A Quick Rant: US Nuked Iraq?


Introduced by  Gordon Duff, Senior Editor

“…both Baghdad and Tora bora were nuked. They worked so well that they are here to stay. Any future battle will use them. The joint chiefs of staff stated after the battle of Baghdad that if we had used these in Vietnam we would have won. Never again will we ever lose with weapons like this in our arsenal. Mini and Micro nukes are here to stay so get use to it. Advanced bio- weapons “Ebola” and “Bug Spray” are next.”

The following text was submitted by two groups.  One is the IAEA, the United Nations nuclear watchdog group that has given us so much quality material over the past few months.  The remainder is from scientists at one of our nuclear weapons labs.

We have collectively taken it upon ourselves to inform the public of how real nuclear weapons work, how they are being used and what the future can expect.

Toward that end, for those who have not been following this series, please catch up where you can.  As much of this material is written by and for nuclear weapons designers, we are mixing input from sources of general interest with highly technical and often very classified material that few will understand thoroughly.

Our only goal with this series is to expand knowledge of the use of nuclear weapons, trends in development and limitations for deployment.


The U.S. military used neutron weapons in the Battle of Baghdad, says a former commander of Iraq’s Republican Guard. And at least one retired U.S. Army officer is backing up his charge.

In an April 9 interview reported by Al Jazeera, Saifeddin Fulayh Hassan Taha al-Rawi says that, “U.S. forces used neutron bombs during their assault on Baghdad airport before the April 9, 2003, capture of the Iraqi capital.”

The bombs incinerated about 2,000 elite Republican Guard troops but left the buildings and infrastructure at the airport intact, he added. (aljazeera.net)

The neutron bomb is designed to produce a minimal blast while releasing a massive wave of neutron and gamma radiation, which can penetrate armor or several feet of earth. This radiation is extremely destructive to living tissue. The bomb has been in the U.S. arsenal for decades but has never been used in combat before.

Writing on April 13 for the Danger Room blog at Wired, Hambling says that from the description al-Rawi gives in the Al Jazeera interview of a series of explosions that killed the occupants of buildings without destroying the structures, “Interestingly, there is a weapon in the U.S. arsenal designed to do exactly that. … The AGM-114N.”

Hambling continues, “On May 15th, 2003, just a few weeks after the action at Baghdad airport, Donald Rumsfeld praised the new weapon. … Although officially described as ‘metal augmented’ or even ‘hyperbaric,’ the new warhead is not distinguishable from thermobaric weapons which produce the same sort of enhanced blast with a lower overpressure and longer duration for more destructive effects. Like many thermobarics, the AGM-114N used finely powdered aluminum. The military are generally quiet about thermobarics because they have received such bad press. Human Rights Watch criticized them because they ‘kill and injure in a particularly brutal manner over a wide area.’ “

A BBC News article on March 4, 2002, said the U.S. was using thermobaric weapons in Afghanistan, and described how they employ a combination of heat and pressure, “distributing a very fine cloud of explosive material throughout the target which is then ignited. The heat and pressure effects are formidable—soldiers caught in the blast could have the air sucked from their bodies and even their internal organs catastrophically destroyed.”

“The best evidence that I have from international sources, scientific sources, is that our position was becoming untenable at the Baghdad airport and we used a neutron warhead, at least one. That is the big secret of Baghdad airport.

“If one looks into international data, there are reportings of enhanced radiation of some livestock, and of human metabolic effects—death and disease. It explains why, after the Battle of Baghdad, we got fragmentary stories of things like truckloads of dirt being moved out and moved in. It made no particular sense at the time, until one puts it into perspective, as a decontamination operation. Again, that part of the Battle of Baghdad, the fact that we went nuclear, explains a lot of things that came out afterwards and also explains why it is that it had to be covered up.”

Whether it was a neutron bomb or the AGM-114N, the Pentagon used some sort of Weapon of Mass Destruction on Baghdad airport.


Note by Glenn: Gordon Duff goes over the missing mini nukes and how some of them were used by Israel to take down the twin towers on 9/11.  In retaliation the US Navy sank two Israeli submarines.  This is discussed in this interview.



(Article continues)

The complete fusion of 6 grammes of deuterium and about six grammes of tritium would produce an explosion of one kiloton. 56 grams of plutonium are necessary to create a one-kiloton fission reaction

The power of the nuclear reaction derives from the fact that the “fast neutrons” emitted in a thermonuclear reaction create more energy than neutrons produced in fission. Frank Barnaby notes that “the neutrons produced during the fusion process have much greater energy than fission neutrons.

On average, each deuterium-tritium fusion event produces 14 MeV of free neutron energy, compared with 3 MeV for each fission event.” Moreover, “fusion is a more efficient explosive process than fission. The complete fusion of, for example, about 6 grammes of deuterium and about six grammes of tritium would produce an explosion of one kiloton.” By comparison, about 56 grams of plutonium are necessary to create a one-kiloton fission reaction.

The deadly effects of the explosion are created both by heat, blast and neutron radiation. According to Barnaby, within a 500 meter radius of a one-kiloton ER blast, everything would simply disappear (primarily from heat and blast effects). Within one kilometer (KM), there would be immediate incapacitation and early death (within hours from the neutron and gamma radiation) for all exposed individuals.

Within two KM of ground zero, there would be severe radiation sickness, and most exposed individuals would die within a few weeks. It might be emphasized that these effects would result from use of a warhead one-fifteenth to one-twentieth the yield of the devices used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki (1KT) and that outside the immediate heat and blast area (the 500-meter radius), very little collateral damage would occur.

These weapons are thus very lethal. “A neutron bomb would have the same radiation (neutron)-killing capability, at a given range, as a ‘normal’ nuclear weapon of about five times the explosive power.” If delivery capabilities allow it, the weapons can be used highly selectively.

At the same time, since fusion produces no residual radiation, “the cleanest bomb would be a fission-fusion bomb with the minimum amount of fission necessary to trigger the thermonuclear reaction.”


Much more information in original article here: