Despite some misinformation generated by the pentagon, devine strake is a projected test using conventional explosives (in this case ammonia nitrate and fuel oil) in order to provide data to support the developement of earth penetrating Nuclear weapons. Such weapons are designed to penetrate 4-20 feet into the earth before detonating there by creating shockwaves to collapse underground tunnel and bunker defences. A strake is a part of an airplane that adjusts airflow, and in the case of divine strake, refers to determining the minimal amount of energy needed to collape such a defensive structure. The two possible locations being considered for this test are above existing tunnel systems and the purpose of the test is to provide data that will allow military personel deploying such weapons to have confidence that the minimum amount of force will effective destroy a target with a minimum of collateral demage. The strategic justification of these weapons is based on the use of tunnel systems and bunkers by countries targeted by the Bush administration such as Iran and Korea, and the claim that weapons of mass destruction may be stored within such facilaties.
Currently the debate around Divine Strake are based on the question of nuclear fall-out, both that which would be generated by an earth penetrating warhead, as well as that which would be generated by the ammonia nitrate explosion if conducted in a sight where previous nuclear weapons test have been conducted. What seems over looked in this debate is that the primary data being gathered by Divine Strake is in support of a first strike tactical application of nuclear weapons. Examining the historical record of the Bush administration in the Iraq war, it is quite possible that a earth penetrating nuclear warhead may be deployed against a sight based on a false claim that WMD are involved. With the resulting explosion not only collapsing such a tunnel system, but also contaminating the location with dangerous radiation it seems unlikely that a false claim could ever be adequately or safely investigated. The historical result of a tactical deployment of nuclear weapons is that it would set a precedent that upsets the social and political tabboo against first strike nuclear deployment that has existed since the end of world war two and so increase the future possibility of a nuclear conflict and the horrors that would inevitably result from such conflicts. The results of a tactical deployment of nuclear weapons include both the possible exculation to a strategic deployment of nuclear weapons into the now classic Armageddon that would threaten human survival, as well as the more subtle threat of the effective use of the US nuclear arsenal to terrorize humanity to a level beyond that of any past despotism. I am aware that the mindset of most US citizens is such that they cannot see that second possiblity, but this is the same mindset that has allowed the US to launch aggressive military campaigns on the false pretence of defensive first strike actions. For an objective historical analysis americans need to come to terms with the reality that international law prohibites preemptive strikes, that the US government, with the support of both politcal parties, have violated those laws and that the acquiescence of american society to such crimes is rooted in a refusal to see the US as in the wrong. For most of the world, including US allies, it is a reality that the US goverment lied to it's people and the nations of the world about the existence of WMD's in Iraq. Because of the false information produced by the US media many americans still beleave those lies have been documented by proofs long since documented as false. What would be the reality today if an effective earth penetrating weapon had been deployed in Iraq against an alledged site of WMD's. Would it not be that the adminstration would have effective covered up it's lies by leaving it's claim immuned from safe investigation?
From it's earliest days the Bush administration, when the president pulled us out of the war crimes tribunal, up to today when the presedent seeks to legally redefine torture as employed in Guantanomo and in secret locations throughout eastern Europe, the Bush administration has worked to place itself and subsequent US leadership above international and national law. Establishing itself above the law is at the heart of the reality of despotism, and the mind set of US citizens to refuse to see the evil within the reality of our nation's foreign policy is what most allows our national leadership to persue such policies. If citizens of the united states truely wish to conduct a war on terror, that campaign must begin at home by combating the policies of aggression within our own foreign policy.