'US used nukes on Iraq, Afghanistan'

Sorry but this is nonsense. As soon as anybody anywhere in the world, even underground, sets off a nuclear explosion everybody in the world with the right equipment can detect it. It's all to do with nuclear isotopes in the atmosphere.

reply to post by malcr


The Uranium Medical Research Centre (UMRC) has detected non depleted uranium in residents. I dont think you are going to find the information sprawled over the front pages of the newpaper..
They have even published papers on there finding and they at present are at a loss to explain them. Non depleted uranium is a smoking gun of a nuke being used and no one on this thread has debunked that yet..

From all I can find, Peter Eyre is a radical blogger and a self proclaimed Middle East Consultant. OK, I read a lot on the Middle East, therefore I am also a Middle East Consultant

I think the most telling thing here is if this were true the whole world would know unless these devices produce no fallout or release some unknown exotic form of radiation that no current devices can measure.

Funny thing about irrational, delusional bloggers; they can also be skilled and convincing writers, even when making things up.

reply to post by purplemer


I highly doubt they used nukes. (I was the 'Stan in '04-'05 and late '05 to '06). That's not to say they didn't used the daisy cutter bombs, because they did. Quite a few in fact. Especially during the initial invasion AND in the Tora Bora region. Daisy Cutter bombs are certainly large enough to make the earth shake. I wish I could link a video of them, but alas I am not very good with computers. (Bane of my existence and all that.)

reply to post by purplemer


Interesting, because there was a report not long ago from libya that NATO was using depleted uranium shells during the "humanitarian effort" when they ousted Gaddafi. The obvious here is that NATO has always been a disguise used to deflect attention by the US military ( cmon, we should all know this by now ).

One of the articles i'm referring to also mentions Iraq:
rt.com...

The US dropped thousands of depleted uranium bombs upon Fallujah, Iraq in 2003, and the aftermath since has been catastrophic. A quarter of all births since the strike have suffered from abnormalities ranging from cancer to leukemia, and the rate of mutation among newborns is higher than what was found after America attacked Japan during the Second World War.

en.wikipedia.org...

But hey, we don't see the IAEA making reports to shun the US for production of dirty bombs now do we. Especially in the light of its ongoing "attack" against Iran. Why this has not been brought up in the UN, it makes you wonder. Who really controls the UN?

So which side are you on USA? From what i see and hear on a daily basis...
Dirty bombs are allowed to be used during "war" by yourself and produced on a mass scale.
Dirty bombs are not allowed to be made or used by anyone you don't like.
Clean nuclear energy is allowed to be used by yourself.
Clean nuclear energy is not allowed to be used by anyone you don't like.

It would seem the USA has gone and put the 'S' in double standards. Its has so many of them... You can't coin the term without the plural anyhow

Welcome to the Unlimited Standards of America. Its okay if we do it, but if you even think of it... we will bomb you before you can move an inch. Truely Sickening.


EDIT:
One other thing i just remembered, i didn't look into it at the time... however there was an "earthquake" reported in the libya region during the ongoing bombing campaign by NATO... i do rmemeber it being rated at a magnitude of 8 or higher.

Although, i think it was put down to a sensor error. It makes you wonder if this was in fact an earthquake produced by one of these tactical nukes.. as they do only target fairly small areas. It could have been that it was only detected by a small amount of seismic instruments due to the location of the blast. Thinking out loud here.... but you never know.

Originally posted by malcr
Sorry but this is nonsense. As soon as anybody anywhere in the world, even underground, sets off a nuclear explosion everybody in the world with the right equipment can detect it. It's all to do with nuclear isotopes in the atmosphere.

This is what you are thinking of:
en.wikipedia.org...

This is in fact what a tactical nuke can be composed of:
en.wikipedia.org...

It is not nonsense. Nuclear bombs are very different to what we all see in video-games and hollywood movies. Some are even small enough to be carried inside a suitcase with one hand, while only being able to destroy a small radius (for example a street). Obviously the actual scale of a weapon's damage it can conflict is based on the size of the bomb, and the impact it produces.

reply to post by purplemer

The Uranium Medical Research Centre (UMRC) has detected non depleted uranium in residents. I dont think you are going to find the information sprawled over the front pages of the newpaper..
They have even published papers on there finding and they at present are at a loss to explain them. Non depleted uranium is a smoking gun of a nuke being used and no one on this thread has debunked that yet..

Actually, it's been debunked several times in various ways. A nuclear detonation would be easily visible from space, due to the intense burst of gamma radiation. This would be seen both by the spy satellites of other nations who would be quick to capitalize on the news, and various scientific satellites that monitor gamma radiation. No such burst has been reported. Secondly, there would be no uranium left after a nuclear detonation. In the case of an "old fashioned" fission bomb, the reaction would convert all (or nearly all) of the uranium into gamma and neutron radiation and daughter particles of caesium and strontium. Since these have half-lives of thirty years, it would be the presence of these two elements that would indicate the use of "atomic weapons," not uranium. Fusion reactions are even more efficient, and produce "heavy helium." The gamma and neutron radiation would produce all manner of strange isotopes in the surrounding matter, and the presence of these, not uranium, would be the indicator of an "H-Bomb" blast. Although it is possible that some of the depleted uranium shells contain more than trace amounts of U235 and U238, it is unlikely. The best explanation for the elevated levels of "undepleted uranium" is, as was suggested, the Soviets left behind a dirty uranium processing plant.

Just to make my position perfectly clear, I am not in favor of using depleted uranium shells. Although their density makes for a very effective kinetic weapon, the residual radiation provides for difficulty in post battle clean up. It is also unwise to use them from the sheer standpoint of propaganda value. In this thread, one poster after another has accused the US of using "nukes." Depleted uranium shells are "dirty," but that is a side effect of their production. There is no nuclear reaction beyond natural radioactive decay, so it is unfair to claim that the US is "nuking" anyone.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Hi..
I probably started the thread badly by linking to Peter Eyre.. I just wanted to give a linked commentary on possible events. The information is based on a report by the Uranium Medical Research Centre. www.umrc.net...

Radiological measurements of the uranium concentrations in Afghan civilians’ urine samples indicate abnormally high levels of non-depleted uranium. Radiological measurements of Afghan civilians’ have high concentrations of uranium in a range beginning at 4 X’s and reaching to over 20 X’s normal populations. This is 400% to 2000% higher than the study controls and normal population baselines of the concentrations of nanograms of uranium per liter of urine in a 24-hour sample. UMRC has completed initial but still preliminary studies that corroborate these finding in biological controls and geological samples taken in Operation Enduring Freedom bombsites.

globalresearch.ca...

What is important here here is the fact that high levels of non depleted uranium have been found. The most likely for this is that a nuke was used. It is also possible although unlikely that it could be caused by geological means.
Although I dont think the later is likely as the rates of cancer and defects have increased of recent.

Originally posted by Unvarnished
reply to post by purplemer

 

I don't think it is true, you would see a lot of high incidences of cancer by now.

edit on 2-12-2011 by Unvarnished because: (no reason given)

Doctors in Afghanistan say rates of some health problems affecting children have doubled in the last two years. Some scientists say the rise is linked to use of weapons containing depleted uranium (DU) by the US-led coalition that invaded the country in 2001.

news.bbc.co.uk...

reply to post by DJW001


thank you for your reply. I have sent off for the full scientific paper on the research. In the meantime I can only quote from global research.


In regards to the levels of NDU being the result of the russian facility... The Uranium Medical Research Centre (UMRC) states. It looks like those factors were taken into account. For a while I thought the levels could be due to the natural Uranium in the area. Again the report negates that.

