Nevada Weapons Testing Lends Credence to Hersh Claim

Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh caused a stir two weeks ago when he reported that the Bush administration was seriously considering using tactical nuclear weapons in a military strike against Iran. Hersh wrote:

The lack of reliable intelligence leaves military
planners, given the goal of totally destroying the
sites, little choice but to consider the use of
tactical nuclear weapons. "Every other option, in
the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave
a gap," the former senior intelligence official said.
"'Decisive' is the key word of the Air Force's
planning. It's a tough decision. But we made it in
Japan." . . .

The attention given to the nuclear option has
created serious misgivings inside the offices of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers
have talked about resigning.

Anonymous administration sources quickly dismissed Hersh's claim:

[F]our Pentagon, military, and administration
officials who participate in high-level deliberations
on Iran and who were granted anonymity to
speak candidly rejected the article's contention
that the Bush administration was considering
nuclear weapons in a possible strike against Iran.

But meanwhile, out in the Nevada desert, the Pentagon is pressing ahead with plans for a weapons test of unprecedented scale.

On March 31--prior to the publication of Hersh's article and while the nation was focused on issues other than Iran--the Pentagon announced plans to detonate 700 tons worth of explosives in a 36-foot deep hole in the Nevada desert. The test, code-named "Divine Strake," will take place on June 2 and will be the largest open-air chemical explosion ever. The Pentagon told the Washington Post:

The test is aimed at determining how well a
massive conventional bomb would perform
against fortified underground targets -- such as
military headquarters, biological or chemical
weapons stockpiles, and long-range missiles --
that the Pentagon says are proliferating among
potential adversaries around the world.

The Post explained:

Such a bomb would be a conventional alternative
to a nuclear weapon . . . .

Or not. As the Salt Lake Tribune has reported:

While it will not be a nuclear explosion - no
nuclear or radioactive material will be used -
the Divine Strake blast will be fifty times
larger than the military's largest conventional
weapon, the Massive Ordinance Air Blast Bomb,
or MOAB, nicknamed the Mother of All Bombs.

Fifty times larger than the MOAB? Something doesn't add up here. As Indian blogger/journalist Vijainder Thakur points out, the largest cargo plane in the world has a maximum payload of 250 tons, so there is simply no way that a 700-ton bomb, even if we managed to build one, could ever be used against a real target. The very idea is totally ridiculous.

So what is the Pentagon really doing? Well, according to the Federation of American Scientists--as reported in the Las Vegas Sun--this test is "intended to simulate a nuclear blast as part of Pentagon research into development of low-yield nuclear weapons."

This claim is backed up by Pentagon budget documents unearthed by the Salt Lake Tribune. According to the documents, the purpose of the test is to "develop a planning tool to improve the warfighter's confidence in selecting the smallest proper nuclear yield necessary to destroy underground facilities while minimizing collateral damage."

How has the Pentagon responded to these documents? The Las Vegas Sun reports:

Spokesmen for the Defense Department's Defense
Threat Reduction Agency, which is planning the
700-ton, June 2 blast at the Test Site, do not deny
that the test was described last year as a
planning tool for development of a tactical nuclear
weapon.

The Defense Threat Reduction Agency says the
test is not now, however, directly related to Iran
or to a nuclear program. Irene Smith, agency
spokeswoman, said that a funding request last
year contained language now considered
obsolete. That request said the test would help
find "the smallest proper nuclear yield
necessary to destroy underground facilities."

"The 700-ton explosive size was selected to
cause a desired spectrum of damage to the
facility," the agency said in a statement
Monday.

"The explosive amount represents no specific
weapon, nuclear or conventional. War-fighters
can use the models for their planning . . . One key
objective of our research is to determine the
potential for future, non-nuclear concepts."

But this assertion strains all credulity.

John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org,
another organization that has been critical of
the administration's weapons policies, found the
agency's claim that the test would simulate
multiple conventional detonations particularly
unrealistic.

Such a real-world effort would require dozens,
perhaps hundreds, of aircraft or missiles
delivering warheads all at the same spot,
designed to go off at exactly the same time, to
achieve the same blast yield as the Test Site
exercise, Pike said.

"I have no problem with them doing this test,
but my B.S. detector has gone off the scale," Pike
said. "It's bizarre. It insults my intelligence."

The Pentagon is clearly using conventional explosives to conduct a simulated nuclear test. They're trying to find out how big a "bunker-busting" nuclear weapon would have to be to get the job done. This test has absolutely nothing to do with building or testing conventional weapons, as the Pentagon is disingenuously asserting. The Pentagon's own documents make this clear.

In light of Sy Hersh's reporting, I find it incredible that the major news outlets have not picked up on this story. But for the reporting of the Las Vegas Sun and the Salt Lake Tribune (and some intrepid bloggers), no one would know anything about this.

This test clearly lends credence to Hersh's story. Clearly the folks at the Pentagon are devoting significant attention to fine-tuning our nuclear "bunker-busting" capabilities. I doubt they would go to all this trouble if the nuclear option were not still on the table.

(A big hat tip to Dave at the Disenchanted Idealist for bringing this story to my attention. Dave has an excellent post on this subject at his blog, so if you've made it this far, go read his post as well.)