Reply #23: Good question...

[Sir Jeffrey]

but from what I have read, "Bunker buster" nukes will be used to eliminate certain heavily populated areas. These are less powerful nukes that are designed to burrow into the ground to minimize radiation deaths. The idea being, almost certainly, to drop a number of these bombs in Tehran and other major cities far enough away from the oil fields to avoid such an issue as a pesky insurgency blowing up the pipelines or setting the fields ablaze. Kill the innocents immediately with the blasts, minimize radiation, and destroy the infrastructure with conventional bombs. I read something a few days ago that indicated a major "selling point" of the new wave of nukes is that they are designed to minimize civilian deaths...a "safe nuke", if you can believe it. Orwell turns in his grave AGAIN.

Tehran will most likely be nuked several times as it remains THE center of Iranian culture...and also the most populated area by far. IMO the target for occupation is the oil fields in the Khuzestan province. Khuzestan borders Iraq, could be shittily occupied by US troops with little re-routing of resources, and by "decapitating" the regime in Iran (sound familiar) via nuclear holocaust US forces could easily eliminate any forces stationed there.

When this attack begins, watch where the nukes are dropped and compare it to where the conventional bombs are used to saturate an area. Wherever our insane leaders want to occupy, no nukes will be used. Wherever there is no compelling US interest to station forces, nukes will be dropped.

And, quite frankly, these idiots don't believe in science...so any calls for taking into consideration such things as "climate shifting the radiation via rain or wind" have probably fallen on deaf ears if they were even raised. Remember, they think Jesus wants them to do this.

I would guess the radiation will spread slowly if bunker busters are used, and then you'll have what happened in Vietnam with napalm vis a vis the birth defects. But that won't happen until this group has long since retired. I mean, how is Kissinger doing these days?


As a sidenote, if you are not familiar with the US' "oil-denial policy" with respect to Iran, you may find this author of interest:

http://www.brookings.edu/press/REVIEW/spring2002/telhami.htm

It has been official US policy in the region for decades and may shed some light on why Bush is willing to risk what you mentioned if it goes "bad" as far as ruining Iranian oil production for 10K years. And, quite frankly, anything by Telhami is worth a read right now.