The possibility of Natural Uranium remains under investigation. Local geological samples and controls do not substantiate a source other than the OEF bombing. There are no geological, commercial and agricultural phenomena or activities and uses in the environs of the contaminated populations that might explain the contamination. UMRC invites reasonable explanations and continues to investigate alternatives or evidence that might explain origins other than uranium-alloyed and composite uranium-high-explosive ordnance deployed by Operation Enduring Freedo

reply to post by purplemer


This is so ridiculous it's almost not even worth discussing.

A nuclear blast can be detected anywhere on earth (or underground) by most advanced nations. And the byproducts of a nuclear blast (no matter the the payload) are also easily detectable. If this nonsense were true it would be front page news in newspapers across the world.

reply to post by purplemer


It's propaganda, man, pure and simple, and nothing more. Look at the source. Realize that there is a propaganda war going on between the US and Iran at the moment. I saw "PressTV", and knew what the deal was right away, then I saw the other link, and said "oh! Lookey! A corroborating source!". Alas, when I went to that secondary source, the byline was... PressTV.

Everyone and their brother monitors for nuclear detonations. Had there been not just one, but several, there would have been a whole lot of squawking going on. Just one would have been detected and hell raised about. Several? Meh. Not a chance in hell.

I don't know much about Iraq, but I'm intimately familiar with Tora Bora. A tactical nuke would be utterly useless and wasted there. In order to even damage those caves and tunnels, it would have to be buried right next to one. That, in turn, would have created an appreciable amount of fallout immediately upon detonation, which in turn would have set off alarms all over the planet over the next few days.

All that, and for one tunnel? Now hear this - I have a Russian tactical map in my possession from the Soviet Afghan War. There are SIXTY-TWO cave and tunnel entrances marked on it, and that's just the ones they could find! There are LOTS more, and just about every one would need a tac nuke of it's own.

That's a lot of damned fallout.

Nope, never happened. It's just Iran trying to throw mud into the water.

Well, considering the plethora of evidence that "someone" used enriched uranium weapons in Fallujah just adds to the credibility of this accusation. I am sure that if these types of weapons were used, it WAS the US who approved and launched the bomb.

Of course they probably were not extremely large, and may have been nothing more than a modified mortar shell type of delivery system, but the effects can EASILY be confirmed or denied based on radiation levels in different regions.

I believe that many areas of the Tora Bora mountains are probably contaminated by radiation at this point, and as in Fallujah, the fallout from the damage will mainly be witnessed in the years to come, as birth defects run amok in the regions.

reply to post by milkyway12


You are correct about the conventional bombs but a little history about the Daisy Cutter ( I know). It was a Vietnam era weapon that had many uses and was named by the grunts for what it did an extremely good job on and that was cutting the Daisy s (or American slang for the jungle when it pertained to this weapon).

An awesome weapon, one of its most remembered jobs was to flatten the jungle for a quick LZ ( landing zone) and kill whatever was lurking near. Vietnam was mainly an air cav type war utilizing mainly choppers instead of ground based transport when possible and the terrain was tropical. So in Afghanistan it might have been used for caves and structures, but it did not cut the daisy's.

reply to post by purplemer


If this is true then surely the other world superpowers are aware. Hopefully they will retaliate but at the same time that would result in total chaos. Either way the end of all this is not going to be good.

This is completely false look where the story comes from. There would be no need to use a tactical nuke anyway. We have nonnuclear bombs that are just as powerful as tactical nukes.

reply to post by nenothtu


I think you will find that other reputable sources are coming out with this story (and have done many years ago).

The only propaganda here is the news outlets that don't report on it all... and i can guarantee you all of those media outlets are western based. Never in a million years will Fox, CNN, BBC, Sky or any other dribble-wibble tv station ever engage in "question" to hushed up activities to do with their own governments.

Its quite shocking really... in recent months PressTV has come out with more facts than Murdoch's goonies have aired in several years.

