Bobert,

Thanks for the article, "Shock & Awe - Is Baghdad the Next Hiroshima?" by Ira Chernus, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

It was interesting reading but it in no way states any clear intention on the part of the US military to use nuclear weapons against Iraq. It mentions the possibilities and the capabilities, both of which are common knowledge, but nowhere in the article is there any mention of intent to use them by any authoratative figure.

His article has a "good guy", William Arkin (L.A. Times columnist) and a "bad guy", Harlan Ullman (Defence Analyst, one time head of the USN's "extended planning (group/committee/department)" and one time lecturer at the National (presumably American) War College).

The quoted remarks from the "bad guy" are taken way out of context and are designed to paint a completely unrepresentative picture. That picture is then taken as true fact, set in stone, and handed to the "good guy" for additional embelishment.

A sample:

"Is the Hiroshima model just a metaphor? Ullman recently wrote that one way to "shock and awe" Saddam is to remind him that the U.S. has "certain weapons" that can destroy deeply buried facilities. That's a not-even-thinly-veiled reference to the newest kind of nuclear weapons, the B-61 'Bunker-Busters'. William Arkin has confirmed that the U.S. is preparing to use 'Bunker-Busters' against Iraq. That would "break down the firewall seperating nuclear weapons from everything else," Arkin warns, and "forever pit the Arab and Islamic world against us."

The only thing wrong with the above is that in introducing the B-61 'Bunker-Buster' into his article, Professor Ira Chernus omits to mention that while B-61 nuclear weapons, in various models, do exist, and remain as yet untested, the B-61-11, which is the one that can destroy deeply buried facilities, does not. It has formed part of a review and technology required to create a deep penetration bomb using conventional explosives is being studied.

The doctrine relating to the tactical use of low yeild nuclear weapons has been around for a long time dating back to the "cold war" era.

The other refernce you gave Bobert:

"Now on to Bush:

"The U.S. military and appropriate civilian agencies possess the *full range* of operational capabilities to counter the threat and use of WMD..."

There are a number of ways in which you could view this statement. It is not supplied with any reference to check within what context to comment was made. It certainly was not given with any thought to the contents of Professor Ira Chernus article.

It could allude to use of chemical, biological and bacteriological weapons (otherwise why mention civilian agencies - CIA, FBI, NSA are normally referred to a government agencies), either in America or elsewhere, and the ability of those mentioned to protect themselves.

It could allude to nuclear weapons but again the mention of appropriate civilian agencies does not ring true.

Hmmmmm? Well, so Bush has said that Iraq is a threat, (VERY TRUE BOBERT AND I BELIEVE THAT HE IS A MAJOR THREAT OF POTENTIALLY HORRIFYING PROPORTIONS IF LEFT TO PURSUE HIS OBJECTIVES ) so given testimony (WHAT TESTIMONY?) and documents (PROFESSOR IRA'S ARTICLE) that the L.A. Times have been privied to, coupled with Bush's own words (WHICH I BELIEVE REFER TO ANOTHER THREAT ENTIRELY), I don't consider it to far off the wall to bring up the strong possibility of nuclear weapons being used by the US in Iraq. - Bobert, old son, it is so far off the wall that it is derisory.

Now ask the question, "Is it possible that the U.S. could use nuclear weapons against Iraq?" - The honest answer, of course, is yes anything is possible, but that does not necessarily make it probable, desireable or inevitable.