Comments follow this report. rkm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "dnordin" <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••>, <•••@••.•••>, <•••@••.•••>, <•••@••.•••>, <•••@••.•••>, <•••@••.•••>, <•••@••.•••>, <•••@••.•••>, <•••@••.•••>, <•••@••.•••> Subject: Fw: [NN] Mother of all bombs may be tested in Iraq war Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:24:00 -0800 ---------- > From: Mike Wallace <•••@••.•••> > To: •••@••.••• > Subject: [NN] Mother of all bombs may be tested in Iraq war > Date: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 6:02 PM > Mother of all bombs may be tested in Iraq war PTI[ WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2003 01:44:53 PM ] NEW YORK: The United States, if it goes to war with Iraq, intends to use a new monster weapon whose explosive punch is equivalent to a small nuclear device, a media report said today. ABC television network quoted military sources as saying that the weapon, still in the experimental stage, would be used during the first nights of the attack. The bomb is called MOAB -- short for "Massive Ordnance Air Burst" bomb - and is the bigger version of the 15,000 pound "Daisy Cutter" used in Vietnam, the Gulf war and in Afghanistan. MOAB is a 21,000-pound bomb that will be pushed out of the back of a C-130 transport and guided by satellite because it is not dropped by parachute, as was the old Daisy Cutter. The aircraft can let it go from far higher altitudes, making it safer for US pilots. MOAB's massive explosive punch, sources say, is similar to a small nuclear weapon. It is intended to obliterate a command center hidden in tunnels and bunkers or a concentration of Iraqi tanks. Whatever the target, it must be far from cities where civilians might be hurt. But one important aspect of using this type of weapon, sources say, will be psychological impact on enemy troops. It is intended to terrorize Iraqi troops, drastically reducing their desire to continue the fight, they add. Michael D. Wallace Department of Political Science & The Liu Centre for the Study of Global Issues University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z1 phone:(604)822-4550, fax:822-5540 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Friends, I'd like to add some context to the above report. First, consider the claim, "[MOAB] is intended to terrorize Iraqi troops, drastically reducing their desire to continue the fight, [military sources] add." The fact is that in the so-called Gulf War there was no "continuing the fight", indeed there was no fight. For the most part Iraqi troops stayed in their bunkers for the whole duration. They knew that the minute they stuck their heads out they'd get them blown off, whether it be day or night. There never was any "ground war", there was simply the advance of ground vehicles after all potential opposition had been pulverized by missiles and bombs. This particular excuse for ultra-high explosives is phony. Next, consider the fact that MOAB is only the tip of the iceberg of ultra-lethal weaponry being scheduled for deployment in Iraq. The Pentagon talks about "shock and awe" tactics on a much broader canvas... "600 targets per day", "Nowhere in Baghdad will be safe", etc. There are plans to use internationally banned chemical weapons, drone assassin planes, and other esoteric and experimental killing machines. Even nuclear weapons have been mentioned several times by top officials as being necessary for certain kinds of targets. The level of violence being planned staggers the imagination. One is reminded of the firestorms that devastated Dresden near the end of World War 2, killing far more people than did the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A wall of fire advanced at 90 miles per hour, destroying everything in its path, leaving corpses melted into the asphalt. Consider also that Washington has made it clear that they "know" weapons of mass destruction have been purposely hidden in or under civilian areas - and this will not deter the US intention to target them. The "collateral damage" will be "Saddam's fault". Consider also that the targets in the Gulf War were not primarily military. It was the infrastructure of the nation that was targeted. Power plants, water- treatment facilities, transportation networks, etc. The objective and the result was to destroy the fabric of the civil society - not to enable conquest - but to ensure the nation would remain disabled for decades to follow. And then there are the sanctions - the most strictly enforced in history. A million children have died as a result. A large portion of the population is on the verge of starvation, suffering from serious disease, or both. Medical supplies are almost non-existent. Such a society has no reserve capacity to endure further hardship. The image that comes to mind is of a bunch of thugs, attacking an elderly patient in his hospital bed, or attacking infants in the nursery. The land of the brave indeed. Iraq will be turned into an extermination camp, a killing field, salted with depleted uranium - the way the Romans spread salt over Carthage after destroying it and massacring all the inhabitants. But by then CNN will have moved on to other stories. How much media coverage do East Timor or Afghanistan get these days, or Bosnia? Areas that were SO IMPORTANT not so long ago. Bush says that the main purpose of this onslaught is to "disarm Iraq". What a laugh. Not one shred of credible evidence has been presented that any weapons of mass destruction exist. In fact the evidence that Powell so solemnly presented to the UN turned out to be totally phony. So phony that Powell had to know it was phony, that he was blatantly lying to the world. Bush repeatedly claims that his "intelligence sources" know of many specific locations of "secret weapons". If there was any truth to this, then why doesn't Bush send the inspectors to check it out? It would