Its okay to "oh look its iran". If think that way... then your doing as the western media has "told" you to. Seriously.. there is more propaganda coming out of the west's own backyard, than there is Iran.

reply to post by InsideYourMind


Nope. The story is bunk. It's illogical and nonsensical to use a nuke in at least the Tora Bora situation. I don't know the particulars of the alleged Iraq use, but I can say with 100 percent certainty that it never happened at Tora Bora.

That, of course, calls into question the veracity of the Iraq claim as well.

No "reputable" news sources would touch this tale with a ten foot pole.

hm i don't know what to think...

some of you are saying that, no this can't be true and you think its BS, partly because of the fact that if they'd used a nuke someone somewhere would have noticed and brought it to light...and the mainstream media. so if it had actually happened then we would have known... but, how many things do we as the people not know about? this would not surprise if it were true, as i imagine that there are stockpiles of other war crimes that the US had committed, and possibly more like this...that we haven't a clue about?

also, the fact that The Uranium Medical Research Centre (UMRC) had detected traces of non depleted uranium in residents does hint to the fact that there may have been some sort of weapon used in that area...

Non-depleted uranium is uranium with a U238/U235 isotopic ratio comparable to natural uranium but having quantities of U236 and presumably plutonium. U236 is a man-made element not found in nature. It's presence suggests that the uranium has been through a reactor or has been mixed with reactor by-products. Depleted uranium is commonly used as tank armour-piercing munitions. Depleted uranium is also now being made available to be recycled as an element going into manufacturing of consumer or industrial products. The enrichment process also creates small quantities of the man-made isotopes U236 and plutonium (Pu239). These isotopes are included in the “depleted” uranium mass as it is too expensive to extract them. For every gram of enriched (non depleted) uranium that is produced there are 7 grams of depleted uranium. This results in huge stockpiles of radioactive waste. It is estimated that there is over one million tons of DU stockpiled in the U.S. The quantities of plutonium in these stockpiles are a well-kept secret. It is routinely measured but not publicly reported. Modern warfare since the Gulf War in 1991 has employed weapons which make use of depleted uranium for its properties: It is cheap and available to arms manufacturers free of charge. It has a very high-density which makes it a superior armour piercing material. It burns upon impact producing intense heat and easily cuts through steel. It acts as a self-sharpening penetrator. The danger posed by DU in weapons: When depleted uranium weapons hit a target, a fine aerosol of uranium oxides is formed. The majority of particles (46 - 70%) are less than 10 microns. The aerosol-like particles (dust) are easily inhaled into the lungs. These fine particles can be spread by the wind and are readily re-suspended by modest breezes or vehicle and personnel movements. There is no existing study measuring the distance traveled by such particles. However, there is a documented instance were particles were physically captured 42 km from a test site.

www.mindfully.org...

i am still undecided as to whether to call lie or truth... idk much about nuclear weapons etc, but because traces of NDU had been found in the residents, then there must have been some sort of weapon used. otherwise how did the residents contract the NDU? or do all the residents work in bomb plants and nuclear factories?

whether that weapon had been nuclear or not im not sure... and again i do hope this isn't true, but it really wouldn't surprise me.

try to keep an open mind though peeps

reply to post by fluff007

some of you are saying that, no this can't be true and you think its BS, partly because of the fact that if they'd used a nuke someone somewhere would have noticed and brought it to light...and the mainstream media. so if it had actually happened then we would have known...

If a nuclear weapon had been used, the people who are investigating the depleted uranium would also be finding caesium and strontium isotopes. Since they are not, no "nukes" were used. It is common knowledge that depleted uranium shells are now standard anti-tank weapons. They are dirty enough that the US really shouldn't be using them any more. The issue seems to be that higher levels of uranium are being found than can be accounted for by these shells. Since it cannot have been due to the use of nuclear weapons because of the lack of the tell-tale caesium and strontium, it must be due to some third cause. Soviet mining activities sounds the most reasonable explanation.