No. 1 – March 31, 2001)

 

An examination of selected quotes from “The Grand Chessboard,” in the context of current events reveals the darker agenda behind military operations that were planned long before September 11th, 2001.

 

“…The last decade of the twentieth century has witnessed a tectonic shift in world affairs. For the first time ever, a non-Eurasian power has emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian power relations but also as the world’s paramount power. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union was the final step in the rapid ascendance of a Western Hemisphere power, the United States, as the sole and, indeed, the first truly global power… (p. xiii)

 

“… But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book. (p. xiv)

 

“The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America’s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. (pp 24-5)

 

“For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia… Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia – and America’s global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained. (p.30)

 

America’s withdrawal from the world or because of the sudden emergence of a successful rival – would produce massive international instability. It would prompt global anarchy.” (p. 30)

 

“In that context, how America ‘manages’ Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe’s largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa’s subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world’s central continent. About 75 per cent of the world’s people live in Eurasia, and most of the world’s physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world’s GNP and about three-fourths of the world’s known energy resources.” (p.31)

 

Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;… second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above… (p. 40)

 

“…To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.” (p.40)

 

“Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America’s status as a global power.” (p.55)

 

Uzbekistan – with its much more ethnically homogeneous population of approximately 25 million and its leaders emphasizing the country’s historic glories – has become increasingly assertive in affirming the region’s new postcolonial status.” (p.95)

 

“Thus, even the ethnically vulnerable Kazakhstan joined the other Central Asian states in abandoning the Cyrillic alphabet and replacing it with Latin script as adapted earlier by Turkey. In effect, by the mid-1990s a bloc, quietly led by Ukraine and comprising Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and sometimes also Kazakhstan, Georgia and Moldova, had informally emerged to obstruct Russian efforts to use the CIS as the tool for political integration.” (p.114)

 

“…Hence, support for the new post-Soviet states – for geopolitical pluralism in the space of the former Soviet empire – has to be an integral part of a policy designed to induce Russia to exercise unambiguously its European option. Among these states. Three are geopolitically especially important: Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, and Ukraine.” (p. 121) “Uzbekistan, nationally the most vital and the most populous of the central Asian states, represents the major obstacle to any renewed Russian control over the region. Its independence is critical to the survival of the other Central Asian states, and it is the least vulnerable to Russian pressures.” (p. 121)

 

Referring to an area he calls the “Eurasian Balkans” and a 1997 map in which he has circled the exact location of the current conflict – describing it as the central region of pending conflict for world dominance - Brzezinski writes: “Moreover, they [the Central Asian Republics] are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold.” (p.124) [Emphasis added]

 

The world’s energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Department of energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia’s economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea.” (p.125)

 

Kazakhstan is the shield and Uzbekistan is the soul for the region’s diverse national awakenings.” (p.130)

 

Uzbekistan is, in fact, the prime candidate for regional leadership in Central Asia.” (p.130) “Once pipelines to the area have been developed, Turkmenistan’s truly vast natural gas reserves augur a prosperous future for the country’s people. (p.132)

 

“In fact, an Islamic revival – already abetted from the outside not only by Iran but also by Saudi Arabia – is likely to become the mobilizing impulse for the increasingly pervasive new nationalisms, determined to oppose any reintegration under Russian – and hence infidel – control.” (p. 133).

 

“For Pakistan, the primary interest is to gain Geostrategic depth through political influence in Afghanistan – and to deny to Iran the exercise of such influence in Afghanistan and Tajikistan – and to benefit eventually from any pipeline construction linking Central Asia with the Arabian Sea.” (p.139)

“Moreover, sensible Russian leaders realize that the demographic explosion underway in the new states means that their failure to sustain economic growth will eventually create an explosive situation along Russia’s entire southern frontier.” (p.141) [This would explain why Putin would welcome U.S. military presence to stabilize the region.]

 

Turkmenistan… has been actively exploring the construction of a new pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea…” (p.145)

 

“It follows that America’s primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it.” (p148)

 

China’s growing economic presence in the region and its political stake in the area’s independence are also congruent with America’s interests.” (p.149)

 

America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe’s central arena. Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America’s global primacy and to America’s historical legacy.” (p.194)

 

”…the Eurasian Balkans – threatens to become a cauldron of ethnic conflict and great-power rivalry.” (p.195)

 

“Without sustained and directed American involvement, before long the forces of global disorder could come to dominate the world scene. And the possibility of such a fragmentation is inherent in the geopolitical tensions not only of today’s Eurasia but of the world more generally.” (p.194)

 

“With warning signs on the horizon across Europe and Asia, any successful American policy must focus on Eurasia as a whole and be guided by a Geostrategic design.” (p.197)

 

“That puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America’s primacy…” (p. 198)

 

“The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role.” (p. 198)

 

“In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last.” (p.209)

 

“Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.” (p. 211) [Emphasis added]

 

The Horror – And Comments From Someone Who Worked With Brzezinski

 

Brzezinski’s book is sublimely arrogant. While singing the praises of the IMF and the World Bank, which have economically terrorized nations on every continent, and while totally ignoring the worldwide terrorist actions of the U.S. government that have led to genocide; cluster bombings of civilian populations from Kosovo, to Laos, to Iraq, to Afghanistan; the development and battlefield use of both biological and chemical agents such as Sarin gas; and the financial rape of entire cultures it would leave the reader believing that such actions are for the good of mankind.

 

While seconded from the German defense ministry to NATO in the late 1970s, Dr. Johannes Koeppl - mentioned at the top of this article - traveled to Washington on more than one occasion. He also met with Brzezinski in the White House on more than one occasion. His other Washington contacts included Steve Larabee from the CFR, John J. McCloy, former CIA Director, economist Milton Friedman, and officials from Carter’s Office of Management and Budget. He is the first person I have ever interviewed who has made a direct presentation at a Bliderberger conference and he has also made numerous presentations to sub-groups of the Trilateral Commission. That was before he spoke out against them.

 

His fall from grace was rapid after he realized that Brzezinski was part of a group intending to impose a world dictatorship. “In 1983/4 I warned of a take-over of world governments being orchestrated by these people. There was an obvious plan to subvert true democracies and selected leaders were not being chosen based upon character but upon their loyalty to an economic system run by the elites and dedicated to preserving their power.

 

“All we have now are pseudo-democracies.”

 

Koeppl recalls meeting U.S. Congressman Larry McDonald in Nuremburg in the early 80s. McDonald, who was then contemplating a run for the Presidency, was a severe critic of these elites. He was killed in the Russian shootdown of Korean Air flight 007 in 1985. Koeppl believes that it might have been an assassination. Over the years many writers have made these allegations about 007 and the fact that someone with Koeppl’s credentials believes that an entire plane full of passengers would be destroyed to eliminate one man offers a chilling opinion of the value placed on human life by the powers that be.

 

In 1983, Koeppl warned, through Op-Ed pieces published in NEWSWEEK and elsewhere, that Brzezinski and the CFR were part of an effort to impose a global dictatorship. His fall from grace was swift. “It was a criminal society that I was dealing with. It was not possible to publish anymore in the so-called respected publications. My 30 year career in politics ended.

 

“The people of the western world have been trained to be good consumers; to focus on money, sports cars, beauty, consumer goods. They have not been trained to look for character in people. Therefore what we need is education for politicians, a form of training that instills in them a higher sense of ethics than service to money. There is no training now for world leaders. This is a shame because of the responsibility that leaders hold to benefit all mankind rather than to blindly pursue destructive paths.

 

“We also need education for citizens to be more efficient in their democracies, in addition to education for politicians that will create a new network of elites based upon character and social intelligence.” …

 

As to the present conflict Koeppl expressed the gravest concerns, “This is more than a war against terrorism. This is a war against the citizens of all countries. The current elites are creating so much fear that people don’t know how to respond. But they must remember.  … There is a move to implement a world dictatorship within the next five years. There may not be another chance.” (Michael Ruppert, “A War in the Planning for Four Years,” Wilderness Publications, November 2001, from Global Research, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RUP111B.html, downloaded 8 August 2007

 

 

The deeper purpose is revealed by comparing regions now contaminated with depleted uranium — from Egypt, the Middle East, Central Asia and the northern half of India — to the US geostrategic imperatives described in Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1997 book The Grand Chessboard

 

Fig. 1: Brzezinski’s map of the Eurasian Chessboard

 

(In the event that the map does not show up on Freewebs file,

please go to URL indicated in citation.

 

SOUTH REGION:  “This huge region, torn by volatile hatreds and surrounded by competing powerful neighbors, is likely to be a major battlefield, both for wars among nation-states and, more likely, for protracted ethnic and religious violence.  Whether India acts as a restraint or whether it takes advantage of some opportunity to impose its will on Pakistan will greatly affect the regional scope of the likely conflicts.  The internal strains within Turkey and Iran are likely not only to get worse but to greatly reduce the stabilizing role these states are capable of playing within this volcanic region.  Such developments will in turn make it more difficult to assimilate the new Central Asian states into the international community, while also adversely affecting the American-dominated security of the Persian Gulf region.  In any case, both America and the international community may be faced here with a challenge that will dwarf the recent crisis in the former Yugoslavia.”  Brzezinski  (Leuren Moret, formerly of Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, “Depleted Uranium: the Trojan Horse of Nuclear War,” World Affairs: The Journal of International Issues, 1 July 2004, downloaded from http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/DU-Trojan-Horse1jul04.htm, 26 Aug. 2007.)

 

DU Weapons were Known to the Scientists of the Manhattan Project in 1943

 

They did not consider the Manhattan Project classified memo that, in case the Project objective of producing Plutonium fission and the‘A’ Bomb did not succeed , ‘Depleted Uranium’ munitions would be deployed towards the attainment of the same objective (encl. 1). (Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat, “Silent WMDs – Effects of Depleted Uranium,” International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), New Delhi, 29 Feb., 1-2 March 2004, downloaded from http://traprockpeace.org/bhagwat_du_29feb04.pdf, 12 Sept. 2007.)

 

An American General named Leslie Groves was in charge of the bomb making operation called The Manhattan Project. In 1943 The War Department knew exactly what uranium bullets and bombs were good for.

If the nuclear weapons did not detonate in Japan, the use of uranium bullets and bombs were the fall back position. (Bob Nichols, “There are No Words. Radiation in Iraq Equals 250,000 Nagasaki Bombs,” Dissident Voice, 27 March 2004, revised 12 July 2004, downloaded from
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar04/Nichols0327.htm, 8 September 2007.)

 

[From the Grove Memorandum:] Estimates indicate that these materials could be produced by the Germans in such quantities that each four days two square miles of terrain could be contaminated to an average intensity of radiation three feet above ground level of one hundred roentgens per day.  One day's exposure (100 roentgens to the whole body) would result in temporary incapacitation, a lesser period of exposure in incapacitation to a lesser degree and one week's exposure in death.  Effects on a person would probably not be immediate, but would be delayed for days or perhaps weeks depending upon the amounts of exposure.  Exposure to five to ten times the above described concentration would be incapacitating within one to two days and lethal two to five days later. (“Memorandum to:  Brigadier General L. R. Groves  From: Drs. Conant, Compton, and Urey, War Department, United States Engineer Office, Manhattan District, Oak Ridge Tennessee, October 30, 1943, Declassified June 5, 1974, downloaded from http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Groves-Memo-Manhattan30oct43.htm, 2 Sept, 2007)

 

The American Military knew the symptoms of radiation poisoning in 1943 too; starting with the irritated sore throat through to an agonizing death from being cooked from the inside out. (Bob Nichols, “There are No Words. Radiation in Iraq Equals 250,000 Nagasaki Bombs,” Dissident Voice, 27 March 2004, revised 12 July 2004, downloaded from http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar04/Nichols0327.htm, 8 September 2007.)

 

 

U.S. Gave DU Weapons to Allies

 

The US have already exported known and suspected DU weapons to over 20 countries in Europe, the Middle East and Commonwealth. These may involve several $ billions of existing inventory and new orders. Other Governments that manufacture or have purchased Uranium weapons are likely to be compromised into maintaining US secrecy over the extent of conventional Uranium weapons proliferation. They may face serious legal and political consequences if chronic illnesses or deaths in Iraq, the Balkans and Afghanistan are proved to be due to Uranium contamination. The stakes are very high for all countries concerned. (Dai Williams, Hazards of Uranium Weapons in the Proposed War on Iraq, 22 Sept. 2002.)

 

According to the United Nations Human Rights Commission, which has declared depleted uranium illegal, approximately 17 countries has purchased depleted uranium weaponry from the United States government. (Leuren Moret in video Beyond Treason, produced by the Power Hour, 2005.)

 

Several Western European  countries, officially considered as "non-nuclear states", possess tactical nuclear weapons, supplied to them by Washington. 

 

The US has supplied some 480 B61 thermonuclear bombs to five non-nuclear NATO countries including Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey, and one nuclear country, the United Kingdom. Casually disregarded by the Vienna based UN Nuclear Watch, the US has actively contributed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Western Europe.

 

As part of this European stockpiling, Turkey, which is a partner of the US-led coalition against Iran along with Israel, possesses some 90 thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs at the Incirlik nuclear air base. (National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005)  

 

Consistent with US nuclear policy, the stockpiling and deployment of B61 in Western Europe are intended for targets in the Middle East. Moreover, in accordance with  "NATO strike plans", these thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs (stockpiled by the "non-nuclear States") could be launched  "against targets in Russia or countries in the Middle East such as Syria and Iran" ( quoted in National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005) 

 

Moreover, confirmed by (partially) declassified documents (released under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act):

 

"arrangements were made in the mid-1990s to allow the use of U.S. nuclear forces in Europe outside the area of responsibility of U.S. European Command (EUCOM). As a result of these arrangements, EUCOM now supports CENTCOM nuclear missions in the Middle East, including, potentially, against Iran and Syria" (quoted in  http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/nato.htm italics added)

 

With the exception of the US, no other nuclear power "has nuclear weapons earmarked for delivery by non-nuclear countries." (National Resources Defense Council, op cit)

 

While these "non-nuclear states" casually accuse Tehran of developing nuclear weapons, without documentary evidence, they themselves have capabilities of delivering nuclear warheads, which are targeted at Iran.  To say that this is a clear case of "double standards" by the IAEA and the "international community" is a understatement. (Michel Chossudovsky, “Is the Bush Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust?” Globalresearch.ca, 22 Feb. 2006, downloaded from http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060222&articleId=2032, 26 Aug. 2007.)

 

Germany: De Facto Nuclear Power

 

Among the five "non-nuclear states" "Germany remains the most heavily nuclearized country with three nuclear bases (two of which are fully operational) and may store as many as 150 [B61 bunker buster ] bombs" (Ibid). In accordance with "NATO strike plans" (mentioned above) these tactical nuclear weapons are also targeted at the Middle East.

 

While Germany is not officially a nuclear power, it produces nuclear warheads for the French Navy. It stockpiles nuclear warheads and it has the capabilities of delivering nuclear weapons.  The European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company - EADS , a Franco-German-Spanish  joint venture, controlled by Deutsche Aerospace and the powerful Daimler Group is Europe's second largest military producer, supplying .France's M51 nuclear missile. (Michel Chossudovsky, “Is the Bush Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust?” Globalresearch.ca, 22 Feb. 2006, downloaded from http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060222&articleId=2032, 26 Aug. 2007.)

 

Washington’s New Doctrine: Nuclear War is a “Management” Process

 

Known in official Washington, as "Joint Publication 3-12", the new nuclear doctrine (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations , (DJNO) (March 2005)) calls for "integrating conventional and nuclear attacks" under a unified and  "integrated" Command and Control (C2).

 

It  largely describes war planning as a management decision-making process, where military and strategic objectives are to be achieved, through a mix of instruments, with little concern for the resulting loss of human life.

 

Military planning focuses on "the most efficient use of force" , -i.e. an optimal arrangement of different weapons systems to achieve stated military goals.  In this context, nuclear and conventional weapons are considered to be "part of the tool box", from which military commanders can pick and choose the instruments that they require in accordance with "evolving circumstances" in the war theater. (None of these weapons in the Pentagon's "tool box", including conventional bunker buster bombs, cluster bombs, mini-nukes, chemical and biological weapons are described as "weapons of mass destruction" when used by the United States of America and its coalition partners). 

 

The stated objective is to:

 

"ensure the most efficient use of force and provide US leaders with a broader range of [nuclear and conventional]  strike options to address immediate contingencies. Integration of conventional and nuclear forces is therefore crucial to the success of any comprehensive strategy. This integration will ensure optimal targeting, minimal collateral damage, and reduce the probability of escalation." (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations   p. JP 3-12-13)

 

The new nuclear doctrine turns concepts and realities upside down. It not only denies the devastating impacts of nuclear weapons, it states, in no uncertain terms, that nuclear weapons are "safe" and their use in the battlefield will ensure "minimal collateral damage and reduce the probability of escalation". The issue of radioactive fallout is barely acknowledged with regard to tactical nuclear weapons. These various guiding principles which describe nukes as "safe for civilians" constitute a consensus within the military, which is then fed into the military manuals, providing relevant "green light" criteria to geographical commanders in the war theater.  …

 

The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations goes one step further in blurring the distinction between "defensive" and "offensive" military actions:

 

"The new triad offers a mix of strategic offensive and defensive capabilities that includes nuclear and non-nuclear strike capabilities, active and passive defenses, and a robust research, development, and industrial infrastructure to develop, build, and maintain offensive forces and defensive systems ..." (Ibid) (key concepts indicated in added italics)

 

The new nuclear doctrine, however, goes beyond preemptive acts of "self-defense", it calls for "anticipatory action" using nuclear weapons against a  "rogue enemy" which allegedly plans to develop WMD at some undefined future date:

Responsible security planning requires preparation for threats that are possible, though perhaps unlikely today. The lessons of military history remain clear: unpredictable, irrational conflicts occur. Military forces must prepare to counter weapons and capabilities that exist or will exist in the near term even if no immediate likely scenarios for war are at hand. To maximize deterrence of WMD use, it is essential US forces prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively and that US forces are determined to employ nuclear weapons if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use. (Ibid, p. III-1, italics added)

 

Nukes would serve to prevent  a non-existent WMD program (e.g. Iran) prior to its development. This twisted formulation goes far beyond the premises of the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review and NPSD 17. which state that the US can retaliate with nuclear weapons if attacked with WMD:

 

"The United States will make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force – including potentially nuclear weapons – to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies." ... (NSPD 17) 

 

Theater Nuclear Operations (TNO)

 

While presidential approval is formally required to launch a nuclear war, geographic combat commanders would be in charge of  Theater Nuclear Operations (TNO), with a mandate not only to implement but also to formulate command decisions pertaining to nuclear weapons. (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations Doctrine )

 

We are no longer dealing with "the risk" associated with "an accidental or inadvertent nuclear launch"  as outlined by former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara , but with a military decision-making process which provides military commanders, from the Commander in Chief  down to the  geographical commanders with discretionary powers to use tactical nuclear weapons.

 

Moreover, because these "smaller" tactical nuclear weapons have been "reclassified" by the Pentagon as "safe for the surrounding civilian population", thereby "minimizing the risk of collateral damage", there are no overriding built-in restrictions which prevent their use. (See Michel Chossudovsky, The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear War, Global Research, February 2006) .

 

Once a decision to launch a military operation is taken (e.g. aerial strikes on Iran),  theater commanders have a degree of latitude. What this signifies in practice is once the presidential decision is taken, USSTRATCOM in liaison with theater commanders can decide on the targeting and type of weaponry to be used.  Stockpiled tactical nuclear weapons are now considered to be an integral part of the battlefield arsenal. In other words, nukes have become "part of the tool box", used in conventional war theaters.  (Michel Chossudovsky, “Is the Bush Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust?” Globalresearch.ca, 22 Feb. 2006, downloaded from http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060222&articleId=2032, 26 Aug. 2007.)

 

First Uses of DU Weaponry

 

By the U.S. via Israel

 

Depleted uranium weapons were first given by the US to Israel for use under US supervision in the 1973 Sinai war against the Arabs. Since then the US has tested, manufactured, and sold depleted uranium weapons systems to 29 countries. (Leuren Moret, “Depleted Uranium: the Trojan Horse of Nuclear War,” World Affairs: The Journal of International Issues, 1 July 2004, downloaded from http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/DU-Trojan-Horse1jul04.htm, 26 Aug. 2007.)

