Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Loose Nukes Looming Near - by Captain Eric H. May

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 01:13 PM
Original message
Loose Nukes Looming Near - by Captain Eric H. May
Loose Nukes Looming Near
by Captain Eric H. May
Sunday Sep 9th, 2007 6:25 AM

Captain May is a former Army military intelligence and public affairs officer, as well as a former NBC editorial writer. His political and military analyses have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, the Houston Chronicle and Military Intelligence Magazine. For a list of his recent columns, refer to: http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/07/09/03/may.htm

<snip>

This week we learned that on August 30 the United States Air Force flew a B-52, locked and loaded with nuclear warheads, from North Dakota to Louisiana. This broke a military policy going back to the 1960s against such flights.

"I just can't imagine how all of this happened," said Philip Coyle, a senior adviser on nuclear weapons at the Center for Defense Information. "The procedures are so rigid; this is the last thing that's supposed to happen."

But it did happen, and we would not know about it at all had it not been for three Air Force officers, speaking under condition of anonymity, who Informed The Military Times about the event. And of course, everyone is trying to "get to the bottom of it."

So says the White House, which has lied about everything from 9/11 to Iraq to lead us into a global war for which the Neocons were planning well before the presidency of George W. Bush.

So says the Air Force, which just violated 40 years of policy without explanation, and states that it had no idea of the nukes were in the air over the United States for the duration of their flight.

So says Congress. "These reports are deeply disturbing," said Congressman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. "The American people, our friends, and our potential adversaries must be confident that the highest standards are in place when it comes to our nuclear arsenal." Everyone would be much more confident, I believe, if the Congress now promising to investigate the loose nukes were anything but the quislings that they have shown themselves to be, both before and after the Democratic election successes of 2006. They have made it apparent that there is really only one party in power: the War Party.

The presstitute media, to its credit, has not bothered to say that it will do look into, let alone report about, the loose nukes. In other columns I have explained that they are no longer even lapdogs, they are shameless lap dancers. They sit and squirm at the seat of power, proud to say that they have been embedded, ever willing to keep pulling tricks for treats.

So whom are we to trust from among the discredited list of our political, military and media leaders? If your answer to this question is "none of the above," then welcome to the Internet community of conspiracy theorists (like me) who aren't willing to accept official reassurances that all is well as airborne Armageddon takes flight over America for the length of the Mississippi River.

To take a single M-16 rifle from the arms room of a stateside military unit requires the permission of several military officials, along with numerous keys, combinations and codes. It is inconceivable to me, and to every other military veteran with whom I have spoken this week, that the loose nukes were a mere accident of oversight, or that the order to fly them came from any source other than the White House.

The official account of a slip up, parroted by the official media, is a transparent lie. The task for thoughtful and patriotic American citizens is to fathom the "why" behind the lie, and it comes down to a simple question: was the White House threatening to use the nukes or preparing to use the nukes?

<snip>

More: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/09/09/18446411.php

Can somebody give me a layman's explanation for a 'false flag'?

:shrug:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
1. the Air Force, which just violated 40 years of policy without explanation
the Air Force, which just violated 40 years of policy without explanation


To take a single M-16 rifle from the arms room of a stateside military unit requires the permission of several military officials, along with numerous keys, combinations and codes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. And There's This (with a DU mention):
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. And This, Which I Found In That, By Larry Johnson
Staging Nukes for Iran?

<snip>

Why the hubbub over a B-52 taking off from a B-52 base in Minot, North Dakota and subsequently landing at a B-52 base in Barksdale, Louisiana? Thats like getting excited if you see a postal worker in uniform walking out of a post office. And how does someone watching a B-52 land identify the cruise missiles as nukes? It just does not make sense.

So I called a old friend and retired B-52 pilot and asked him. What he told me offers one compelling case of circumstantial evidence. My buddy, lets call him Jack D. Ripper, reminded me that the only times you put weapons on a plane is when they are on alert or if you are tasked to move the weapons to a specific site.

Then he told me something I had not heard before.

Barksdale Air Force Base is being used as a jumping off point for Middle East operations. Gee, why would we want cruise missile nukes at Barksdale Air Force Base. Cant imagine we would need to use them in Iraq. Why would we want to preposition nuclear weapons at a base conducting Middle East operations?