certainly enhance his ability to recruit support if such a cache could be found and televised. He has no reason to keep such information secret, and every reason to go public with at least ONE such site. If there were any such sites. In the accompanying posting, "What weapons of mass destruction?", a very credible and knowledgeable eye witness claims such weapons were destroyed long ago -- for reasons which make a great deal of sense. --- I believe that two things are perfectly clear. The first is that the Administration knows all this. They know Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction. They know they are planning genocide against civilians and not a war at all. They have access to better information that we do, and even we know that much. Second, it is perfectly clear that the level of violence being planned is far beyond any conceivable objective related to Iraq itself. Whether the objective be to kill Saddam, destroy weapons caches, control the oil - or even kill civilians - that objective could be accomplished with a fraction of the planned firepower. Any ROTC student could outline a more efficient battle plan, given a few days to think about it. If these things are clear, then the question is "Why are they doing it?". I think we can shed light on that question by looking at historical precedents. I believe that Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki are relevant precedents. Let me offer a bit of background. I saw a documentary, narrated by Robert Oppenheimer, called "The Day After Trinity". It was about the Manhattan Project, following it from its beginnings in Berkeley to its culmination in the first-ever man-made nuclear explosion in the Nevada desert. Oppenheimer, as you all know, was the leader of the project. Near the end of the film, mentioned in passing, Oppenheimer says, and I paraphrase, "We had set aside two Japanese cities, putting them off limits to bombing, so that they could serve as virgin test sites for our two types of bombs (Uranium and Plutonium)". When I heard that I remembered reading, in more than one account, "The city had miraculously escaped bombing before that fateful day..." I also recalled accounts of doctors which the US Army had sent in right after the blast. Their instructions were to observe and record, and not to try to help anyone. One answer to the Iraq "Why?" question is clearly "weapons testing". Not testing whether they go bang, that's been done by the manufacturers and the military QA people. Rather, testing their effects on populations, both physical and psychological. And not only the effects on the Iraqi population - also the effects on the population and governments of the rest of the world - particularly in every nation which now or in the future might fall into disfavor with Washington. "We could easily do this to you as well" is a very clear message, one that is heard loud and clear in not only Libya, Korea, and Iran, but also in Moscow and Bejing, and perhaps in Berlin and Paris as well, both of which have had their share of not-so-long- ago on-site warfare, for which the US (and the Bush's in particular) turn out to have considerable culpability. (See March 6, "The Nazis and the Bush family".) Considerable evidence exists that one of the objectives of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, was to show the Soviets that Uncle Sam (with his pet Bulldog) was both able and willing to kill whole cities. The message: You Commies damn well better learn that hell hath no fury like a vengeful Uncle Sam. Thus began the successful project of containment of the Soviet Union and the suppression of non-capitalist and democratic tendencies generally. --- Besides what we might infer from historical comparisons, we also have evidence in the form of planning documents, in particular the plan for the "New American Century", which Rumsfield was instrumental in drafting. The Middle East is the means to an end. It provides the fuel and the funding for wider campaigns, for what can only be called the conquest of the world. A goal which Hitler attempted, with the help of Prescott Bush, Ford, General Motors, IBM, and many others. A goal which Baby Bush finally has the means to achieve. Hitler wanted to turn the Slavs and other "inferior races" into slaves of the Reich, and exterminate those who were "useless". The IMF and globalization are succeeding where the Nazis failed. Iraq is to serve as a testing ground for weapons intended for quite different adversaries. Adversaries of much greater magnitude. Adversaries where such ultra weapon systems will be needed to assure quick victory. Adversaries who actually do have strategic weapons of mass destruction that could be launched in a retaliatory strike. All that stealth nighttime ultra-potent technology begins to make sense if you are planning to take out such an adversaries defenses all at once. Washington knows this. So do Moscow and Bejing. It is not for a love of Saddam that so many diverse governments have come together in opposition, futile though their gestures may be. We are all targets and it is our own survival which is at stake. "First they came for Muslim Americans, then they came for Afghanistan, then Iraq, etc." The handwriting is on the wall. We've been warned. Shall we watch it on television, or should we do something about it? rkm -- ============================================================================ cyberjournal home page: http://cyberjournal.org "Zen of Global Transformation" home page: http://www.QuayLargo.com/Transformation/ QuayLargo discussion forum: http://www.QuayLargo.com/Transformation/ShowChat/?ScreenName=ShowThreads cj list archives: http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=cj newslog list archives: http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=newslog subscribe addresses for cj list: •••@••.••• •••@••.••• ============================================================================