 

Uranium munitions known as depleted uranium [were] used back in 1973 by the Israelis against the Egyptians.  (Dr. Doug Rokke, U.S. Army Health Physicist and Nuclear Medicine Sciences Officer in Power Hour, Beyond Treason, video, 2005.)

 

By the U.S.A. and Great Britain

 

An international taboo prevented their use until 1991, when the US broke the taboo and used them for the first time, on the battlefields of Iraq and Kuwait. (Leuren Moret, “Depleted Uranium: the Trojan Horse of Nuclear War,” World Affairs: The Journal of International Issues, 1 July 2004, downloaded from http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/DU-Trojan-Horse1jul04.htm, 26 Aug. 2007.)

 

DU was first used by the U.S. in Desert Storm. The amount used was between 315-350 tons. (Walter A. Davis, “Of Pynchon, Thanatos and Depleted Uranium: Weapons of Mass Destruction Found in Iraq,” Counterpunch, October 9/10, 2004, downloaded from http://www.counterpunch.org/davis10092004.html. 12 Sept. 2007.)

 

It was during the Gulf War that U.S. A-10 Warthog "tank buster" planes and Abrams tanks first used DU artillery on a mass scale. The Pentagon says it fired about 320 tons of DU in that war and that smaller amounts were also used in the Serbian province of Kosovo. (Juan Gonzalez, “Poisoned? Shocking report reveals local troops may be victims of America's high-tech weapons,” New York Daily News, 3 April 2004, downloaded from http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/180333p-156685c.html, 16 Sept. 2007.)

 

Depleted uranium (DU) was first used in anti-tank missiles during the war to liberate Kuwait. (Abdel Halim, “Butchery by any other Name,” Al Ahram, 30 Dec. 2004-5 Jan. 2005, downloaded from http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/723/sc121.htm, 12 Sept. 2007.)

 

The Americans and British have used vast amounts in both the recent and the last Gulf wars. They also used it in the Balkans. (Alok Jha, “Depleted Uranium,” Guardian, 25 Apr. 2003, downloaded from http://www.guardian.co.uk/uranium/story/0,,943633,00.html, 12 Sept. 2007.)

 

 

History of DU

 

The history of depleted uranium goes back to a 1943 declassified memo known as the Grove’s Memorandum.  In this memo, depleted uranium is recommended for development as a poison gas warfare weapon. (Leuren Moret in video Beyond Treason, produced by the Power Hour, 2005.)

 

Appendix A of the UK MoD's latest Proposal for a Research Programme on Depleted Uranium, March 2002 refers to "Anglo-French research on a tandem warhead system with depleted uranium lined rear charge" - a report by DERA (the UK Defence Research Agency) in January 1999. Does this refer to the BROACH warhead in the new Anglo-French "Storm Shadow" cruise missile? (Dai Williams, “Depleted Uranium weapons in 2001-2002. Occupational, public and environmental health issues: Mystery Metal Nightmare in Afghanistan?” Eos life~work resource centre. Page updated 13 October 2002; first compiled by Dai Williams, first edition 31 January 2002, downloaded from http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/du2012.htm, 25 Aug. 2007.)

 

The US military admitted using depleted uranium projectiles in tanks and planes, but warheads in missiles and bombs are classified or referred to as a ‘dense’ or ‘mystery metal’. Dai Williams, a researcher at the 2003 World Depleted Uranium Weapons Conference, reported finding 11 US patents for guided weapons systems with the term ‘depleted uranium’ or ‘dense metal’, which from the density can only be depleted uranium or tungsten, in order to fit the dimensions of the warhead.  (Leuren Moret, “Depleted Uranium: the Trojan Horse of Nuclear War,” World Affairs: The Journal of International Issues, 1 July 2004, downloaded from http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/DU-Trojan-Horse1jul04.htm, 26 Aug. 2007.)

 

Although restricted to battlefields in Iraq and Kuwait, the 1991 Gulf War was one of the most toxic and environmentally devastating wars in world history. Oil well fires, the bombing of oil tankers and oil wells which released millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Arabia and desert, and the devastation from tanks and heavy equipment destroyed the desert ecosystem. The long term and far reaching effects, and dispersal of at least 340 tons of depleted uranium weapons, had a global environmental effect.

 

Smoke from the oil fires was later found in deposits in South America, the Himalayas and Hawaii. Large annual dust storms originating in North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia will quickly spread the radioactive contamination around the world, and weathering of old depleted uranium munitions on battlefields and other areas will provide new sources of radioactive contamination in future years. Downwind from the radioactive devastation in Iraq, Israel is also suffering from large increases in breast cancer, leukemia and childhood diabetes. 

 

The expendability of the sanctity of life to achieve US political ends was described by US soldiers on the ground, and from the air, along the Highway of Death in Iraq in 1991:

 

"Iraqi soldiers [whether they] be young boys or old men. They were a sad sight, with absolutely no fight left in them. Their leaders had cut their Achilles’ tendons so they couldn’t run away and then left them. What weapons they had were in bad repair and little ammunition was on hand. They were hungry, cold, and scared. The hate I had for any Iraqi dissipated. These people had no business being on a battlefield." (S Hersh, New Yorker, May 22, 2000)

 

American pilots bombing and strafing, with depleted uranium weapons, helpless retreating Iraqi soldiers who had already surrendered, exclaimed:

 

"We toasted him…. we hit the jackpot….a turkey shoot….shooting fish in a barrel….basically just sitting ducks… There’s just nothing like it. It’s the biggest Fourth of July show you’ve ever seen, and to see those tanks just ‘boom’, and more stuff just keeps spewing out of them… they just become white hot. It’s wonderful." (L A Times and Washington Post, both February 27, 1991)  (Leuren Moret, formerly of Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, “Depleted Uranium: the Trojan Horse of Nuclear War,” World Affairs: The Journal of International Issues, 1 July 2004, downloaded from http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/DU-Trojan-Horse1jul04.htm, 26 Aug. 2007.)

 

Because of mysterious illnesses and post-war birth defects reported among Gulf War veterans and civilians in southern Iraq, and radiation related illnesses in UN Peacekeepers serving in Yugoslavia, growing concerns about radiation effects and environmental damage has stirred up international outrage about the use of radioactive weapons by the US after 1991. At the 2003 meeting of parties to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, discussing the U.S. desire to maintain its nuclear weapons stockpile, the Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi AKIBA stated,

 

"It is incumbent upon the rest of the world ... to stand up now and tell all of our military leaders that we refuse to be threatened or protected by nuclear weapons. We refuse to live in a world of continually recycled fear and hatred". (Leuren Moret, formerly of Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, “Depleted Uranium: the Trojan Horse of Nuclear War,” World Affairs: The Journal of International Issues, 1 July 2004, downloaded from http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/DU-Trojan-Horse1jul04.htm, 26 Aug. 2007.)

 

 

"One site registered an increased level of radioactivity but it appeared to be a result of depleted uranium in some warheads and not from any nuclear or radiological weapon of mass destruction," Rumsfeld said.  [Reuters 16 January 2002] (Dai Williams, “Depleted Uranium weapons in 2001-2002. Occupational, public and environmental health issues: Mystery Metal Nightmare in Afghanistan?” Eos life~work resource centre. Page updated 13 October 2002; first compiled by Dai Williams, first edition 31 January 2002, downloaded from http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/du2012.htm, 25 Aug. 2007.)

 

History of DU as a Concept

 

In a declassified memo to General Leslie R. Groves, dated October 30, 1943, three of the top physicists in the Manhattan Project, Dr James B. Conant, A. H. Compton, and H. C. Urey, made their recommendation, as members of the Subcommittee of the S-1 Executive Committee, on the ‘Use of Radioactive Materials as a Military Weapon’:

 

"As a gas warfare instrument the material would be ground into particles of microscopic size to form dust and smoke and distributed by a ground-fired projectile, land vehicles, or aerial bombs. In this form it would be inhaled by personnel. The amount necessary to cause death to a person inhaling the material is extremely small … There are no known methods of treatment for such a casualty … it will permeate a standard gas mask filter in quantities large enough to be extremely damaging."

 

As a Terrain Contaminant:

 

"To be used in this manner, the radioactive materials would be spread on the ground either from the air or from the ground if in enemy controlled territory. In order to deny terrain to either side except at the expense of exposing personnel to harmful radiations … Areas so contaminated by radioactive material would be dangerous until the slow natural decay of the material took place … for average terrain no decontaminating methods are known. No effective protective clothing for personnel seems possible of development. … Reservoirs or wells would be contaminated or food poisoned with an effect similar to that resulting from inhalation of dust or smoke."

 

Internal Exposure:

 

"… Particles smaller than 1µ [micron] are more likely to be deposited in the alveoli where they will either remain indefinitely or be absorbed into the lymphatics or blood. … could get into the gastro-intestinal tract from polluted water, or food, or air. … may be absorbed from the lungs or G-I tract into the blood and so distributed throughout the body."

 

Both the fission products and depleted uranium waste from the Atomic Bomb Project were to be utilised under this plan. The pyrophoric nature of depleted uranium, which causes it to begin to burn at very low temperatures from friction in the gun barrel, made it an ideal radioactive gas weapon then and now. Also it was more available because the amount of depleted uranium produced was much greater than the amount of fission products produced in 1943.

 

Britain had thoughts of using poisoned gas on Iraq long before 1991:

 

"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes. The moral effect should be good... and it would spread a lively terror..." (Winston Churchill commenting on the British use of poison gas against the Iraqis after the First World War). (Leuren Moret, “Depleted Uranium: the Trojan Horse of Nuclear War,” World Affairs: The Journal of International Issues, 1 July 2004, downloaded from http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/DU-Trojan-Horse1jul04.htm, 26 Aug. 2007.)

 

Two years before the invasion of Iraq, a report [Radiological toxicity of DU] commissioned by the World Health Organization warned that the long-term health of Iraq's civilian population would be damaged by the use of depleted uranium (DU) - radioactive waste from the nuclear industry which is used to harden missiles, shells and bullets and which slices through tank armor like a knife through butter. The WHO did not make the report public. Odd, that.

 

DU has been called the "Trojan Horse" of the wars in Iraq - and Afghanistan and Kosovo and Bosnia - a weapon that keeps on killing. On detonation, DU armaments release a spray of radioactive dust that can be carried in the air over long distances and which, when inhaled, goes into the body and stays there. The dust remains radioactive for 4.5 billion years.