<snip>

Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/09/05/staging-nukes-for-iran

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovuian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. Nukes are not a deterrent... our troops are down wind
of the Nuke dust in Iran not mentioning Saudis and other friends like Turkey

to drop nukes would contaminate all the oil wells and areas

its like Nuking ourselves

total madness and Israel will be affected too

radiation dust knows all
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rick Myers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. The weapons on the B-52 are not big city-busting bombs
They are a stealth precision weapon designed to dig in and destroy bunkers. Yes, there would be some fallout, but you'd be surprised how small the affected area might be...

Here's an example. I'm using San Francisco since most will be familiar with the layout of the city. A 5kt. device goes of in the center of the Financial District. The RED zone is complete destruction, 90% fatal. The BLUE zone is 80% destruction. YELLOW zone: Moderate damage to buildings causing some risk to people due to flying debris is caused by the blast wave in this region.



While this might seem huge by any normal standard of decency, it is tiny when compared to a 1 Mt. airburst weapon. It would obliterate the entire city out to 20 miles.

This is just to show that this particular weapon can be dialed down to what the Pentagon would lovingly call a 'precision strike.'


STILL A TERRIFYING WEAPON, one that should NEVER EVER be used, especially as a first strike weapon. Bush military doctrine ALLOWS for nuclear first strike.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backscatter712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. The W-80 warhead has variable "Dial-A-Yield" capability.
Depending on how much tritium is injected into the core before detonation, a W-80 can give you anything between 5kt and 150kt of boom.

Though if they were going to detonate a nuke in a U.S. city, I suspect they'd dial it down to the minimum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. You're wrong about the fallout. "Bunker busters" generate much more of it, not less.
None can dig itself deep enough to actually contain the explosion.
They'll blow HUGE craters, scattering much more radioactive crap
into the air than an airburst.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rick Myers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. The Fed of Am Scientists site claims
Edited on Sun Sep-09-07 06:22 PM by Rick Myers
The residue from a 'bunker buster' is the same as a ground burst of the same yield. Airbursts cause much more fallout.

"It is relevant to traditional nuclear weapons, potential terrorist attacks, and next generation nuclear weapons such as "Bunker Busters" or "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrators" (RNEPs). (Despite the name, "Earth Penetrators" will not penetrate far into hard rock and can be considered "surface" bursts when using the bomb calculator.)"


http://www.fas.org/main/content.jsp?formAction=297&contentId=367

Airbursts cause much more fire and debris. This produces more fallout. A bunker buster does kick up a shitload of fallout, but large parts of it fall back into the hole. The blast itself is not the only variable...

Here's an image of the same 5 kt. hit as an airburst.



Compare with ground burst elsewhere in this thread. I know this simulation does not include fallout, post attack, but it's clear more radiation is scattered from an airburst.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rene Donating Member (758 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-10-07 04:41 AM
Response to Reply #21
53. What about the discrepancy in press reports that 6 nukes were loaded and only 5 arrived ????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lazyriver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-10-07 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #9
60. Hmmm. I wonder what would happen to the price of crude
if all those oil wells were to become contaminated...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
azygous Donating Member (110 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
35. An awful thought has occurred to me
What if Cheny/Bush are planning a nuclear attack on Iran, not so much to destroy the country, but to use it as "shock" propaganda? Bush will be able to point to the nuclear devastation and say, "That could have been the U.S. if I hadn't taken steps to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons." Chilling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #3
40. Most postal workers don't carry nukes... (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zywiec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #1
25. "To take a single M-16 rifle from the arms room
of a stateside military unit requires the permission of several military officials, along with numerous keys, combinations and codes"

People actually believe this shit?

Usually any NCO in supply with the rank E-6 or above can single-handedly open an arms rooms anytime they want. "Numerous keys, combinations and codes?" What is he talking about????

That's the problem with so few people serving in the military. They fall for anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rick Myers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. The point is that even such a simple task requires paperwork.
Or computer data. You have to admit it's one thing for an E-6 in supply to open a locker and another to assign that weapon to an individual to take it 'off base.'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zywiec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. What paperwork does it take
for an NCO in supply to open the arms room, grab an M-16 and put it in the trunk of his car?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rick Myers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. That's simple theft.
That's not getting SIX nuclear tipped AGM-129s and loading them into combat position on a B-52. Then leaving them sitting on a ramp for 10 hours after getting to Barksdale.

You are comparing apples and hand grenades.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zywiec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. I was originally commenting on the ridiculous assertion in the OP
that to take a single M-16 rifle from the arms room required numerous keys, combinations and codes. Then of course you mentioned this simple task also required paperwork. Was that for comic relief?

