"In those first minutes, they’ll be stunned. Eyes fixed in a thousand-yard stare, nerve endings numbed. They’ll just stand there. Soon, you’ll notice that they are holding their arms out at a 45-degree angle. Your eyes will be drawn to their hands and you’ll think you mind is playing tricks. But it won’t be. Their fingers will start to resemble stalactites, seeming to melt toward the ground. And it won’t be long until the screaming begins. Shrieking. Moaning. Tens of thousands of victims at once. They’ll be standing amid a sea of shattered concrete and glass, a wasteland punctuated by the shells of buildings, orphaned walls, stairways leading nowhere. This could be Tehran, or what’s left of it, just after an Israeli nuclear strike."And later:
"An Israeli attack on the Iranian capital of Tehran using five 500-kiloton weapons would, the study estimates, kill seven million people -- 86% of the population -- and leave close to 800,000 wounded. A strike with five 250-kiloton weapons would kill an estimated 5.6 million and injure 1.6 million, according to predictions made using an advanced software package designed to calculate mass casualties from a nuclear detonation. Estimates of the civilian toll in other Iranian cities are even more horrendous."Why would Israel be dropping five 250-kiloton weapons on Tehran again? Well, Turse would have us believe for no reason at all:
"Israel has never confirmed or denied possessing nuclear weapons, but is widely known to have up to several hundred nuclear warheads in its arsenal. Iran has no nuclear weapons and its leaders claim that its nuclear program is for peaceful civilian purposes only. Published reports suggest that American intelligence agencies and Israel’s intelligence service are in agreement: Iran suspended its nuclear weapons development program in 2003."So, why would Israel be nuking Tehran if in fact they don't have a nuclear weapons program? Even if they were, as close as I can tell no one is talking about using the nuclear option because it would involve another nuclear powers like Russia and China. Every estimation of a "military option" that I know would involve Israel and/or America bombing Iranian nuclear facilities which the last time I checked are not in the middle of Tehran. It's pretty clear that Turse is only promoting this "possibility" as a way to demonize Israel. At this point Turse moves into an estimation on attacks on Israel by Iran, and leaves out the tearjerking descriptions. How unsurprising.
He then spends most of his article describing how Israel has military superiority to Iran, while quoting more people about how "devastating" it would be if Iran were to be nuked (which again, no one is talking about doing). Then he moves into many paragraphs talking about Nagasaki, as if we don't already know about how bad nuclear attacks are by now.
And it's only after all of this that was learn Turse is basically scaremongering:
"“Currently, there is little chance of a true nuclear war between the two nations,” according to Paul Carroll of the Ploughshares Fund. Israel, he points out, would be unlikely to use nuclear weapons unless its very survival were at stake. “However, Israel’s rhetoric about red lines and the threat of a nuclear Iran are something we need to worry about,” he told me recently by email. “A military strike to defeat Iran’s nuclear capacity would A) not work B) ensure that Iran WOULD then pursue a bomb (something they have not clearly decided to do yet) and C) risk a regional war.”We'll see how the Huffington Post readership reacts to all this, now that they have been "primed" to hate Israel.