 

The WHO report was written by three of Europe's top radiation scientists, including Dr. Keith Baverstock, for more than a decade the WHO's leading expert on radiation and health. After retiring from the WHO, Baverstock leaked the report to the media earlier this year. It concluded that microscopic particles of DU would be blown around and inhaled by Iraqi civilians for years to come, and could trigger the growth of malignant tumors. Baverstock believes the WHO deliberately suppressed the report - probably under pressure from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a more powerful UN body that promotes nuclear power. In response, WHO claims the IAEA's role was "very minor" and says the report was not approved for publication because "parts of it did not reflect accurately what a WHO-convened group of international experts considered the best science in the area of depleted uranium."

In other words, its own chosen experts got it wrong. Odd, again.

Had the study had been published in November 2001, Baverstock believes there would have been more pressure on the Allies to limit their use of DU during the invasion of Iraq - and to clean up afterward. But it wasn't published. As a result, Iraq is now playing host to some 350 tons of DU fired in 1991, but also to more than 1,000 tons reportedly fired in 2003. [Mindfully.org note: the official figure is actually 2,200 tons! Knowing how the military likes to minimize such news, the tonnage could be double that.] The "reportedly" is needed here because the armed forces are playing coy with figures. No wonder: handlers of DU in the US and Britain are required to wear masks and protective clothing. Imagine Iraqis having to dress like that for 4.5 billion years. (Julie Flint, “DU – The Stuff of Nightmares,” Daily Star, Beirut, 14 Sept. 2004, downloaded from http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/DU-Nightmares14sep04.htm, 29 Aug. 2007.)

 

History of the Coverage of DU’s Risks

 

Looking at the DU debate now, one thing is crystal-clear: there are two very district bodies of opinion - and both claim to be informed. The question is, by what?

 

On one side, there are the governments that use DU weapons, the IAEA, NATO and WHO, who maintain (publicly, at least) that DU is not particularly dangerous and has no long-term effects. On the other side, united by varying degrees of concern, are the European Parliament, which has called for an immediate moratorium on the use of DU weapons, Belgium, Portugal, France, Spain and Italy, who don't use them and want an inquiry into them; the United Nations Environmental Program; and many independent scientists, several of whom have first-hand experience of the legacy of DU.

 

After the first Gulf war, Dr. Asaf Durakovic, a colonel in the US Army Medical Corps, was put in charge of Nuclear Medicine Service at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center. He discovered unusual radiation levels in veterans and became convinced not only that DU was killing them, but also that it was causing changes in the human gene pool that would damage future generations. He found "considerable resistance" from the government to his work on DU and was asked to stop. He refused. Two months after writing to President Bill Clinton to request an inquiry into DU contamination, he was fired - and went on to become Clinical Professor of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine at Georgetown University in Washington.

 

A nutter? Hardly. Yet Durakovic says soil samples from Iraq show radiation levels 17 times higher than is acceptable - threatening, he says, environmental "catastrophe." He believes that DU contamination from the 1991 war may have exposed the entire Gulf population.

 

When the 1991 war started, Dr. Doug Rokke, a Vietnam veteran, forensic scientist and retired army major, was recalled from academia and sent to the Gulf as part of the army's Depleted Uranium Assessment team. "The US Army made me their expert," he says. "I went into the project with the total intent to ensure they could use uranium munitions in war, because I'm a warrior. What I saw as director of the project led me to one conclusion: uranium munitions must be banned from the planet, for eternity, and medical care must be provided for everyone" - those on the firing end and those on the receiving end.

 

Many in Rokke's Gulf team are now dead. He himself suffers from serious health problems including brain lesions and lung and kidney damage. When government doctors finally agreed to test him in November 1994, three-and-a-half years after he fell ill, while he was director of the Pentagon's Depleted Uranium Project, he was found to have 5,000 times the permissible level of radiation in his body - enough to light up a small village.

DU, he says, is the stuff of nightmares. (Julie Flint, “DU – The Stuff of Nightmares,” Daily Star, Beirut, 14 Sept. 2004, downloaded from http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/DU-Nightmares14sep04.htm, 29 Aug. 2007.)

 

In 1990, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) wrote a report warning about the potential health and environmental catastrophe from the use of depleted uranium weapons. The health effects had been known for a long time. The report sent to the UK government warned "in their estimation, if 50 tonnes of residual DU dust remained ‘in the region’ there could be half a million extra cancers by the end of the century [2000]." Estimates of depleted uranium weapons used in 1991, now range from the Pentagon’s admitted 325 tons, to other scientific bodies who put the figure as high as 900 tons. That would make the number of estimated cancers as high as 9,000,000, depending on the amount used in the 1991 Gulf War. In the 2003 Gulf War, estimates of 2200 tons have been given — causing about 22,000,000 new cancer cases.

 

Altogether the total number of cancer patients estimated using the UKAEA data would be 25,250,000. In July of 1998, the CIA estimated the population of Iraq to be approximately 24,683,313. (Leuren Moret, formerly of Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, “Depleted Uranium: the Trojan Horse of Nuclear War,” World Affairs: The Journal of International Issues, 1 July 2004, downloaded from http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/DU-Trojan-Horse1jul04.htm, 26 Aug. 2007.)

 

Radiation experts warn in unpublished report that DU weapons used by Allies in Gulf war pose long-term health risk

 

An expert report warning that the long-term health of Iraq’s civilian population would be endangered by British and US depleted uranium (DU) weapons has been kept secret.

 

The study by three leading radiation scientists cautioned that children and adults could contract cancer after breathing in dust containing DU, which is radioactive and chemically toxic. But it was blocked from publication by the World Health Organisation (WHO), which employed the main author, Dr Keith Baverstock, as a senior radiation advisor. He alleges that it was deliberately suppressed, though this is denied by WHO.

 

Baverstock also believes that if the study had been published when it was completed in 2001, there would have been more pressure on the US and UK to limit their use of DU weapons in last year’s war, and to clean up afterwards.

Hundreds of thousands of DU shells were fired by coalition tanks and planes during the conflict, and there has been no comprehensive decontamination. Experts from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) have so far not been allowed into Iraq to assess the pollution.

 

“Our study suggests that the widespread use of depleted uranium weapons in Iraq could pose a unique health hazard to the civilian population,” Baverstock told the Sunday Herald.

 

“There is increasing scientific evidence the radio activity and the chemical toxicity of DU could cause more damage to human cells than is assumed.”

 

Baverstock was the WHO’s top expert on radiation and health for 11 years until he retired in May last year. He now works with the Department of Environmental Sciences at the University of Kuopio in Finland, and was recently appointed to the UK government’s newly formed Committee on Radio active Waste Management.

 

While he was a member of staff, WHO refused to give him permission to publish the study, which was co-authored by Professor Carmel Mothersill from McMaster University in Canada and Dr Mike Thorne, a radiation consultant . Baverstock suspects that WHO was leaned on by a more powerful pro-nuclear UN body, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

 

“I believe our study was censored and suppressed by the WHO because they didn’t like its conclusions. Previous experience suggests that WHO officials were bowing to pressure from the IAEA, whose remit is to promote nuclear power,” he said. “That is more than unfortunate, as publishing the study would have helped forewarn the authorities of the risks of using DU weapons in Iraq.”

 

These allegations, however, are dismissed as “totally unfounded” by WHO. “The IAEA role was very minor,” said Dr Mike Repacholi, the WHO coordinator of radiation and environmental health in Geneva. “The article was not approved for publication because parts of it did not reflect accurately what a WHO-convened group of inter national experts considered the best science in the area of depleted uranium,” he added.

 

Baverstock’s study, which has now been passed to the Sunday Herald, pointed out that Iraq’s arid climate meant that tiny particles of DU were likely to be blown around and inhaled by civilians for years to come. It warned that, when inside the body, their radiation and toxicity could trigger the growth of malignant tumours.

 

The study suggested that the low-level radiation from DU could harm cells adjacent to those that are directly irradiated, a phenomenon known as “the bystander effect”. This undermines the stability of the body’s genetic system, and is thought by many scientists to be linked to cancers and possibly other illnesses.

 

In addition, the DU in Iraq, like that used in the Balkan conflict, could turn out to be contaminated with plutonium and other radioactive waste . That would make it more radioactive and hence more dangerous, Baverstock argued.

 

“The radiation and the chemical toxicity of DU could also act together to create a ‘cocktail effect’ that further increases the risk of cancer. These are all worrying possibilities that urgently require more investigation,” he said.

 

Baverstock’s anxiety about the health effects of DU in Iraq is shared by Pekka Haavisto, the chairman of the UN Environment Programme’s Post-Conflict Assessment Unit in Geneva. “It is certainly a concern in Iraq, there is no doubt about that,” he said.

 

UNEP, which surveyed DU contamination in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2002, is keen to get into Iraq to monitor the situation as soon as possible. It has been told by the British government that about 1.9 tonnes of DU was fired from tanks around Basra, but has no information from US forces, which are bound to have used a lot more.

 

Haavisto’s greatest worry is when buildings hit by DU shells have been repaired and reoccupied without having been properly cleaned up. Photographic evidence suggests that this is exactly what has happened to the ministry of planning building in Baghdad.

 

He also highlighted evidence that DU from weapons had been collected and recycled as scrap in Iraq. “It could end up in a fork or a knife,” he warned.

“It is ridiculous to leave the material lying around and not to clear it up where adults are working and children are playing. If DU is not taken care of, instead of decreasing the risk you are increasing it. It is absolutely wrong.”

(Rob Edwards, “WHO Suppressed Scientific Study into Depleted Uranium Cancer Fears in Iraq,” Sunday Herald, UK, 22 Feb. 2004, downloaded from http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/DU-WHO-Suppressed22feb04.htm, 26 August 2007.)

 

The potential hazards of "conventional" Uranium weapons have been skilfully played down by US Government statements. These have included plans to develop nuclear penetrating bombs earlier this year, threats of radiological bombs being used by terrorists and the latest warning of potential first strike nuclear attacks by the US and UK Governments. Rhetoric about developing and using nuclear weapons, or exotic radiological bombs by terrorists, seems calculated to alter the threshold of "acceptable" weapons systems used in defence or in retaliation for attacks on September 11, 2001.

 

Talk of developing "nuclear bunker busters" earlier this year was not news to weapons researchers. The B-61 nuclear bunker buster bomb was tested in 1997. It might be useful to start earthquakes in fault zones but would create more surface contamination than the biological or chemical weapons target it hits. Use of extreme (nuclear) force to achieve "regime change" in Iraq would also alter the thresholds of acceptable force for terrorists. Tactically and strategically a nuclear strike makes no sense when existing systems can already achieve the same "agent defeat" effects in deeply buried targets.

 

Politicians and media analysts need to be aware of the systematic dis-information and secrecy used to minimise public vigilance about the hazards of Uranium weapons. (Refer Don't Look Don’t Find by Dan Fahey http://www.miltoxproj.org/DU/IOM-cover.htm and other sources in Part 4, page 115-124 of the DU weapons report). The care taken to keep the mystery "dense metal" in hard target warheads secret suggests that its disclosure could be seriously compromising to manufacturers and the military. It is not a secret to weapons manufacturers in several countries who are using similar warhead technology. When extensive information is available about the general specifications of these weapons why should the warheads be secret - unless they are "conventional" Uranium weapons?

 

Uranium weapons - whether fission or non-fission - are all radiological bombs, equally outlawed by the Geneva Conventions. If the snowballing epidemic of cancer and birth defects in Iraq is due to long term uranium contamination from the Gulf War then similar public health disasters may be expected in the Balkans and Afghanistan. The potential scale of human suffering and long term fatalities is awesome. The permanent environmental contamination and hazards of using thousands of "conventional" radiological guided weapons in many locations in Iraq could be as high as that caused by several tactical nuclear weapons.

 

The threat of using tactical nuclear weapons does not reduce the grave risks of using conventional uranium weapons. But most politicians and media analysts are probably completely unaware of this conventional weapons threat. Both strategic options need full analysis and public debate. (Dai Williams, Hazards of Uranium Weapons in the Proposed War on Iraq, 22 Sept. 2002.)

 

The issues raised in this report were first sent to the UK Government and media on 17 October 2001. They have been raised by several UK MP's in written questions to Government (see Part 2). To date the only media coverage of this report, DU weapons 2001-2002 is Robert James Parsons article in Le Monde diplomatique on 1 March, published in English in the Le Monde supplement of the Guardian weekly on 13 March. However the Internet has enabled over 4,000 people to access the report in the last 4 weeks.

 

The UK Royal Society second report on Depleted Uranium was published on 12 March 2002. It expresses more concern about potentially lethal effects of acute DU contamination from known DU munitions (30 and 120 mm anti-tank penetrators). Its worst case does not address potential effects of much larger DU warheads but it provides a potential framework for assessing health and environmental effects of severe DU contamination.

 

The second UNEP Balkans study - on DU contamination in Serbia and Montenegro - was published in March 2002. Like the first study (March 2001) UNEP advised it would be based on assessments of known DU weapons and targets - 30 mm penetrators fired by A10 aircraft. It excluded guided bomb and cruise missile targets. However UNEP were first notified of the concerns in this report in March 2001, months before they visit[ed] Serbia and Montenegro. It seems reasonable to conclude that their field surveys have been compromised only to study targets that will not expose the severe environmental and health impacts of guided weapons with large Uranium warheads. Their project for Afghanistan, started September 2002, makes no reference to potential Uranium contamination. According to US and UK Government sources no Uranium weapons were used in Afghanistan. These investigations including the latest data from US Patent records confirming design of guided weapon warheads with uranium components since 1985 suggest otherwise. Check the UNEP website for their recent reports and plans for new studies. (Dai Williams, “Depleted Uranium weapons in 2001-2002. Occupational, public and environmental health issues: Mystery Metal Nightmare in Afghanistan?” Eos life~work resource centre, 13 October 2002, downloaded from http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/du2012.htm, 25 Aug. 2007.)

 

The possibility that Uranium has been used in bombs and missiles was first investigated by Dr Theodore Liolios in Greece in November 1999 (8). Anomalies in early reports from the UNEP (Untied Nations Environment Programme) study in Kosovo in January 2001 led me to research suspected use of Uranium in guided bombs and cruise missiles through primary public domain websites e.g. US and UK military, FAS, Jane's Defence, CDI, Boeing, Raytheon, MTP, LLRC.

 

Extracts from the USAF Mission Plan, 1997 on the FAS website indicated a new generation of hard target guided weapons with warheads from 250 - 20,000 lbs. that would use "dense metal" to double their penetration effect. The Jane's website reported that DU had been used to increase the penetration effect of guided weapons and in shaped charge warheads.

 

In March 2001 I sent copies of this data to UNEP asking if they had monitored hard target bomb and missile targets as well as anti-tank targets for Uranium contamination. They had not, or were not allowed to by NATO. Despite this warning they did not include bomb or missile targets in their second study of DU in Serbia and Montenegro conducted in Autumn 2001.

 

In October 2001 first reports of the Aghan bombing campaign referred to use of GBU 28 Bunker Buster guided bombs. These used "dense metal" warheads like other weapons in the USAF 1997 mission plan. On 16 October I sent a warning that these may be Uranium weapons to the UK Government via my MP. A reply from UK Minister for Veterans Affairs & DU, Dr Moonie, dismissed this possibility and said that DU was "too soft" for hard targets and presented "minimal" health hazards. This year the MoD acknowledged that DU alloys (used in armour

plating and high velocity anti-tank penetrators) can be extremely hard.

 

Throughout the Afghan war I monitored bombing reports from the Center for Defense Information http://www.cdi.org, investigated other potential uranium weapons systems and monitored statements by the US and UK Governments. The results with sources were published in Depleted Uranium weapons 2001-2002, Mystery metal nightmare in Afghanistan? published 31 January 2002 (3), available from Politicos bookshop in London (http://www.politicos.co.uk) and online at http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/du2012.htm

 

The report identified 7 scenarios for Uranium contamination in Afghanistan (page 95) and 21 suspected DU weapon systems (page 131). Part 5 lists 27 conclusions identifying the need to inspect the weapons concerned, the environment in areas where they had been used, to initiate health and safety precautions for all civilians and troops exposed to hard target  bombing and to set up urgent health monitoring for Afghan and expatriate civilians, refugees and allied troops. These conclusions provide the basis for action priorities in section 13 below.

 

The report was sent to several UN agencies including WHO, UNEP and UNIDIR, to NGO's ICRC, MSF and a de-mining network, and to the UK Government and media. It was reported in Le Monde Diplomatique in March 2002 (http://mondediplo.com/2002/03/03uranium ) leading to a question in the EU Parliament in Strasbourg by MEP Paul Lannoye on 9th April (2) .

 

Several UK MPs submitted written questions to the UK Government regarding these concerns from October 2001 onwards (quoted in Part 2 of the report). There appears to be a cross-party consensus (or veto) not to question Uranium weapons in open debate in the UK Parliament.

 

All enquiries in the UK and EU Parliament have received very brief denials from Defence ministers that any DU weapons have been used in Afghanistan. On 5 Nov 2001 Defence Minister Geoff Hoon said that DU safety guidelines would be issued if necessary for troops or civilians. On 16 January Donald Rumsfeld reported an elevated level of radioactivity in one area in Afghanistan due to "depleted uranium on some warheads", allegedly missiles captured from Al Qaeda in December (report page120). But no DU warning was published in UK.

 

The Pentagon did not report the type of missiles found or which country made them. However the risk of Al Qaeda using radiological "dirty bombs" was a major theme in Pentagon statements from 5th December 2001 to May 2002. This proposition may be raised again by the US Government if serious Uranium contamination is discovered in Afghanistan in the near future.

 

Apart from the Jane's Defence website no guided weapon system (excepting nuclear) in any country has been officially acknowledged to use Uranium warheads. However in March 2002 the UK MoD website, DU Research Proposal Appendix A (9) disclosed "Anglo- French research on a tandem warhead with depleted uranium lined rear charge" in January 1999, first studied in 1995 and later tested at Aldermarston and Eskmeals (10). This may have been for the TRIGAT project, or the BAE-RO BROACH warhead (see section 5 below). On 6 December 2001 UK Defence spokesman Mr Ingram gave a written reply about the BROACH warhead: "The only dense metal contained in the BROACH MWS is a tungsten-based alloy. No other dense metal is or has been used in its development or testing". This needs independent verification - the high melting point of Tungsten would seem unsuitable for the shaped charge.

 

The principle that Uranium (depleted or not) is used in some guided weapons, as well as anti-tank penetrators, is now established by statements from Jane's, Donald Rumsfeld and the UK MoD. The question now is not "Has Uranium been used in guided weapons?" but "Which ones, how many, when and where?"

 

The UNEP PCAU (Post Conflict Assessment Unit) started planning environmental surveys in Afghanistan in December 2001. However, despite my warnings about the risk of DU warheads in bombs and missiles sent to them in March 2001 and in February 2002, no UNEP environmental monitoring for Uranium contamination has been reported from Afghanistan since the bombing started 11 months ago.

 

NATO delayed the UNEP Kosovo DU study until 16 months after the Balkans War, and after at least 10 NATO survey teams had been allowed to "inspect" (clean-up?) DU target zones (source: US DoD). The latest report is that UNEP PCAU will start a project in Afghanistan this month (September 2002). See http://postconflict.unep.ch/actafghassessment.htm

 

However, on 28 August Afghanistan PCAU Project Co-ordinator Peter Zahler (who joined UNEP in May from the USA) said UNEP has no specific plans to investigate Uranium contamination risks in Afghanistan. He seemed unaware of my report though he had been shown a copy and thoroughly briefed about it in May. Bomb and missile targets are conspicuously absent from both UNEP Balkans DU studies. Despite its valuable expertise and detailed reports the integrity of UNEP environmental monitoring for Uranium contamination in the Balkans, and for its new studies in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Palestine, appears to be compromised by external pressures.

 

The first UK Press report on suspected use of Uranium in bombs and missiles was published by David Hambling in the Guardian on 5th September 2002 - The heavy metal logic bomb (7). He checked available dimensions of advanced penetrators and concluded that "the AUP-116 has around a quarter of a ton of dense metal ballast. This ballast might not be DU at all; tungsten is similarly heavy. But DU is the military's usual choice." http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,785897,00.html .

 

Will other UK editors or MP's risk breaking the silence surrounding these secret warheads before the UK Government commits to supporting their use again in Iraq?  (Dai Williams, Hazards of Uranium Weapons in the Proposed War on Iraq, 22 Sept. 2002.)

 

(8) Liolios, T.E. Assessing the risk from the Depleted Uranium Weapons used in Operation Allied Force Science & Global Security 1999, Volume 8:2, pp 163-181

http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/publications/pdf/8_2liolios.pdf      

(3) Williams, D (January 2002) Depleted Uranium weapons 2001-2002, Mystery metal nightmare in Afghanistan? at http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/du2012.htm and from Politicos bookshop, London (http://www.politicos.co.uk)

(2) Written questions and answers in the UK Parliament are available in Hansard online. The only debating question in any parliament about DU in Afghanistan this year that I have found was asked by MEP P. Lannoye in the European Parliament, Strasbourg, 9 April 2002 http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/europ-parliament-afghanDU.html

(10) UK Ministry of Defence Depleted Uranium -The Facts, paragraph 6, Test firings... at http://www.mod.uk/issues/depleted_uranium/facts.htm

(7)  Hambling, D. (5 Sept 2002) The heavy metal logic bomb, Guardian (UK) http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,785897,00.html

 

Dr. Keith Baverstock exposed a World Health Organization (WHO) cover-up on depleted uranium in an Aljazeera article, "Washington's Secret Nuclear War" posted on September 14, 2004. It was the most popular article ever posted on the Aljazeera English language website.

 

Baverstock leaked an official WHO report that he wrote, to the media several years ago after the WHO refused to publish it. He warned in the report about the mobility of, and environmental contamination from, tiny depleted uranium particles formed from US munitions.

 

Busby's ECRR report challenged the International Committee on Radiation Protection (ICRP) standards for radiation risk, and reported that the mutagenic effects of radiation determined by Chernobyl studies are actually 1000 times higher than the ICRP risk model predicts.

 

The ECRR report also establishes that the ICRP risk model, based on external exposure of Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims, and the ECRR risk model, based on internal exposure, are mutually exclusive models. In other words, the ICRP risk model based on external exposure cannot be used to estimate internal exposure risk.

 

The report also states that a separate study is needed for depleted uranium exposure risks, because it may be far more toxic than nuclear weapons or nuclear power plant exposures. In July of 2005, the National Academy of Sciences reported in their new BEIR VII report on low level radiation, that there is "no safe level of exposure".(Leuren Moret, “The Queen’s Death Star: Depleted Uranium Measured in British Atmosphere from Battlefields in the Middle East,” Mindfully.org, 26 Feb. 2006, downloaded from http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2006/DU-Europe-Moret26feb06.htm, 30 Aug. 2007.)

 

Cui Bono? Who Benefits from DU Weapons?

 

Who is profiting from this global uranium nightmare? Dr. Jay Gould revealed in his book THE ENEMY WITHIN [see excerpt], that the British Royal family privately owns investments in uranium holdings worth over $6 billion through Rio Tinto Mines.

 

The mining company was formed for the British Royal family in the late 1950's by Roland Walter - "Tiny" Rowland, the Queen's buccaneer.

 

Born in 1917 through illegitimate German parentage, and before changing his name, Roland Walter Fuhrhop was a passionate member of the Nazi youth movement by 1933, and a classmate described him as "...an ardent supporter of Hitler and an arrogant, nasty piece of work to boot."

 

His meteoric rise and protection by intel agencies and the British Crown are an indication of what an asset he has been for decades to the Queen, as Africa's most powerful Western businessman.

 

Africa and Australia are two of the main sources of uranium in the world. The Rothschilds control uranium supplies and prices globally, and one serves as the Queen's business manager.

 

Filmmaker David Bradbury made BLOWIN' IN THE WIND to expose depleted uranium bombing and gunnery range activities contaminating pristine areas of eastern Australia, and to expose plans to extract over $36 billion in uranium from mines in the interior over the next 6 years. Halliburton has finished construction of a 1000 mile railway from the mining area to a port on the north coast of Australia to transport the ore.

 

The Queen's favorite American buccaneers, Cheney, Halliburton, and the Bush family, are tied to her through uranium mining and the shared use of illegal depleted uranium munitions in the Middle East, Central Asia and Kosovo/Bosnia.

 

The major roles that such diverse individuals and groups as the Carlyle Group, George Herbert Walker Bush, former Carlyle CEO Frank Calucci, the University of California managed nuclear weapons labs at Los Alamos and Livermore, and US and international pension fund investments have played in proliferating depleted uranium weapons is not well known or in most instances even recognized, inside or outside the country.

 

God Save The Queen from the guilt of her complicity in turning Planet Earth into a "Death Star."(Leuren Moret, “The Queen’s Death Star: Depleted Uranium Measured in British Atmosphere from Battlefields in the Middle East,” Mindfully.org, 26 Feb. 2006, downloaded from http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2006/DU-Europe-Moret26feb06.htm, 30 Aug. 2007.)

 

We certainly have enough evidence to stop using these weapons until further research by independent scientists has been done. And yet we continue to produce, sell, and use DU munitions. How can this be justified?

 

Perhaps looking at the paradigm of Agent Orange gives insight. Our government ignored veterans affected by Agent Orange for thirty years before admitting Agent Orange was, in fact, the cause of many physical problems endured by Vietnam veterans. By then, the most seriously affected veterans were dead. The government incurred a far smaller financial liability than if the government had owned up to the problems earlier.

 

If the government ever admitted what it has done in Iraq-between 1,000 and 2,000 tons of DU ordnance expended according to most estimates-the financial consequences, not to mention the moral outrage engendered, is almost beyond imagination. Cleaning up the DU blanketing Iraq would entail enormous costs. And in a few years, soldiers who have served in the current debacle-many with two or three tours-are going to start coming down with the same diseases that have struck Gulf War I veterans. Some who got good doses of DU have already seen their lives ruined by multiple physical problems. (Craig Etcheson, Ph.D., Center for Non-Violent Alternatives, Fort Ashby, W.Va., “Depleted Uranium: Pernicious Killer Keeps on Killing,” t r u t h o u t, 19 February 2007.)

 

DU is a moneymaker for corporations like ATK [Alliant Technology]. And turning DU into munitions helps the government solve a big problem-what to do with mountains of DU it must store and, by law, keep out of the environment. What better solution than giving it free to the munitions makers, who then sell the munitions back to Uncle Sam at a handsome profit? Everyone wins. (Craig Etcheson, Ph.D., Center for Non-Violent Alternatives, Fort Ashby, W.Va., “Depleted Uranium: Pernicious Killer Keeps on Killing,” t r u t h o u t, 19 February 2007.)

 

Throughout the Afghan war I monitored bombing reports from the Center for Defense Information http://www.cdi.org, investigated other potential uranium weapons systems and monitored statements by the US and UK Governments. The results with sources were published in Depleted Uranium weapons 2001-2002, Mystery metal nightmare in Afghanistan? published 31 January 2002 (3), available from Politicos bookshop in London (http://www.politicos.co.uk) and online at http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/du2012.htm

 

The report identified 7 scenarios for Uranium contamination in Afghanistan (page 95) and 21 suspected DU weapon systems (page 131). Part 5 lists 27 conclusions identifying the need to inspect the weapons concerned, the environment in areas where they had been used, to initiate health and safety precautions for all civilians and troops exposed to hard target bombing and to set up urgent health monitoring for Afghan and expatriate civilians, refugees and allied troops. These conclusions provide the basis for action priorities in section 13 below.

 

The report was sent to several UN agencies including WHO, UNEP and UNIDIR, to NGO's ICRC, MSF and a de-mining network, and to the UK Government and media. It was reported in Le Monde Diplomatique in March 2002 (http://mondediplo.com/2002/03/03uranium ) leading to a question in the EU Parliament in Strasbourg by MEP Paul Lannoye on 9th April (2).

 

Several UK MPs submitted written questions to the UK Government regarding these concerns from October 2001 onwards (quoted in Part 2 of the report). There appears to be a cross-party consensus (or veto) not to question Uranium weapons in open debate in the UK Parliament.  (Dai Williams, Uranium weapons in 2001-2003: Occupational, public and environmental health issues. Hazards of Uranium weapons in the proposed war on Iraq (full report), updating Depleted Uranium weapons 2001-2002, Mystery metal nightmare in Afghanistan, January 2002. Analysis of collected studies and public domain sources, 22 September 2002, downloaded from http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/u231.htm, 26 Aug. 2007.)

 

What do oil, military partners, depleted uranium wars, and US foreign policy have to do with nuclear weapons? The answer came to me in 1991 when I became a whistleblower at the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Laboratory near San Francisco, California. Richard Berta, the Western Regional Inspector for the Department of Energy, told me "The Pentagon exists for the oil companies… and the nuclear weapons labs exist for the Pentagon."  (Leuren Moret, formerly of Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, “Depleted Uranium: the Trojan Horse of Nuclear War,” World Affairs: The Journal of International Issues, 1 July 2004, downloaded from http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/DU-Trojan-Horse1jul04.htm, 26 Aug. 2007.)

 

The Carlyle Group, a private massive equity firm, the 12th largest defense business with an obscenely high profit margin, is a business "arrangement" between the Bush and Bin Laden families, wealthy Saudis, former British Prime Minister John Major, James Baker III, Afsaneh Masheyekhi, Frank Carlucci, Colin Powell, other former US Government administrators, and Madeleine Albright’s daughter. The Carlyle Group is the ‘gatekeeper’ to the Saudi investment community. It owns 70 percent of Lockheed Martin Marietta, the largest military contractor in the US, and because Carlyle is privately owned, has no scrutiny or accountability whatsoever. A journalist who calls himself ‘a skunk at the garden party’ described investigating the Carlyle Group, he said ‘it’s like shadow boxing with a ghost’. The Group hires as lobbyists the best known politicians from around the world, in order to influence the politics of war, and privately profit from their previous public policies. The conflict of interest is obvious: President George W. Bush is creating wars as his father, former President George Bush, is globally peddling weapons and "protection".

 

Lockheed Martin Marietta now owns Sandia Laboratories, a private contractor that makes the trigger for nuclear weapons, with a Sandia laboratory facility across the street from Los Alamos and Livermore National Laboratories, where the nuclear bombs are made.