Of course none of this is true. Anyone with access to the arms room can get a weapon and borrow it until the next 100% inventory that may not be for months.

As far as the hysteria about the nuclear missiles, I believe it was simple error. I worked in a nuclear unit for almost four years. Most of the people doing the work were between 18 and 26 years old and not exactly geniuses. Most of the time when we weren't working, we were out drinking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rick Myers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. I have similar experience, but we NEVER loaded nuke on a combat aircraft 'by accident!'
Your analogy does not hold up. Taking an M-16 from storage and loading nuke on combat aircraft are not the same thing.

I have to assume you can't comprehend the difference...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zywiec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. Did you even read the OP?
That is the source of my comments on the M16 arms room analogy. I didn't originate that comparison.

Of course your attack on my comprehension won't change the simple fact this was a mistake.

But please, continue to start several posts an hour with your expert knowledge of all things military. It's fascinating; really. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rick Myers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. Yes. I read the OP. I'm not trying to play expert... I'm trying to keep the story alive.
Edited on Sun Sep-09-07 09:22 PM by Rick Myers
I understand that there may not be all the checks, etc. from the OP, but you are the one that is making the analogy. Any E-6 could take an M-16 and keep it until the next inventory. That is NOWHERE NEAR THE SAME THING as loading 6 nuclear weapons on a B-52 and then leaving them on the tarmac for 10 more hours.

You might be able to 'lose a case of .762 but you are NOT going to MOVE a nuclear weapon without the two-man no alone zone rule. Does that apply to your M-16 locker?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sce56 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #32
42. I can tell you that losing an M16 is serious buisness and many a unit has been held in the field for
the loss of one weapon for many days to find out what happened to it all weapons are considered to be controlled! Yes a Supply Sgt or Armorer has access to the average arms room but the higher the level of ordnance the stronger the security! Just to work around nuclear weapons makes a person subject to Personal Reliability Program I have seen that even the medical records of those who handle nukes have PRP stamped on them in Red!

I can't wait for Jon Stewart tomorrow night! He has a lot to catch up on and I hope he covers this too!


Slim Pickens rides a nuke down in Dr Strangelove or How I learned to love the bomb.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/dod/dodd-5210_42.htm
SORT: 5210.42
DOCI: DODD 5210.42
DATE: 19930525
TITL: DODD 5210.42 Nuclear Weapon Personnel Reliability Program (PRP), May 25,
1993, ASD((C3I)), thru Ch 2, December 15, 1995

Refs:(a) DoD Directive 5210.42, "Nuclear Weapon Personnel Reliability
Program," December 6, 1985 (hereby canceled)
(b) Section 1408 of title 8, United States Code
(c) DoD Directive 1010.4, "Alcohol and Drug Abuse by DoD Personnel,"
August 25, 1980
(d) DoD Directive 5210.56, "Use of Deadly Force and the Carrying of
Firearms by DoD Personnel Engaged in Law Enforcement and Security Duties,"
February 25, 1992
(e) through (l), see enclosure 1

A. REISSUANCE AND PURPOSE

This Directive:

1. Reissues reference (a) to update policy, responsibilities, and
procedures for the management of the DoD Nuclear Weapon PRP.

2. Ensures the highest possible standards of individual reliability in
personnel performing duties associated with nuclear weapons and critical
components.

3. Requires the selection and retention of only those personnel who are
emotionally stable, physically capable, and who have demonstrated
reliability and professional competence. Individuals who do not meet or
maintain program standards shall not be selected for, or retained in, the
PRP or assigned duties associated with nuclear weapons.

B. APPLICABILITY AND SCOPE

This Directive applies to:

1. The Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments, the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff, the Unified and
Specified Combatant Commands, the Defense Agencies, and the DoD Field
Activities (hereafter referred to collectively as "the DoD Components").

2. DoD military and civilian personnel and contractor employees assigned
to PRP positions or in training leading to assignment to PRP positions.

C. DEFINITIONS

Terms used in this Directive are defined in enclosure 2.

D. POLICY

It is DoD policy that:

1. The Department of Defense shall support the national security of the
United States by maintaining an effective nuclear deterrent while
protecting the public health, safety, and environment. For that reason,
nuclear-weapons require special consideration because of their policy
implications and military importance, their destructive power, and the
political consequences of an accident or an unauthorized act. The safety,
security, control, and effectiveness of nuclear weapons are of paramount
importance to the security of the United States.

2. Nuclear weapons shall not be subject to loss, theft, sabotage,
unauthorized use, unauthorized destruction, unauthorized disablement,
jettison, or accidental damage.

3. Only those personnel who have demonstrated the highest degree of
individual reliability for allegiance, trustworthiness, conduct, behavior,
and responsibility shall be allowed to perform duties associated with
nuclear weapons, and they shall be continuously evaluated for adherence to
PRP standards.

4. Personnel who are selected to perform nuclear weapon duties shall be
assigned to designated PRP positions and that those positions shall be
occupied only by U.S. citizens or U.S. nationals. Examples of nuclear
weapon duty and designated PRP positions are shown at enclosure 3. Section
1408 of 8 U.S.C. (reference (b)) is the statutory basis for the
designation of individuals as "U.S. nationals."


5. The PRP does not apply to active duty, Reserve, and National Guard
units not possessing nuclear weapons, nuclear components, or Nuclear
Command and Control (NC2) systems and equipment unless certified by a,
Service inspection activity as a "nuclear capable delivery unit."

6. Although adherence to PRP procedures during the transition to war and
during wartime may be impractical, particularly in a combat theater, the
intent of PRP policy shall apply. In such circumstances, the Heads of the
DoD Components shall ensure that only the most reliable individuals are
selected to perform nuclear weapon duties.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Salviati Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
4. A "false flag" attack:
A false flag attack is a covert op carried out by an organization designed to look as if it were carried out by another group.

As an example, the plans in Operation Northwoods called for a number of false flag attacks to be blamed on Cuba in order to garner public support to take down Castro.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Thank You !!! - I Remember Reading About Operation Northwoods
Thanks again.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jhain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
6. I want to buy this man a beer!
or a car.......... or a mansion somewhere............
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
7. there are only THREE news stories on this at google!
three! omg what a fucking country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rick Myers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. Yet there are at least 15 mentions of this news story!!!
"Russia says bombers not flying with nuclear weapons"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070827/wl_nm/russia_bombers_dc

Ironically, this story broke 3 days BEFORE the B-52 incident.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #15
22. yes, I think the US government is suppressing this story
obviously it is pretty easy with our corporate owned media. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backscatter712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
8. This scares the hell out of me.
Edited on Sun Sep-09-07 02:54 PM by backscatter712
There's no way this B-52 transport of nuclear weapons could have happened by accident. Every step of the way when dealing with nukes, there's a bunch of chain-of-custody paperwork, orders-verification paperwork, locks, codes, etc. The Two Man Rule is always in effect.

It was ordered by the top. That's the only way this could have happened. And that scares the hell out of me - who knows what Bush and Cheney were up to when they ordered these nukes moved to Barksdale. And that's just what we do know about. Other nukes could have also been moved, and maybe even deployed. We'll probably only find out when we see a mushroom cloud on the news, followed by invasion of Iran, a draft, martial law, suspension of what's left of the Constitution.

If you'll excuse me, I'll be hiding in my basement, cleaning my guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
12. Great article
Shouldn't this story be receiving non-stop news coverage?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. In a society with a free press, it would be. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. I guess n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warren pease Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. "Shouldn't this story be receiving non-stop news coverage?"
Which is precisely why it isn't getting any at all.

Nervous assignments editors and TV newsotainment producers are pouring rum and cokes into Paris Hilton and giving her the keys to a new Porsche even as we speak. They'll be tracking her erratic progress with cameras blazing and, if the cops haven't busted her yet as deadline approaches, they'll call 911.

No need to bore the public with some complex nuke story that will exceed their 30-second attention spans when there's a real societal benefit to showing a little drunk celebrity cleavage.


wp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rick Myers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
13. Big K and R and thanks to WillyT for starting this thread...
Edited on Sun Sep-09-07 05:06 PM by Rick Myers
Some good info!!!

Here's a link to yesterday's thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1765351

Some good info there, as well...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Venus Dog Donating Member (419 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
14. Check out these "predictions" by FEMA
California Earthquake Could Be the Next Katrina

By Jia-Rui Chong and Hector Becerra, Times Staff Writers
September 10, 2005

U.S. Geological Survey seismologist Lucy Jones remembers attending an emergency training session in August 2001 with the Federal Emergency Management Agency that discussed the three most likely catastrophes to strike the United States.

First on the list was a terrorist attack in New York. Second was a super-strength hurricane hitting New Orleans. Third was a major earthquake on the San Andreas fault.

Now that the first two have come to pass, she and other earthquake experts are using the devastating aftermath of Hurricane Katrina as an opportunity to reassess how California would handle a major temblor.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-earthquake08sep08,1,2126004.story?coll=la-util-news-local&ctrack=1&cset=true

Funny, I never knew FEMA predicted the first two. Tinfoil anyone? :hide:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #14
23. 1. NYC 1993 attack & subsequent convictions. 2. NOLA for yrs a known concern re: hurricance hit.
Edited on Sun Sep-09-07 06:42 PM by Garbo 2004
They dodged hits before, but the vulnerability of NOLA was known and the need for better preparedness & response.

3. Major earthquake on San Andreas. Not exactly a possibility below the public's radar. Not much predictive power needed for this one. The New Madrid fault also could wreak massive havoc if it let loose but the major US quakes in recent times have been in California.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rick Myers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
20. Nuclear Weapons and Me (or How I Spent my Summer Vacation)
Edited on Sun Sep-09-07 06:26 PM by Rick Myers
Having some time to reflect today, on this crazy nuclear weapons story, I thought I might try and document a bit of why I seem so connected to this story

I was born in 1957. Im told that when I was 3 or 4 I was riding in a car in my grandfathers arms when I pointed out the window to the crescent moon and said Look, the Russians stole our Moon

I was a child of The Cold War.

In the late 60s and early 70s my family took a yearly trip to Florida to visit friends and family. I was the navigator on those trips, so when Dad and I went to the AAA to get the yearly Triptych, the custom made map they used to provide, well, I always seemed to get two locations put into the trip.

One, obviously, was the Kennedy Space Center. I still have the response to a letter I sent NASA at age 10, and they politely told me that the blueprints for the Apollo spacecraft were not available

The other destination was the Atomic Energy Museum at Oak Ridge, TN. I was fascinated by the nuclear world, not just weapons, but also nuclear power. It was the promise of The Future. Swords into plowshares was the promise. My parents indulged me, and they would spend the day following me thru the exhibits and classes I would write to the AEC and get big piles of government booklets on nuclear energy.

When I graduated high school, I enlisted in the Air Force and ended up a Cold Warrior. Thats what they tell me, they gave us all an award a few years ago.

For most of my enlistment I served with the Alaskan Air Command, sometimes at remote sites that have all been shutdown since the Cold War is over.

We had F-4E Phantoms on alert, 24/7, and some days those planes launched 7 times to perform very real intercepts of Soviet aircraft. Sometimes they were no more than an old cargo plane, sometimes they were fighters. It was all a game.

They probe us, we probe them. Everyone at those bases knew very well that the Soviets were not half the threat they were being portrayed as to the rest of America. We knew their equipment was junk, and they didnt scare us one bit. But to get the budget numbers the Air Force wanted, they painted them as The Evil Empire.

No one at Galena, Clear or Shemya believed a word of it.

**************************************

Weve seen what nuclear weapons can do, and NO ONE EVER should be permitted to use them again.

Yet the Bush Doctrine claims to give the US the right to first strike use of nuclear weapons.

THIS SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED TO OCCUR, EVER!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemReadingDU Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. evening kick
Scary stuff, thanks for the updates
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Fire Donating Member (588 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #20
37. Yes, we have seen what nuclear weapons can do.
But it's been a long time, and Americans can have such short memories. If not, the memories of Viet Nam would have been the roadblock to stop the Iraq invasion. And likewise, Americans can have selective memories. Perhaps too many remember learning that we won WWII with nuclear weapons, and now consider them our trump card in this 'War on Terror' (which in Bushcoese, translates as 'corporate sponsored warfare).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"History shows again and again how Nature points out the folly of man.......Godzilla!" -- Blue Oyster Cult
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since when has the Bush regime asked for permission for anything they do?:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :scared: :scared: :nuke: :nuke: :hide: :hide: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 08:52 PM
Response to Original message
31. from wiki:
False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy's strategy of tension.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 09:16 PM
Response to Original message
34. So did he or didn't he give the orders? Will not ANY Dem in Congress demand to know??
".... It is inconceivable to me, and to every other military veteran with whom I have spoken this week, that the loose nukes were a mere accident of oversight, or that the order to fly them came from any source other than the White House."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WileEcoyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. It was an intentional leak
Either that or there is a lot of dissent and disorganization within the armed forces.

The object of a story like the lost nukes making the press can only be seen as a huge mistake in keeping their secrets secret. Either that or an intentional "leaking" of information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rick Myers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. The information was 'leaked' to the Military Times, owned by Gannett
The Pentagon doesn't discuss these incidents. There are accident reports going back to the 50's that describe incidents where the actual location is still unknown.