 

At the May 2003 University of California Regents meeting which I attended, Admiral Linton Brooks was present and newly in charge of the nuclear weapons programme under the Department of Energy. Admiral Brooks informed California Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante and the UC Regents that the management contract for the nuclear weapons laboratories, held unchallenged by the University of California for over 60 years, will be put up for competitive bid in 2005. The favoured institution, with a faculty member on the ‘blue ribbon committee’ making the contract award, is the University of Texas. This privatisation and management contract transfer of the US nuclear weapons programme will put control of the US nuclear weapons programme close to the Carlyle Group. The incestuous relationship between the US government, private companies, and the Bush and Bin Laden families in a way answers many of the lingering questions in everyone’s minds about many of the ill fated decisions and policies that have been implemented.

 

But who is Osama bin Laden really?
Let me rephrase that.  What is Osama bin Laden?

He’s America’s family secret.  He is the American President’s dark doppelganger.  The savage twin of all that purports to be beautiful and civilised.  He has been sculpted from the spare rib of a world laid to waste by America’s foreign policy; its gunboat diplomacy, its nuclear arsenal, its vulgarly stated policy of "full spectrum dominance," its chilling disregard for non-American lives, its barbarous military interventions, its support for despotic and dictatorial regimes, its merciless economic agenda that has munched through the economies of poor countries like a cloud of locusts, its marauding multinationals who are taking over the air we breathe, the ground we stand on, the water we drink, the thoughts we think.

Arundhati Roy
The Algebra of Infinite Justice

 

(Leuren Moret, formerly of Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, “Depleted Uranium: the Trojan Horse of Nuclear War,” World Affairs: The Journal of International Issues, 1 July 2004, downloaded from http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/DU-Trojan-Horse1jul04.htm, 26 Aug. 2007.)

 

Oil is the American Prize

 

"We must become the owners, or at any rate the controllers at the source, of at least a proportion of the oil which we require."(British Royal Commission, agreeing with Winston Churchill's policy towards Iraq 1913).

 

"It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of our imports come from overseas." (US President George W. Bush, Beaverton, Oregon, Sep. 25, 2000).

 

"If they turn on the radars we're going to blow up their goddamn SAMs (surface-to-air missiles). They know we own their country. We own their airspace... We dictate the way they live and talk. And that's what's great about America right now. It's a good thing, especially when there's a lot of oil out there we need." (US Brig. General William Looney in 1999, referring to Iraq).

 

Millions of years ago, before India crashed into the Eurasian continent and uplifted the Himalayas, the ancient shallow Tethys sea stretched from the Atlantic across what is now the Mediterranean, Black, Caspian and Aral seas. Rich oil deposits are now located where ancient life accumulated and ‘cooked’ under just the right conditions to form large oil deposits in the ancient sediments. Long before 1991, Unocal in Afghanistan, Amoco in Yugoslavia, and various oil companies interested in Iraq oil deposits, had conducted extensive exploration and characterisation of oil deposits in the Middle East and Central Asian regions, including the northern half of India.

 

Britain has maintained an interest in Middle Eastern oil deposits for a century, and has been the staunchest military partner of the US since the first depleted uranium war in 1991 in Iraq. Germany, another military partner in Yugoslavia with forces now in Afghanistan, was one of the major economic beneficiaries of the breakup of Yugoslavia and the colonisation of the Balkans. US interest in Yugoslavia had much to do with building pipelines from Central Asia to the Mediterranean warm water ports in Yugoslavia. A silent and hidden partnership between the US and Japan provided large amounts of cash from Japan to finance the 1991 Iraq and 1995/1999 Yugoslavian wars, with additional help in Afghanistan by providing not only cash, but fuel for the war, from Aegis warships of the Japanese Self Defense Forces in the Indian Ocean. Nippon Steel, Mitsubishi, and Halliburton are now partners in a Central Asian oil pipeline project. In 2004, despite much citizen opposition in Japan, the Japanese government has sent Self Defense Forces to Iraq for ‘reconstruction’. This action taken by the Japanese government, of placing troops on the ground in a war zone, will lead to rescinding Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, which forever prohibits military aggression by Japan.  (Leuren Moret, “Depleted Uranium: the Trojan Horse of Nuclear War,” World Affairs: The Journal of International Issues, 1 July 2004, downloaded from http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/DU-Trojan-Horse1jul04.htm, 26 Aug. 2007.)

 

The Future of American Weaponry

 

Recently a takeover was engineered transferring the no bid University of California management contract (of 61 years duration) for the US nuclear weapons program at the nuclear weapons labs at Berkeley, Livermore, and Los Alamos to the University of Texas where the Carlyle Group (an investment conglomerate that specializes in Defense Developments and whose members include George H.W. and George W. Bush, James Baker, the bin laden family and John Major) will assume control over it. A ramping up of the nuclear weapons program is now underway with funding at the highest level ever-even higher than during the Cold War. These developments are the first yield of the top secret meeting of 150 top U.S. officials and military contractors (chaired reportedly by Dick Cheney) held at the U.S. Strategic Command Center in Nebraska on Aug. 6th 2003 as an official commemoration of the 58th Anniversary of Hiroshima and to plan the weaponry of the nuclear future. (Walter A. Davis, “Of Pynchon, Thanatos and Depleted Uranium: Weapons of Mass Destruction Found in Iraq,” Counterpunch, October 9/10, 2004, downloaded from http://www.counterpunch.org/davis10092004.html. 12 Sept. 2007.)

 

Russia is also Suspected of Using DU Weapons

 

The US is the largest single user of depleted uranium (DU) in weaponry.  It is also the largest seller and exporter of depleted uranium weapon technology,”

Russia has also adopted the use of DU as a weapon. However, if attacked, we cannot rule out the possibility that Russian tactical nuclear weapons will be used.  (“Depleted Uranium, weapons of war – the Pandora's box,” Pravda, 21 September 2004, downloaded from   http://english.pravda.ru/mailbox/22/101/399/14277_DU.html, 12 Sept, 2007.)

 

Ammunition made with depleted uranium was used only by British and American forces, although the Russian army is suspected of using it several times in Chechnya, according to an international government representative who wished to remain anonymous. (Ylber Emro, “FRY/Kosovo:  BALKAN APPROACH TO BALKAN SYNDROME,” Network of Independent Journalists, 16 Jan. 2001, downloaded from http://www.idee.org/nij207.htm#1, 12 Sept. 2007.)

 

Prior to the use of DU munitions in combat, large quantities – probably on the order of thousands of tons of DU – were shot at testing ranges in the United States, United Kingdom, and as well as in the former Soviet Union and other countries. In addition to the United States, United Kingdom, and Israel, it is possible and even probable that other countries or armed forces have used DU munitions in combat. If the Soviet Union had deployed DU munitions in the 1970s, did it use them during combat in the 1980s in Afghanistan? More recently, has Russia used DU munitions in Chechnya or other territories? (Dan Fahey, “The Emergence and Decline of the Debate over Depleted Uranium Munitions, 1991-2004,”

20 June 2004, downloaded from http://www.wise-uranium.org/pdf/duemdec.pdf, 12 Sept. 2007.)

 

Dr. Khassan Baiev was devastated by what he saw during a trip to his native Chechnya last winter, but he turned that devastation into a chance for charity for local Muslims during Ramadan.

"About one in every two children is born with a defect," Baiev told area Muslims during a recent fundraising trip to South Florida that coincided with the beginning of Ramadan, the annual month of fasting and charity. Many Chechens are Muslim, but Baiev is quick to point out there are Christians and Jews in the region as well, and that everyone is suffering.

Baiev, who now lives in Boston with political refugee status, is the author of The Oath: A Surgeon Under Fire. He visited the area to solicit donations for the International Committee for the Children of Chechnya, an American-based organization he heads.

His goal is to collect money, medical supplies and equipment in order to benefit those born with birth defects caused by depleted uranium. The uranium permeates the Chechen countryside; a residue from spent ammunition shot into Chechen villages by the Russians during the Chechen war of 1994 to 1996. Baiev claims it is responsible for an alarming number of cleft palates and other problems. (Lisa Bolivar, Special Correspondent, “Physician Seeks Donations To Help Children Of Chechnya,” Sun Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale), 21 Oct. 2007, downloaded from Lexis-Nexis News,
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007196&docId=l:688729923&start=6, 3 Nov. 2007.)

 

DUMA SAYS TRIBUNAL SHOULD PROBE NATO'S USE OF DEPLETED URANIUM SHELLS


On a vote of 235 to 0, the Duma on 25 January passed an appeal to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia to launch an investigation into NATO's use of depleted uranium shells there, Interfax reported. 

 

HAS RUSSIA USED DEPLETED URANIUM MUNITIONS IN CHECHNYA?


An article published in "Novaya gazeta" on 22 January suggested that Russian forces in Chechnya may on occasions have used armor-piercing shells with a uranium core, specifically during the March 2000 battle to wrest control of the village of Komsomolskoe from Chechen fighters subordinate to Ruslan Gelaev. LF  (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 26 January 2001, downloaded from http://www.rferl.org/newsline/2001/01/260101.asp, 3 Nov. 2007.)

 

There is a history of DU weapons used in Afghanistan since the war against Russia from 1979-1989.

 

DU weapons were used in Afghanistan by the Russians - the first time ever for those weapons. (1)

 

This would be another momento left by the Russians, along with millions of landmines. Estimates by the Hazardous Area Life Support Organization also known as (HALO Trust's), predicts it to be ranging as low as 640,000 to as high as 20 million.  (“Free Thinker,” “DU weapons used by Russians,”
6 June 200, downloaded from http://www.prop1.org/history/2003/030610bbc.et.du.1613322_comment.html, 3 Nov. 2007.)

 

(Ed. The Israelis used them in the 1971 war.)

 

Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal Pointed at Iran

 

A massive buildup in military hardware has occurred in preparation for a possible attack on Iran.

 

Israel has recently taken delivery from the US of some 5,000  "smart air launched weapons" including some 500 BLU 109 'bunker-buster bombs.     The (uranium coated) munitions are said to be more than "adequate to address the full range of Iranian targets, with the possible exception of the buried facility at Natanz, which may require the [more powerful] BLU-113 bunker buster ":

 

 "Given Israel's already substantial holdings of such weapons, this increase in its inventory would allow a sustained assault with or without further US involvement." (See Richard Bennett, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/BEN501A.html )

 

The Israeli Air Force would attack Iran's nuclear facility at Bushehr using US as well Israeli produced bunker buster bombs. The attack would be carried out in three separate waves "with the radar and communications jamming protection being provided by U.S. Air Force AWACS and other U.S. aircraft in the area". (See W Madsen, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD410A.html

 

Bear in mind that the bunker buster bombs can also be used to deliver tactical nuclear bombs. The B61-11 is the "nuclear version" of the "conventional" BLU 113. It can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker buster bomb. (See Michel Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO112C.html , see also http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=jf03norris ) .

 

According to the Pentagon, tactical nuclear weapons are "safe for civilians". Their use has been authorized by the US Senate. (See Miochel Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405A.html

 

Moreover, reported in late 2003, Israeli Dolphin-class submarines equipped with US Harpoon missiles armed with nuclear warheads are now aimed at Iran. (See Gordon Thomas, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/THO311A.html

 

Even if tactical nuclear weapons are not used by Israel, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities not only raises the specter of a broader war, but also of nuclear radiation over a wide area:

 

"To attack Iran's nuclear facilities will not only provoke war, but it could also unleash clouds of radiation far beyond the targets and the borders of Iran." (Statement of Prof Elias Tuma, Arab Internet Network, Federal News Service, 1 March 2005)

 

Moreover, while most reports have centered on the issue of punitive air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, the strikes would most probably extend to other targets.

 

While a ground war is contemplated as a possible "scenario" at the level of military planning, the US military would not be able to wage an effective ground war, given the situation in Iraq. In the words of former National Security Adviser Lawrence Eagelberger:

 

"We are not going to get in a ground war in Iran, I hope. If we get into that, we are in serious trouble. I don't think anyone in Washington is seriously considering that." (quoted in the National Journal, 4 December 2004). (Michel Chossudovsky, “Planned US-Israeli Attack on iran,” Globalresearch.ca, a May 2005, downloaded from http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO505A.html, 26 August 2007.)

 

Israel is part of the military alliance and is slated to play a major role in the planned attacks on Iran. (For details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006 ).

 

Confirmed by several press reports, Israel has taken delivery, starting in September 2004 of some 500 US produced  BLU 109 bunker buster bombs (WP, January 6, 2006). The first procurement order for BLU 109 [Bomb Live Unit] dates to September 2004. In April 2005, Washington confirmed that Israel was to take delivery of 100 of the more sophisticated bunker buster bomb GBU-28 produced by Lockheed Martin ( Reuters, April 26, 2005).  The GBU-28 is described as "a 5,000-pound laser-guided conventional munitions that uses a 4,400-pound penetrating warhead." It was used in the Iraqi war theater:

 

The Pentagon [stated] that ... the sale to Israel of 500 BLU-109 warheads, [was] meant to "contribute significantly to U.S. strategic and tactical objectives." . 

 

Mounted on satellite-guided bombs, BLU-109s can be fired from F-15 or F-16 jets, U.S.-made aircraft in Israel's arsenal. This year Israel received the first of a fleet of 102 long-range F-16Is from Washington, its main ally. "Israel very likely manufactures its own bunker busters, but they are not as robust as the 2,000-pound (910 kg) BLUs," Robert Hewson, editor of Jane's Air-Launched Weapons, told Reuters. (Reuters, 21 September 2004)

The report does not confirm whether Israel has stockpiled and deployed the thermonuclear version of the bunker buster bomb. Nor does it indicate whether the Israeli made bunker buster bombs are equipped with nuclear warheads. It is worth noting that this stock piling of bunker buster bombs occurred within a few months after the Release of  the NPSD 35¸ Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization   (May 2004).

 

Israel possesses 100-200 strategic nuclear warheads . In 2003, Washington and Tel Aviv confirmed that they were collaborating in "the deployment of US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines." (The Observer, 12 October 2003) . In more recent developments, which coincide with the preparations of  strikes against Iran, Israel has taken delivery of  two new German produced submarines "that could launch nuclear-armed cruise missiles for a "second-strike" deterrent." (Newsweek, 13 February 2006. See also CDI Data Base)

 

Israel's tactical nuclear weapons capabilities are not known 

Israel's participation in the aerial attacks will also act as a political bombshell throughout the Middle East. It would contribute to escalation, with a war zone which could extend initially into Lebanon and Syria. The entire region from the Eastern Mediterranean to Central Asia and Afghanistan's Western frontier would be affected. (Michel Chossudovsky, “Is the Bush Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust?” Globalresearch.ca, 22 Feb. 2006, downloaded from http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060222&articleId=2032, 26 Aug. 2007.)

 

Does Iran also Possess DU Weapons?

 

It may not be ruled out that Iran – the country which is not called anything but «terrorist №1» in both Israel and the US – may make a retaliatory move, using its Shahab-3 missiles equipped with radiological warheads, better known as warheads of the so-called «dirty» type. Such a warhead may be equipped with 500-700 kg of semi-enriched dustlike uranium concentrate. Even a single missile launch may mean a dozen of Chernobyls for Israel and the US army group – just as for other countries in the Middle East. (Dmitry Baklin, “’Balyon 2’: On US-Israeli Plans for a Nuclear War,” Strategic Cultural Foundation, Russia, reproduced in  Global Research, 20 January 2007.)

 

Parallels Among U.S. Wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq

 

The parallels between Iraq, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan are startlingly similar. The weapons used, the unfair treaties offered by the US, and the bombing and destruction of the environment and entire infrastructure. In every city of Iraq and Yugoslavia, the television and radio stations were bombed.

 

Educational centres were targeted, and stores where educational materials were sold were destroyed on nearly the same day. Under UN sanctions, Iraq was not even allowed pencils for schoolchildren. Cultural antiquities and historical treasures were targeted and destroyed in all three countries, a kind of cultural and historical cleansing, a collective national psychic trauma.

 

The permanent radioactive contamination and environmental devastation of all three countries is unprecedented, resulting in huge increases in cancer and birth defects following the attacks. These will increase over time from unknown effects due to chronic exposure, increasing internal levels of radiation from depleted uranium dust, and permanent genetic effects passed on to future generations. Clearly, this has been a genocidal plan from the start. (Leuren Moret, formerly of Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, “Depleted Uranium: the Trojan Horse of Nuclear War,” World Affairs: The Journal of International Issues, 1 July 2004, downloaded from http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/DU-Trojan-Horse1jul04.htm, 26 Aug. 2007.)

 

Uranium Tailings left on Native Lands, Dumped in Sea

 

And closer to home, questions continue to be asked about environmental exposure to uranium from mine tailings; heavily concentrated around Native American communities. "When the uranium mining boom crashed in the '80s, there wasn't much cleanup," Stearns said. Estimates put the number of abandoned mines on the Navajo Nation in Arizona at more than 1,100. “Uranium's Effect On DNA Established,” Northern Arizona University,
7 April 2006, downloaded from
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20060307010324data_trunc_sys.shtml, 31 Aug. 2007.)

I first heard about the military using depleted uranium for bullets from the Native Americans for a Clean Environment (NACE) in Gore, Oklahoma. Kerr Magee was operating a factory there, and in a liquid waste spill a young man, about twenty-one years old, was sprayed with the mixture and died. Many members of the public were also exposed, and were taken to the University in Oklahoma City for medical examination and feces analysis. It seems that the liquid waste contained primarily uranium and other heavy metals.

Local people had found this factory to be very polluting. When I visited the town to see what was happening and to decide whether or not I could help, they showed me rust marks scattered over the surface of their automobiles where the toxic corrosive spray released from the factory routinely had impacted on the paint. People complained of burning throats and eyes, some with even more serious complaints, but little systematic information which would show that the factory was the source of their problem.

I met a young boy who showed me a frog he had caught--the frog had nine legs. It was in a bottle of formaldehyde. I wanted to take it for some tissue and bone analysis but it was his prize possession and he would not part with it.

I learned that the Kerr Magee plant had been disposing of its waste by deep-well injection in this rural, primarily farming area. The people, becoming alarmed at this practice which threatened the water table, got a court injunction to stop it. In an action, which seemed to the local farmers to be a retaliation, Kerr Magee had applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to call their waste an "experimental fertilizer" and just spread it over the top of the land. The stories were quite strong evidence that this so-called fertilizer was sometimes just released into the local river, or released in one place on the factory property, with no pretense even to spread it.

The young boy had found his nine-legged frog on the hill which served as the "experimental plot." Hunters had found a rabbit with two hearts, and the local taxidermist told me that he had tried to mount two deer heads and the fur came off in his hands in clumps. He had never seen anything like it in his whole career.

As local people became sick and started to complain, Kerr Magee bought them out, and took over their land. The Native people, who were determined to preserve their land, formed a Coalition of White and Natives Concerned, and began the long legal fight with the company. They learned about environmental assessment hearings, licensing hearings, etc. and began to seriously participate. They also undertook a human health survey of all families -- there were about four hundred of them -- living within four miles of the factory. Every family was included in the survey, which was very comprehensive and carefully administered.

The International Institute of Concern for Public Health agreed to analyze this data for the citizens. The outstanding illnesses in the area were respiratory and kidney problems. There were significantly more persons with respiratory illnesses down wind of the plant, and significantly more with kidney problems down stream of the plant.

We intended to do a clinical follow-up of this survey, and designed the study with the cooperation of the Occupational Health and Respiratory Units at the University Medical School of New Jersey. We were not able to obtain funding for this study. Nevertheless, with the health survey and a great deal of local perseverance, Kerr Magee moved out. A second multinational tried to take over the factory--I think it was General Dynamics--but it failed. (Rosalie Bertell, Gulf War Syndrome, Depleted Uranium and the Dangers of Low-Level Radiation, downloaded from http://www.ccnr.org/bertell_book.html, 26 Aug. 2007.)

It should also be noted that the Navy acknowledges discharging millions of gallons of radioactive liquid waste into Pearl Harbor on Oahu and dumping over two thousand 55-gallon steel drums of radioactive solid waste on the ocean floor off Hawaii's shores. (Lisa Long, Angels for Truth, e-mail to Debbie Lewis, BridgeStone Media Group, 27 August 2007.)

 

Create a Free Website