It was a 'leak' of information. For what reason? A warning?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WileEcoyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. A warning to Iran
However an implicit threat such as the leaked knowledge of nukes going to a way station to the Middle East hardly seems wise diplomatically.

My guess is that some figures in Iran would prefer that the U.S. was perceived as even more of a bully. That said threats of nuclear blasts or the actual atrocities themselves tend to play into the hands of the Iranian leadership and Islamic Fundamentalists.

My guess is that these Iranian leaders would almost prefer to "take one for the team".

So the leaked threat was a really stupid idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rick Myers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. This is NOT about IRAN
This is about the breach of the most serious security protocols on the planet!

I have never mentioned anything about any attack on Iran or any other nation. Even Jamacia.

This is about the 'control protocols' used to keep the planet from total destruction.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WileEcoyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #41
45. Well I'm just speculating
As Roosevelt (Franklin) said: "Nothing in this town happens by accident".

Now there was a real Democrat!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheap_Trick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 10:27 PM
Response to Original message
43. if this had happened on Clinton's watch
he'd have been impeached again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rick Myers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. Heck, you KNOW this is Clinton's fault!!!
Dubya is juat a victim!!!

Meanwhile, Big Dick moves the big rusty levers of power in some secret bunker!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-10-07 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #44
46. That bunker has a name:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-10-07 12:08 AM
Response to Original message
47. K & R
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-10-07 12:30 AM
Response to Original message
48. Another dot...
I'm wondering if this thread sheds any light on our leak?

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuffleClaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-10-07 01:04 AM
Response to Original message
49. whatever happened it is downright scary
and i think the story is right about at least one aspect of the tale. only the white house could be behind what happened. for what reason we'll likely never know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sam Ervin jret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-10-07 02:21 AM
Response to Original message
50. Does anyone remember that break-in by the government of China into US "non-vital"intel?
odd timing isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
colorado_ufo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-10-07 03:39 AM
Response to Original message
51. Super post!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-10-07 03:58 AM
Response to Original message
52. Eric May is the Ghost Troop guy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Athenas.Shield
A suspect source. Not to say that wild guesses are always wrong, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Don1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-10-07 07:44 AM
Response to Original message
54. Here is What I Think
BushCo has changed internal Air Force policy in some way which makes it easier to confuse the missiles with warheads with the missiles without warheads. For example, he may now have declared that warheads can be present at Weapon Storage Areas for heavy bombers at any air base. (This would violate the START II treaty since such things would need to be stored 100km away in cases where non-nuclear heavy bombers were at such an air base). Or as another example, he may have the Air Force flying nuclear-capable heavy bombers with warheads around the national borders in secret. Yes, this would also be illegal. The point though is that these crazy people believe in black Ops, doing illegal secret authoritarian Homeland stuff, and that the Constitution is just a piece of paper. This is their ideology and so it is reasonable to think that BushCo has changed policy to be consistent with that ideology. We don't need an extravagant explanation like flying nukes to Iran or selling them to Columbia because it is explained better by lesser evils (for now). In any of the cases, though, it is imperative that Congress and the American people investigate how this happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peggy Day Donating Member (859 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-10-07 09:29 AM
Response to Original message
55. Doesn't anyone remember the animated film about how the bunker busters
wouldn't even work, and might release chemical toxins in the air?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emmadoggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-10-07 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
56. Please forgive my complete and utter ignorance of all things military...
and if this is a ridiculous question, please don't skewer me. But if this were truly a "mistake" for these nukes to end up at Barksdale, wouldn't there be some discussion or announcement of the fact that these nukes would be returned to their appropriate storage facility? If they're not supposed to be there, wouldn't they send them back? Or what would happen in a case like that, if it were truly an "accident"?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snappyturtle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-10-07 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
57. Kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KaptBunnyPants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-10-07 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
58. I wonder if they were going to hit an American city or just Iran.
This would be the "one bomb" that the Bush administration needs to finally dissolve the legislature and establish a military dictatorship. What better tool is there to use than an old relic war plane to transport a bomb that isn't supposed to be there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-10-07 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
59. USAirforce...now run by born agin zealots praying for the rapture....nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-11-07 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
61. Is this story fallin off DU's radar already? big KICK. Today. Tomorrow. The next day.
Now way should we let this be forgotten.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Feb 05th 2023, 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC