Freedom Portal

Library => Conspiracy then and now. => Topic started by: dominique on April 03, 2006, 03:17:35 AM

Title: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on April 03, 2006, 03:17:35 AM
. . . from re-entry to impact . . . one minute.

Testing at the Kwajalein Atoll of the Peacekeeper re-entry vehicles, all eight fired from only one missile.
Each line, were its warhead live, represents the explosive power of twenty-five Hiroshima-sized (Little Boy) weapons.

Since the beginning of space exploration the atmospheric reentry of man-made artifacts has created what could be considered synthetic meteors.
The tragic breakup of the space shuttle Columbia was certainly the most widely viewed of these events.
( Columbia breakup

Equally compelling but far less widely known were the tests of the MIRVed "Peacekeeper" ICBM nuclear missiles at Kwajalein Atol in the Pacific. ("MIRV" stands for Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicles"). In these tests up to ten simulated warheads effected simultaneous reentry, creating haunting geometrically organized synthetic meteor showers whose impact was magnified by the realization that this would be the visual precursor to nuclear annihilation.












Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on April 03, 2006, 03:23:27 AM
The New York Times
September 13, 1981, Sunday Book Review

Call It Suigenocide

MX Prescription for Disaster. By Herbert Scoville Jr. Illustrated. 231 pp.   
Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Cloth, $15. Paper, $6.95.


BACK in 1969 it was proposed to Henry Kissinger that the United States seek a ban on MIRV technology in the first round of strategic arms limitation talks (SALT) with the Soviet Union. MIRV stands for multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicle. MIRV is to missiles what Samuel Colt's six-shot revolver was to the cap-and-ball horse pistol. With a six-shooter, one man may shoot many men. With MIRV, one missile may shoot many missiles. This may seem a small and obvious improvement, but it had a large effect. MIRV destroyed the only genuine nuclear strategy we had - the idea of the perpetual standoff, the ''mutual assured destruction'' that made war unthinkable. MIRV was ''destabilizing.'' Accurate MIRV's reintroduced the idea of war - something you could win by being first with the most.

Back in 1969 only a few people saw this clearly. Henry Kissinger did not. He h as since publicly regretted not having paid closer attention. At the time, he was inclined to side with the Department of Defense, which saw MIRV as an advantage, something we had and the Soviets didn't. As a result SALT I was negotiated and signed without an agreement on MIRV, which the United States began to deploy on its Minuteman and Poseidon missiles in 1970. There are no secrets in the world of strategic arms. The Soviets knew what we were doing. They began to deploy MIRVs in 1975. Now Soviet ICBM's with accurate MIRV's threat en - at least theoretically - the entire U.S. land-based missile force of 1,000 Minutemen and 52 Titans.

It would be hard to exaggerate the alarm this has generated in military and intelligence circles in Washington. It's not that the Pentagon thinks the Russians are working toward the moment when they can catch us on the ground in a bolt-out-of-the-blue surprise attack. But, in the sort of crises that might lead to war, they could - thus facing us with the awful choice of kissing our ICBM's goodbye, or preparing to launch on warning, which means, in effect, to launch when the computers tell us to. The problem is a genuine one, and it lends an aura of safety, simplicity and innocence to the long-ago days of single-shot missiles in hardened silos when there was simply no way for either side to destroy the weapons of the other.

The Department of Defense has a solution to the problem. It is the Missile Experimental, or MX - a large new missile, the biggest allowed us under SALT - each one equipped with 10 superaccurate MIRVs. The Air Force wants to hide 200 of the missiles among 4,600 protected shelters in Nevada and Utah. The Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger, is currently trying to decide if this is a good idea. The cost of the Air Force proposal has been variously estimated at up to $100 billion. The purpose of the proposal is to protect our landbased missiles against a Soviet surprise attack. The cause of the proposal is the failure to reach a SALT ban on MIRV technology in 1969, when there was still time. We might refer to this as the $100 billion misunderstanding.

There is a great deal more that might be said about the MX. It can all be found in Herbert Scoville's short lucid book ''MX: Prescription for Disaster,'' which is also the best and the most accessible introduction to the entire issue of strategic arms. I can think of no other single volume that so well captures the flavor of the debate, summarizes its main arguments and outlines its history, without forgetting what it's all about - the threat of war on a scale so awesome we ought to call it suigenocide. M r. Scoville is clear on this point: What we need is not a Band-Aid like the five-year MIRV lead, but a policy that offers ''security now and in the next century.'' This may seem overambitious, but nothing less will do. Men can never forget how to make nuclear weapons. We must learn to control them and - in all probability - to survive them for so long as the race shall live.

There are two basic styles in the discussion of nuclear war - the prophetic and the rationalist. Mr. Scoville is a rationalist. He has spent his entire life in one end or another of the weapons business, beginning with the nuclear weapons laboratory at Los Alamos in 1946 and including eight years with the C.I.A. (trying to keep track of what the Russians were building) and six years with the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. For the last decade he has been active with various private arms control efforts. He writes in the tone of one confident that man is a thinking animal, that a persuasive argument, clearly expressed, will carry the day against fear or bureaucratic inertia. This is a surprisingly hopeful view for a man who has spent so many years watching the arms builders achieve one technical triumph after another.

Mr. Scoville has two main arguments against the MX as proposed by the Air Force. The first is that it will not really be hidden. The Soviets can target 4,600 warheads on the 4,600 shelters and destroy them, just as they are rapidly approaching the point where they can destroy Minuteman now. Where is the sense in giving the Soviets reason for scrapping SALT limits and building 4,600 more warheads?

The second argument addresses a point even more troubling. The MX's 2,000 warheads will threaten the entire Soviet ICBM force - 1,400 launchers representing three-quarters of the Russian strategic forces. (United States ICBM's represent only one-quarter of our strategic forces.) In a crisis tipping toward war, the very existence of the MX will push the Russians toward a pre-emptive strike. Where is the sense in giving the Russians incentive for a desperate act in times of tension?

But clearly Washington is determined to build something. Mr. Scoville has sensible suggestions: Phase out land-based missiles entirely, put the MX on small submarines at sea and exercise restraint in its design (don't make it so accurate that the Russians have to do so mething to protect their ICBM's). These are breathtaking proposals. Take ICBMs away from the Air Force? Give MX to the Navy, which likes big nuclear-powered subs, not small diesel-powered craft? Voluntarily refrain from building superaccurate missiles, when the Russians are busy doing so? In the world of Washington these proposals are unthinkable, and Mr. Scoville knows it. But he believes in reason, he has exercised it powerfully in this sane little book, and the rest of us must hope his faith is well placed.


Thomas Powers is the author of ''The Man Who Kept the Secrets: Richard Helms and the CIA.'' He is currently writing a history of American strategic weapons.
Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on April 03, 2006, 03:27:31 AM

High altitude nuclear explosion
Bluegill Triple Prime shot, 1962, altitude 31 miles
Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on April 03, 2006, 03:34:31 AM

What an atomic bomb looks like in its first few microseconds of detonation   (

Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on April 03, 2006, 11:44:06 AM
What MIRV Warheads Look Like (


The above photo is of the warhead components to the Peacekeeper ICBM.

The LGM-118A Peacekeeper was a land-based ICBM deployed by the United States starting in 1986.
Under the unratified START II treaty, the missile was removed from the US nuclear arsenal in 2005,
leaving the LGM-30 Minuteman as the only type of land-based ICBM in the US arsenal.

The Peacekeeper was a MIRVed missile: each rocket could carry up to 10 re-entry vehicles,
armed with a 300 kiloton W-87 warhead/MK-21 RVs
(twenty-five times the power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima during World War II).

Ten x 25 Hiroshimas

Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on April 03, 2006, 11:55:35 AM
Peacekeeper ICBM Cold Launch Sequence









These and other photos:

Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on April 03, 2006, 12:01:40 PM

From Launch to Impact . . . 34 1/3 Minutes. (

Vandenberg AFB, California, USA to the lagoon of Kwajalein Atoll, Marshall Islands = 7,000 miles

Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on April 03, 2006, 04:03:37 PM

Nuclear weapon programs worldwide (


World map with nuclear weapons development status represented by color.

Red:  Five "nuclear weapons states" from the NPT. (United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France and People's Republic of China).

Dark Orange:  Other known nuclear powers. (India and Pakistan).

Yellow:  States suspected of having possession of, or suspected of being in the process of developing, nuclear weapons and/or nuclear programs. (Israel, North Korea and Iran).

Purple:  States which at one point had nuclear weapons and/or nuclear weapons research programs. (Argentina, Australia, Ukraine, Belarus, Brazil, Egypt, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Libya, Poland, Romania, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Republic of China (Taiwan) and Yugoslavia).

Green:  Other states capable of developing nuclear weapons within a short amount of time. (Canada, Germany, Japan, Italy, Netherlands, Lithuania and Saudi Arabia).

Grey:  States which are not believed to have nuclear weapons, nor the capability of developing them quickly.

Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on April 03, 2006, 04:05:54 PM


For more information:
Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on April 03, 2006, 04:31:12 PM

:o  :o  :o  :o  :o  :o 

. . . Try our new . . .

Bomb-A-City Calculator (

Pick an American city.
Pick the size of the bomb you wish to detonate virtually (1 kt to 4 MT).
Choose your method of delivery (aircraft or automobile/suitcase).
Then see the radius within which most buildings would be destroyed.

other interesting resources:

Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on April 03, 2006, 05:57:05 PM
The Minuteman ICBM Warhead/MIRV (

The Titan ICBM Warhead/MIRV (
Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on April 03, 2006, 06:00:25 PM
Northrop to replace ICBM reentry vehicles

Mar. 31, 2006 at 12:10PM

Northrop Grumman will begin production of re-entry vehicles that will replace the nuclear armament on the U.S. Minuteman III ballistic missile fleet.

      The $135 million contract announced Friday is part of the Safety Enhanced Re-entry Vehicle (SERV) program that swaps out the Minuteman's current reentry vehicles with those from decommissioned Peacekeeper missiles.

      The project will equip the Minuteman III with a single Mk 21 reentry vehicle that has capabilities superior to those of the ICBM's current W78 vehicle. All 500 vehicles are expected to be refitted by 2011.

      The Mk-21/W87 is a 300-kiloton weapon that packs a slightly smaller thermonuclear punch than the W78, but is considered to be more accurate and more flexible in its targeting.

      The SERV program is one of eight ICBM modification projects under way and managed by Northrop Grumman.

      Northrop said it was given the full-rate production contract following a third round of flight testing in February in which modified hardware and software was successfully integrated with the Minuteman's existing weapons system.

      "The significance of this third flight test is that it also demonstrated the successful integration of every major Minuteman III modernization and life-extension effort managed by Northrop Grumman, such as the guidance and propulsion and command center upgrades," said company Vice President John Clay. (
Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on April 06, 2006, 01:57:30 PM
The Challenges of Avoiding Nuclear Holocaust


Interviewed by John M. Whiteley

Quest for Peace Video Series

Sydney Drell is Professor and Deputy Director of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and Co-Director of the Stanford Center for International Security and Arms Control. He is the recipient of the prestigious MacArthur Prize. Today he shares some of his central views on the quest for peace.

Whiteley: Professor Drell, you`ve written that however difficult the path in our slow evolutionary voyage, we must catch up with the nuclear revolution, and the sooner the safer. What are you trying to share with us?

Drell: Well what I`m saying there is that with the transition to nuclear weapons we have increased the destructive energy release in our bombs by factors of a million, and we`ve turned each weapon into a weapon of mass destruction. We`ve come to the point that with weapons of this enormous destructive potential, and with the numbers that now exist in the world (altogether more than fifty-thousand nuclear weapons), we have reached the point that we can literally destroy the conditions for human survival. We certainly have reached a point of being able to destroy the civilization built through the centuries by human genius and sweat, and we`ve brought into question the survival of the human race. This is a revolution. Nuclear weapons now are so destructive that we can kill ourselves, and it seems to me that while we have to develop a new way of resolving our disputes as people, we have to develop a new understanding of what these weapons can and cannot do and how they threaten us, to see to it that for the first time in history we won`t use weapons that we have created.

Whiteley: You`ve written and quoted George Frost Kennan that the whole concept of advantage is simply not relevant anymore.

Drell: Well that`s because I believe that nuclear weapons are not weapons of direct military value; they are weapons of no direct military value. They have a single purpose: to deter the use of nuclear weapons by others, and this is in contrast to previous periods where when one went to war, victory usually resulted by first exhausting your enemy, and then defeating them. We are now in a condition where I believe (President Eisenhower first said this back in the middle 1950s) that war is no longer possible; we have reached a point where war now becomes the destruction of the enemy and suicide. These were his words. And so as long as we both have now many thousands more than 20,000 each, speaking of the two Superpowers (the Soviet Union and the United States) which have more than 99% of the world`s weapons (about that percentage), we`ve reached a point where going to war may very well mean committing suicide. We both have much more than necessary to deter an opponent by physically having the capacity to destroy in a retaliatory strike, and on this level, one is to ask how much is enough? Is there an advantage to having more weapons when we both can have so much overkill? I can see prudent planning for a stable deterrent posture in the world. Prudent planning to have stability in our strategic relationship, particularly in time of crisis, calls for us to have weapons that we can have confidence in, that they cannot be destroyed in a preemptive strike, that they are secure, they can survive an attack on them, so that we know, and a potential attacker knows, that he risks unacceptable damage to himself in retaliation for a first-strike.

Whiteley: This is the fruits of development since World War II that the fabric of civilization is at risk, and it raises the question of the uses of scientific knowledge. But the involvement of scientists, as you`ve written, from Archimedes to Michelangelo to the present in making war is nothing new, but you describe as in a Faustian dilemma now. What do you mean?

Drell: Well, I would say that scientists who leave their laboratories and their research institutes and enter into the public domain, advising, participating in military planning and thinking, have always made somewhat of what I would call a `˜Faustian bargain.` We leave our laboratories where we have our expertise, where we have confidence in the fixed laws of nature; we come out into the world where the political laws, the political climate changes, where we`re not trained experts but we are dealing with the political forces, and where the consequences of what we are doing sometimes cannot be perceived or, in fact, may be results which we don`t approve of.

I always have in mind the poignant picture of my good friend Andrei Sakharov, now in his exile in the Soviet Union in Gorky. He made his Faustian bargain when in the 1940s, when he finished his studies, he contributed so crucially to the development of the Soviet hydrogen bomb on a premise. His premise was that the world would be safer if there were a socialist bomb to balance the capitalist bomb, as he said. But then he grew over the next fifteen years to realize that what he had helped create was in a certain sense a monster out of control, as his government created more weapons, continued testing in the atmosphere, threatening the help of peoples, and he could not support this policy anymore. So in fact he became disillusioned, he opposed the system. He now is rejected by the system. We, of course, closer to home, have the tale of a Robert Oppenheimer who created a weapon, but then society rejected him and didn`t trust him. So we take risks when we go out into the world as scientists; we make the bargain. What makes the situation so poignant now, so dangerous now, is that we are dealing with cosmic forces when we`re dealing with nuclear weapons. We`re dealing with energy releases that are so great that the danger to mankind as a result of the weapons we`ve created is much greater than before, and as I say at the offset, even raises questions about the survival of mankind, and certainly of our civilization.

Whiteley: Well here`s where you`ve drawn on C. P. Snow`s observation about the bizarre occurrence in an advanced technological society where the people most affected by decisions are not privy to the debates, and the decision-making by a handful of people that fatefully affect us all. What`s the proper role of an informed public opinion at this time in our history?

Drell: Well, I think that in view of the enormous danger posed by nuclear weapons, particularly in a world armed at the level we are now, it is a very major burden of responsibility on an informed public to think our way through the challenge and see how best we can meet it. I think it`s a responsibility of very great proportions because I think the number one challenge we face as a civilization today is to avoid a nuclear holocaust. We have weapons. In the past, history shows that every weapon that has been created has eventually been used, and yet we now sit in a world with more than 50,000 nuclear weapons which, if used, in large part will alter the conditions of survival. So the challenge, the dangers have never been greater, and I think it is the responsibility of thinking people, of informed people to address the difficulty as best they can. One does not have to be a nuclear physicist to face these problems; in fact the problems are by and large political problems. But one has to understand the danger posed by these weapons; one has to therefore address the challenge of how to develop means of resolving our differences without resorting to weapons. If they are, as President Eisenhower said, `˜weapons of suicide` they are not legitimate means anymore for us to resolve differences. And this is obviously a very great challenge, but it`s one in which I think there`s hope we will succeed. Because as I look at the history of the nuclear era since 1945, I see that public constituencies have been created that have had a significant effect on our policy in dealing with nuclear weapons.

Whiteley: As a prelude to thinking about current issues before our democracy, I would like to ask you to reflect back on several key and fateful decisions, and share with us what you would have us learn from them. Let`s start with the decision to proceed with the development of the hydrogen bomb.

Drell: Well that`s a very good example because in the early 1950s we faced this fateful decision, as did the Soviet Union. Now that is a decision that was made by a small group of people - scientists, government leaders `” and it was made behind closed doors. The public was not part of that debate. I have no notion that we could have prevented the development of the hydrogen bomb. What I`m referring to here is that first we had the A-bomb, the atomic bomb, such as destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The hydrogen bomb uses that A-bomb as a trigger, and has destructive energy releases up to a thousand times greater. Now, was it necessary to take that step? Might we have negotiated in the face of the enormous danger, evil of such weapons? Might we have negotiated to avoid taking that step? I don`t know. The relations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union then in the Cold War were not relations that make one optimistic that we might have had constructive negotiations, but we never tried. The people never were involved in the discussion, the public at large of either country. Several leaders decided to go ahead unilaterally, and we made this fateful decision to go ahead. We lost what might have been an opportunity, however slim, to try and head off the development of hydrogen bombs. The scientists involved, as we now know from the unclassified record, Oppenheimer, Ferme, Rabe, all the great scientists involved (and the senior statesmen then) questioned whether it might be possible to avoid this step, but there was no public debate. There was no diplomacy, no effort through diplomacy with the Soviet Union; we lost an opportunity to head off that escalation and destructive power.

Whiteley: Let`s take a second example, the ban against atmospheric testing and the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty.

Drell: Those are two distinct examples; let me take them because they`re very important. In the late 1950s, 1960 time-frame we had been testing (the United States and the Soviet Union) many `” had been making many tests in the atmosphere, generating atmospheric fallout, increasing the background radiation, and I think (led by scientists realizing the consequences of the fallout) there was a growing perception that continued atmospheric testing created a very major environmental problem. I`m not talking about an arms control problem, but an environmental problem. The question was being raised `˜is this fallout good for our families, for our friends, for our children?` And I think with a large public interest aroused, coupled with studies made by scientists themselves as to how far the bomb development had gone, how far it could go, with what confidence could one verify that if there were a ban on testing nuclear explosions so that they were not tested any longer in the atmosphere, but perhaps only underground, we came to the Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty, so-called Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1962 when it was ratified.

Here I`d say that the element of the public in, shall I say, in encouraging, persuading governments to focus their attention on this problem and realize it was a problem of major concern to peoples around the world was an important ingredient in getting that Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty. I think that just shows that the role of the public can be effective, can be very important, as I think it was also in the second example you mentioned - the ABM negotiation and Treaty. Remember that in 1967-68 the United States began to make plans to deploy some ballistic missile defenses. The Soviet Union had already started making a limited deployment around Moscow, and we in this country (first a proposal by President Johnson, and then President Nixon) began to think of deploying the system. There what happened was that people, when they learned of this decision (and it was approved by the President) realized that in its original form this system was going to call for the deployment of nuclear-tipped defensive missiles; interceptors near the major northern cities of the United States to protect them. And citizens in the major northern cities - Boston, Detroit, Chicago and the like - woke up to the question of - to the fact, I should say - that there were going to be nuclear-tipped missiles, figuratively speaking, in their backyard, and this did not prove to be a very attractive idea.

This generated a public discussion. Out of that public discussion there were hearings, open hearings in the United States Congress about whether we should proceed in this direction; and out of this involvement of the public - not in a straight arms control issue, but in an issue - I`ll call it again an environmental one - `˜do we want nuclear-tipped interceptor missiles trying to defend against the intercontinental attacking ballistic missiles, nuclear warheads in our backyard?` Out of this debate there grew a far deeper understanding of two important issues: namely, the technical one of could this defense be very effective, or could it be countered technically by the offense; and two, what will be the impact of such a development on the arms race, on the prospects of reducing the risk of nuclear war, on stability? And this major debate in the United States, triggered by public hearings in the Senate, led us to recognize how futile was the quest for a ballistic missile defense of the nation, and indeed we ended up negotiating the ABM Treaty of 1972, which is enforced today; it`s a treaty of unlimited duration. I think it`s our most important arms control achievement. And I cite that along with the Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty as two examples when a public became a vital force in the discussion in our democracy, and I believe led us to take very constructive action.

Whiteley: Before proceeding to the issues before our democracy today, let`s take one final historical example: the decision to deploy multiple-independently targeted reentry vehicles.

Drell: So-called MIRVS, yes.

Whiteley: Would we be safer as a society today if there had been a public debate at the time of deployment and a determination, concert with an agreement with the Russians, not to move into this deployment?

Drell:  Unquestionably. Unquestionably, we would be safer. Much of the debate of recent years about the "window of vulnerability" that some people have for a period claimed that we are suffering now; much is debate about strategic stability, and whether it`s been challenged, has been the result of the build-up of MIRVs on both sides. The point is that a key to deterrence is the recognition by both of the Superpowers, as we face one another, that there can be no advantage to attacking first. With MIRVs, which are a multiplier - they make each missile with its many warheads, each of which can be aimed with precision on individual targets - they make it possible now for one attacking missile to, in principal, destroy many of the ICBMs and hardened silos of their opponent. And so it makes it possible to think that if you attack first, you can destroy enough of your opponents` retaliatory power that you might have an advantage. I find that very difficult and specious reasoning, because I think that there is no way in a first-strike to destroy the entire retaliatory power of the other side.

But nevertheless, our confidence in the survivability of our deterrent force has been reduced by the MIRV. The MIRV has tripled the number of intercontinental warheads in the world since we`ve started our arms control negotiation. They created the perceived need in this country for the MX missile, some way of beefing up our ICBM capability because of our fear that Minutemen near silos might be vulnerable to Soviet attack, because they MIRV. We`d be much better off had we agreed not to MIRV. But that`s an example where a decision was made without public debate. We were focusing on the ABM debate which was the most important first step to take, but there was no public pressure saying we don`t want MIRVs in the middle of Wyoming or North Dakota. There were no major political forces operating, and so without proper scrutiny we made a decision which Henry Kissinger said recently we`d be much better off if we hadn`t made. If he had understood then what he now understands (those were his words), we might not have MIRV`d. We didn`t make the serious effort. There was no political pressure. It was a military system that was easy to build, cheap to build - people went ahead and did it.

We`d be much better off if we scrutinized very thoroughly the implications of MIRV, of having MIRV. That`s a lost opportunity. That would have taken an arms control constituency. It was not an environmental question really. There were no population centers being affected, or existing missile silos were just having more weapons put on them instead of just one in the MIRV, and so it would have taken a real arms control constituency to have an effect on that debate, but we have one now. The very fact that programs like this are being made, the debate in the public which has surrounded issues like the MX, or whether Star Wars is a good thing or not; the issues that have been raised by the Catholic Bishops in their letter, by the Physicians for Social Responsibility, by the entire freeze movement. These issues are now before the public.

We have a public constituency, and so I personally have some optimism that as we move into the years ahead now, there`s a good chance that we will have a continuing and an informed public debate on the issue posed by continual weapons build-up, by the move toward Star Wars (or the Strategic Defense Initiative), or the move toward more weapons in space in general including any satellite weapons, and that a product of this informed debate may be a more carefully thought through policy, and therefore more prospect, I hope, for arms control success; but above all, improvement in our understanding of the dangers of these strategic weapons and therefore perhaps in reducing the risk that they might be used.

Whiteley: What would you have your fellow citizens think about on a number of issues currently before the democracy? Let`s take first the notion of whether defense is possible in the nuclear age, and particularly, is it possible with the Strategic Defense Initiative to make the world safer?

Drell: Well, I would have citizens think of two questions: One is, when one thinks about a defense, is the technical side. Can we achieve it; what can we do? And then the other side, I`ll call the political or strategic side, how will the effort affect stability and the risk of a war occurring? On the technical side a general public has a certain disadvantage. We`re talking about very sophisticated technologies that are coming along: the most advanced performances that can be achieved with very bright lasers, with very elegant optical systems that are huge, but are operating at their theoretical limit of perfection. And here, without being a scientist it`s somewhat difficult to know when you hear competing ones, which ones to believe. My own view is that one has to first listen to the arguments and not be put off by such statements as `˜there are secrets I can`t tell you. If you knew what I knew then you would agree with me.`

Whiteley: You`ve said that`s often an argument that `˜the emperor has no clothes.` What do you mean?

Drell: Well I mean that these issues with a little effort can be understood. Whatever system is being built is being built according to the laws of physics, and those are not classified or secret laws. I think with good common sense and effort one can understand the basic elements. For example, the Star Wars idea is to have many layers of a defense, each one less than perfect, but in their accumulated action, layer after layer, one would have a defense that is highly effective. Technically one can think of each component of that system: the sensors, the satellites that are going to acquire the targets, that are going to discriminate targets from decoys, that are going to focus the kill mechanisms. One can look at the kill mechanisms and see how bright a laser can be made. One doesn`t want to be a technical naysayer and say that each one of these elements can`t work. But remember, to have an effective defense of a nation, to put an astrodome over one, to make these weapons impotent and obsolete, this entire system of hundreds of platforms, hundreds of elements, the most advanced computers that have yet to be designed has to work perfectly the first time it`s turned on in a nuclear atmosphere.

I think that for a defense to lead to stability, to contribute to making the world safer it has to be - it has to proceed in a framework of restraint on the offensive weapons that we`ve achieved some progress in arms control. Without that restraint I fear that as one moves ahead with defense, and I`m speaking now about the imperfect defense because I think all recognize that`s all one can realistically talk about, as the defense proceeds, each side in order to preserve its deterrent is most likely to build up further offensive forces --countermeasures with more offenses and more penetration aids on the offenses. After all, that`s how the MIRV was born.

When we saw the first primitive Russian ABM around Moscow, we said quite properly, how do we protect our deterrent capability? and we MIRVd and the world is not safer as a result. If one is looking for a safer world with nuclear weapons I think the principle to be understood is that there`s no technological fix to our problem. The fix has got to proceed with improved diplomatic relations with progress in arms control. I think the path to a safer world has to start with serious dialogue, serious progress in arms control, which I hope we are returning to now. In such a framework where there are limits on the offenses, indeed not only limits but severe reductions, then it would be a wonderful challenge to try and figure out with the Russians and with all nuclear nations, how to proceed to a safer world in which we have an effective defense, and the threat of nuclear weapons is reduced to the point of being not as serious as it is today.

And I think that one has to start one`s way to a safer way with progress in arms control, with limits, with reductions in the offense, and a development of perhaps then of some means of making the transition from where we are today, with the terrible threat of more than 50,000 nuclear weapons, to a safer world.

Whiteley: Professor Drell, thank you for sharing with us today your insights into the way to a safer world and the role of an informed citizen toward a more peaceful world. (
Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on April 06, 2006, 07:53:29 PM
The Zero-Sum Game

Why the Bush administration's policy of 'preventative' engagement could make nuclear warfare a reality

By Peter Byrne

The year before George W. Bush became president, I saw a truly frightening Hollywood film. It was written and directed by Rod Lurie and starred Kevin Pollak as President Walter Emerson. The low-budget thriller culminated in a 10-minute monologue by the president explaining that he just dropped a hydrogen bomb on Baghdad to "deter" Saddam Hussein. This was not Dr. Strangelove, not an antiwar movie`”this was a real argument for nuking millions of Iraqis to serve a political end.

The movie was called Deterrence, but it should have been called In Cold Blood since it argued "logically" that protecting American business interests abroad justifies the vaporization of a city. Lurie's polemical art extolled the use of nuclear weapons to wage "preventive" warfare, which has replaced the concept of "mutually assured destruction" in the lexicon of those who think the unthinkable.

Fast-forward six years to the living room of Daniel Ellsberg, the whistleblower who gave the top-secret Pentagon Papers to The New York Times in 1969, thereby exposing the Vietnam War as a dirty, aggressive affair that had nothing to do with liberating the Vietnamese, and everything to do with securing Southeast Asian markets for corporate America. For three hours, the septuagenarian Ellsberg regaled me with an eyewitness account of debates about the meaning of deterrence inside the nuclear warfare complex from Eisenhower to Nixon.

During the Cold War, Ellsberg worked as a "game theorist" for the Rand Corporation and, then, at the Department of Defense as a high-ranking official developing nuclear attack options. At Rand, he used the statistical methods of game theory`”which purports to describe how "rational" people act when confronted with rational choices`”to show that it was irrational to develop nuclear first strike capabilities against the Soviet Union. Ellsberg's math demonstrated that manufacturing attack missiles capable of destroying Soviet missiles would achieve the opposite of deterrence: It would encourage the Soviets to bomb us before we bombed them, so we should bomb them before they bombed us, ad infinitum. His recommendation to concentrate on planning how to survive an attack, and being able to retaliate proportionately, was ignored by civilian and military policy makers who, as Eisenhower famously pointed out, were more interested in making money and manufacturing arms than in avoiding Armageddon.

Ellsberg makes a distinction between "pre-emptive" warfare, which is the policy of planning to strike an enemy when you know it is about to strike you, as opposed to "preventive" warfare, a medicinal-sounding term which pleads self-defense as an excuse for aggression. The United States has long practiced preventive warfare`”short of employing its nuclear option`”in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Iraq and covert actions galore.

Ellsberg points out that, like his predecessors, President Clinton approved of pre-emptive warfare and the "first use" of nuclear weapons as an instrument of foreign policy. But President Bush and his neoconservative advisers are the first leaders to publicly favor preventive use of nuclear weapons against perceived threats to American business interests. And they have reconfigured the Pentagon's war plans to that end. According to the nonpartisan Arms Control Association, based in Washington, D.C., Bush is ready to preventively deploy strategic and tactical nuclear weapons against all enemies (including stateless terrorists). The Pentagon's CONPLAN 8022-22 does not differentiate between the battlefield use of conventional and nuclear weapons, except as to their effectiveness in destroying targets.

Ironically, Bush's Joint Doctrine for Nuclear Operations accepts Ellsberg's Cold War analysis that deterrence will not work when your enemy sees you arming for a first strike. According to the Arms Control Association, "The new doctrine appears to be precipitated by anticipation among military planners that deterrence will fail and U.S. nuclear weapons will be used in a conflict sooner or later." In other words, maintaining peace through deterrence is no longer our official goal; instead we will wage aggressive wars, including nuclear wars, on the political basis of deterrence.

The Bush doctrine identifies two basic scenarios for nuclear aggression by the United States: An adversary "intends" to use weapons of mass destruction against ... anybody ... as determined by the president ... or a field commander. Or as a demonstration of U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversaries. Suddenly, just like in Lurie's movie, deterrence is synonymous with preventive attack. Ellsberg points out that, now that the Soviet threat is vastly diminished, the American public is much more inclined to accept the first strike use of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction by the United States, since it is unlikely that the practically defenseless countries we typically bomb can retaliate.

The Congressional Research Service reports, "[T]he possible preemptive use of nuclear weapons against nations or groups that are not necessarily armed with their own nuclear weapons [is] a striking change in U.S. national security policy, with the United States possibly contemplating nuclear use early or at the start of a conflict, rather than in response to actions taken by an adversary."

China, North Korea, Syria, Iran and Russia (if it re-emerges as a superpower) are our prime targets. "Not only would these nations receive no security benefit from the absence of nuclear weapons in their arsenals, they might also conclude that they could only deter a U.S. attack if they were to acquire their own nuclear weapons."

Not interested in nuclear disarmament and peace, Bush abrogated several decades' worth of nonproliferation treaties and policies in his first term. Recently, in an act that is widely viewed as incompetent, even insane, he overtly sided with nuclear India against nuclear Pakistan and nuclear China`”throwing kerosene into the fire of the nuclear arms race.

Our United Nations ambassador John Bolton recently told a meeting of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee that the United States must be prepared to "use all the tools at our disposal to stop the threat that the Iranian regime poses." Vice President Cheney told the same group, "We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon." These remorseless neocons are clearly eager to "deter" Tehran with a hydrogen bomb. On the other hand, nuking Iran, which is not even close to building one atom bomb, would be a profoundly irrational act that would focus the righteous hatred of the world's people upon America.

Leaders of emerging industrial markets in the Third World could employ game theories, too, to figure out the best way to respond to the belligerence of the United States. The most well-known games are zero-sum games, in which the winner takes all. For example, Bush is playing a zero sum game in which the fate of the world seems to count as nothing against the short-term profits of Halliburton, Exxon, AT&T, Citicorp and the Carlyle Group.

In more rational games, though, winners are rewarded for cooperating with each other and committing altruistic acts. In fact, the successes of natural selection in biology and socioeconomic cooperation between humans can be modeled by game and probability theories that demonstrate the efficacy of cooperation over competition. In the end, Bush's enemies (who are not the enemies of the American people) will probably be forced to cooperatively arm themselves with nuclear bombs so as to cooperatively deter us from deterring them. (
Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on April 07, 2006, 11:20:10 AM
General Research Sites (will continue to add to):

Fifty Facts About US Nuclear Weapons (

The Nuclear Weapons Archive (

Natural Resources Defense Council - Archive of Nuclear Data (

Los Alamos Study Group (

Documentation and Diagrams of the Atomic Bomb (

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace - Proliferation News (

The World's Nuclear Arsenals (CDI) (

Trinity Atomic Web Site (
Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on April 09, 2006, 01:47:14 PM
We are hearing a lot these days about possible use of "mini-nukes" as "bunker busters" in the probable upcoming attack by the USA on Iran. Here are some background info sites on "mini-nukes":

Mini-Nuke Fact Sheet (complete with link to informative PDF) (

Nuclear Bunker Busters, Mini-Nukes, and the US Nuclear Stockpile (

Mini-Nukes, Bunker Busters, and Deterrence: Framing the Debate (

Mini-Nukes on US Agenda (BBC) (

Bombs Away?.... (

How Bunker Busters Work (

Nuclear Bunker Busters: What`s the Damage? (

More info on mini-nukes, esp. the Dial-A-Yield feature:;jsessionid=KJJXF1YHYAD33QFIQMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0
Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on April 14, 2006, 07:28:04 PM
MIRVs, De-Classified

A summary of a full HTML page-by-page breakdown of de-classified information on MIRV technology (

Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs)

Document one:"MIRV: A BRIEF HISTORY OF MINUTEMAN and MULTIPLE REENTRY VEHICLES" by Daniel Buchonnet, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, February 1976

Released through FOIA request to Defense Department, June 1997

At the request of the National Security Archive, the Department of Defense has released the only known classified history of multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles [MIRV]. This heavily excised document reflects a declassification review by both the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy. Due to the numerous redactions, some of which appear to be unjustifiable, the Archive has requested the Energy Department (which has the principal equity in this document) to determine whether additional portions may be released.

This document confirms much of what has been known about the basic purposes of the MIRV but provides additional valuable detail1. Among the findings: (
Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on April 14, 2006, 07:30:00 PM
Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs)

Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) with nuclear warheads were key weapons of strategic offense during the Cold War (1945`“1991) between the United States and the Soviet Union. Ballistic missiles followed the launch of Sputnik by the Soviet Union in 1957, and several types of ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) were in operation within the Soviet Union and the United States, as well as in Great Britain and France, by the 1960s. An early ballistic missile operated as follows: Upon launch from an underground silo or submerged submarine, the missile traced an arc up through the atmosphere until its booster burned out, at which point its reentry vehicle (RV)`”the "bus" that protects the nuclear warhead as it reenters the Earth's atmosphere`”was mechanically released to start its descent to target based on predetermined coordinates programmed into the RV.

While hundreds of ICBMs were being deployed, the American military initiated several antiballistic missile (ABM) programs, including the Nike-Zeus system. American strategists concluded that the Soviets also were preparing an ABM system of their own, and to ensure "deliverability" of the warheads, the RVs either had to be maneuverable or each missile had to carry several RVs. By the early 1960s, the technical community already had worked on RV bus maneuverability with small rocket motors. Years before maneuverable RVs enjoyed support, though, the idea of using multiple warheads had taken hold in strategic thinking.

In the United States, the first multiple warhead missile was a SLBM made for the Polaris submarine. Authorized in September 1960, the Polaris A-3 missile carried three RVs with 200 kilotons (KT, the equivalent of 2,000 lb [907 kg] of explosives) each, but the separation was not adjustable, leading to a "footprint" phenomenon in which the warheads created a distinct pattern when hitting their target. Technically, that RV design was called a MRV, or multiple reentry vehicle, because it lacked the capability of independent targeting. The A-3 became operational in September 1964 for the U.S. Navy. Meanwhile, the U.S. Air Force had started work on the MK. 12, 13, and 14 series, which were true multiple independent reentry vehicles for the new Minuteman II missile. The MIRV bus released its warheads in sets of two, which permitted dual targeting of enemy sites. Traditional measures of accuracy, or CEP (circular error probable), reflected the two-warhead targeting by estimating the outermost limit in which either of the two warheads would land. (In the case of the modern D-5 Trident II missile, for example, the CEP is 122 m [400 ft], meaning that one of the two warheads destined for a particular target would be expected to land within 122 m of that target.)

While the MK. 13 and 14 were never authorized, the MK. 12 received approval in 1963, with General Electric named as the prime contractor. In 1964, the government proceeded with MK. 12 development, then production, for the Minuteman II and for the new Poseidon navy missile. Megatonnage on the warheads varied with target characteristics, distance to target, and number of warheads designated for target, but the trade-off was clear: Any MIRV missile could carry only a fraction of the explosive power contained in a single-warhead missile. (The Soviet SS-18, for example, carried a single 26-megaton warhead`”the equivalent of 26 million tons of TNT`”while MK. 12 MIRVs carried several 500 KT warheads.)

Final approval for the deployment of MIRVed missiles in the United States occurred in 1965 as part of the planning for the FY1967 budget, at which time both the Minuteman II and the Poseidon were to incorporate the MIRV MK. 12 RVs. A Poseidon test vehicle was fired in late 1966, followed by 1967 flight testing of the RVs. The Department of Defense concluded at that time that it would rely on identical, real RVs rather than decoys to penetrate Soviet defenses, and the navy commenced refitting more than 30 Poseidon subs with the new missiles.

During those planning sessions, the number of RVs per missile varied, depending on whether they were deployed on the Minuteman or the Poseidon, on the perceived needed range of the missile, and on the use of lighter decoys that by this time had supplanted real RVs. Over the next decade, further upgrades occurred with the Minuteman III missiles and development and deployment of the new Trident submarine. The U.S. Air Force and Navy both continued research on an upgraded MIRV, the MK. 500 ("Evader") MARV, or maneuverable reentry vehicle. MARVs were tested but never deployed. Meanwhile, the Trident submarine carried the new Trident I (C-4) missile capable of carrying 10 RVs each. Another upgrade, the Trident II missile, began to be deployed in some submarines in the late 1980s. Originally, the navy intended each missile to carry up to 8 RVs, but the collapse of the Soviet Union permitted navy planners to change the mix of RVs to include large, "silo buster" warheads (known as AORs or "All Out Rounds" of approximately 3,175 kg [7,000 lb]). In any targeting scenario, however, a decrease in accuracy required more megatonnage per warhead, and vice versa. This was significant, for the more maneuvers a RV had to perform, the less accurate it was, hence the need for more explosive power.

As the threat of the Soviet Union diminished and as the Soviet Union itself came to an end, the need for MIRVed missiles has likewise declined (although Russia and some of the former components of the Soviet Union still maintain powerful nuclear arsenals). Instead, recent strategic thinking has emphasized refitting the MIRVed missiles with "silo buster" or conventional warheads for use against threats such as the one posed by Iraq in the 1990`“91 Gulf War. Created to penetrate ABM systems that never saw full deployment, the nuclear MIRV outlived its usefulness, and in the post`“ Cold War era, the technology of multiple independent RVs still may have use, but with conventional warheads.

Policy considerations centering on the MIRV involved criticisms that it accelerated the "arms race" by making each existing (or new) missile into multiple weapons. Consequently, arms control advocates constantly were divided between those who favored limiting launchers and those emphasizing the limitation of warheads. Conversely, the charge that MIRVs were a response to ABM systems led critics to work for the abolition of any antimissile technology. That approach culminated in the ABM Treaty of 1972. Yet efforts to limit the delivery systems proved futile for the most part: Restrictions on launchers were circumvented by expansion of RV numbers, and vice versa. Ultimately, the demise of the Soviet government proved the only successful means of reducing the number of MIRVs.

Larry Schweikart
Text: Schweikart, Larry. "Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs)." In Volti, Rudi. The Facts On File Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Society. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 1999. Facts On File, Inc. Science Online. <>.
Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on April 22, 2006, 06:22:52 PM

Bush's Latest Nuclear Gambit

By Lawrence S. Wittner

Dr. Wittner is Professor of History at the State University of New York, Albany. His latest book is Toward Nuclear Abolition: A History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement, 1971 to the Present (Stanford University Press).

In 2005, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, recognizing that the Bush administration's favorite new nuclear weapon--the "Bunker Buster"--was on the road to defeat in Congress, told its leading antagonist, U.S. Representative David Hobson (R-Ohio): "You may win this year, but we'll be back."

And, now, like malaria or perhaps merely a bad cold, they are.

The Bush administration's latest nuclear brainchild is the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW). According to an April 6, 2006 article in the Los Angeles Times (Ralph Vartabedian, "U.S. Rolls Out Nuclear Plan"), the RRW, originally depicted as an item that would update existing nuclear weapons and ensure their reliability, "now includes the potential for new bomb designs. Weapons labs currently are engaged in design competition."

Moreover, as the Times story reported, the RRW was part of a much larger Bush administration plan, announced the previous day, "for the most sweeping realignment and modernization of the nation's system of laboratories and factories for nuclear bombs since the end of the Cold War." The plan called for a modern U.S. nuclear complex that would design a new nuclear bomb and have it ready within four years, as well as accelerate the production of plutonium "pits," the triggers for the explosion of H-bombs.

Although administration officials justify the RRW by claiming that it will guarantee the reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and reduce the need for nuclear testing, arms control and disarmament advocates are quite critical of these claims. Citing studies by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory researchers, they argue that U.S. nuclear weapons will be reliable for decades longer than U.S. officials contend. Furthermore, according to Hoover Institution fellow Sidney Drell and former U.S. Ambassador James Goodby: "It takes an extraordinary flight of imagination to postulate a modern new arsenal composed of such untested designs that would be more reliable, safe and effective than the current U.S. arsenal based on more than 1,000 tests since 1945." Thus, if new nuclear weapons were built, they would lead inevitably to the resumption of U.S. nuclear testing and, thereby, to the collapse of the moratorium on nuclear testing by the major nuclear powers and to the final destruction of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Most worrisome for nuclear critics, however, is the prospect that the administration will use the RRW program to develop new kinds of nuclear weapons. Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, remains convinced that the replacement process initiated by the RRW program could serve as a back door to such development. Peace Action, the nation's largest peace and disarmament organization, maintains that "the weapons labs and the Department of Defense will be the ones to decide the real scope" of the RRW program.

Even Representative Hobson, who seems to favor the RRW, appears worried that the administration has a dangerously expansive vision of it. "This is not an opportunity to run off and develop a whole bunch of new capabilities and new weapons," he has declared. "This is a way to redo the weapons capability that we have and maybe make them more reliable." Hobson added: "I don't want any misunderstandings . . . and sometimes within the [Energy] department, people hear only what they want to hear. . . . We're not going out and expanding a whole new world of nuclear weapons."

Certainly, some degree of skepticism about the scope of the program seems justified when one examines the Bush administration's overall nuclear policy. Today, despite the U.S. government's commitment, under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968, to divest itself of nuclear weapons through negotiated nuclear disarmament, the U.S. nuclear stockpile stands at nearly 10,000 nuclear warheads, with more than half of them active or operational.

Not only does the Bush administration steer clear of any negotiations that might entail U.S. nuclear disarmament, but it has pulled out of the ABM treaty and refused to support ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (negotiated and signed by former President Bill Clinton). According to the Defense Department's Quadrennial Defense Review Report of February 2006, "a robust nuclear deterrent . . . remains a keystone of U.S. national power."

Furthermore, there are clear signs that the Bush administration is shifting away from the traditional U.S. strategy of nuclear deterrence to a strategy of nuclear use. The nuclear Bunker Buster, for example, was not designed to deter aggression, but to destroy underground military targets. Moreover, in recent years, the U.S. Strategic Command has added new missions to its war plans, including the use of U.S. nuclear weapons for pre-emptive military action. Seymour Hersh's much-cited article in the New Yorker on preparations for a U.S. military attack upon Iran indicates that there has already been substantial discussion of employing U.S. nuclear weapons in that capacity.

This movement by the Bush administration toward a nuclear buildup and nuclear war highlights the double standard it uses in its growing confrontation with Iran, a country whose nuclear enrichment program is in accordance with its NPT commitments. Of course, Iran might use such nuclear enrichment to develop nuclear weapons--and that would be a violation of the NPT. But Bush administration policies already violate U.S. commitments under the treaty, and this fact appears of far less concern to Washington officialdom. Logic, however, does not seem to apply to this issue--unless, of course, it is the logic of world power. (
Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on April 28, 2006, 07:56:43 PM
The following hyperlink takes you direct to the USA part of the page - as posted earlier, the Peacekeeper warheads are being recycled into the Minutemen stock. Please peruse for further details, and check out other countries' arsenals too. (

I don't think complete or even massive disarmament is realistic, but it pays to stay informed of where we're at, IMO.
Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on May 13, 2006, 05:53:16 PM
Of Little Boys and Fat Men

Anwaar Hussain, Fountainhead

April 20, 2006

Little Boy and Fat Man were the first nuclear weapons used in warfare. Little Boy was dropped from a B-29 bomber, it exploded approximately 1,800 feet over Hiroshima, Japan, on the morning of August 6, 1945, with a force equal to 13,000 tons of TNT. Immediate deaths were reported to be between 70,000 to 130,000. Fat Man was dropped on Nagasaki three days later, on August 9, 1945, devastating more than two square miles of the city and causing approximately 45,000 immediate deaths. America was the country that first used that weapon.

As reported recently in the international press, once again the incumbent President of the same country is planning a massive bombing campaign against yet another country. This time the country is Iran and the use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy some key Iranian suspected nuclear weapons facilities has been almost assured. Given the compulsions of the present US-Iran stand-off, it seems more than likely that America will almost certainly use nuclear weapons during the upcoming conflict.

Little boys and Fat Men, it seems, are back in business but with a difference. The little boys now will be a wee bit littler and the fat men a touch leaner to pacify the outcry of the world citizenry that has not quite forgotten the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These new kids on the block are called Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrators, or Low Yield Bunker Busters, a modification of high-yield nuclear weapons that are designed to penetrate the earth before detonating, with the purpose of destroying underground bunkers. It is a common knowledge that most of Iran`s nuclear facilities are buried in deep, well-dug bunkers. Short of nuclear weapons, a considerable number of these facilities simply cannot be taken out by conventional aerial strikes.

Except for the low yield bunker buster type of nuclear weapons that America presumably is already in possession of, America`s current nuclear arsenal is almost entirely made up of strategic class weapons. The destructive power of America`s current nuclear weapons is far greater than the weapons used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Were America to use these weapons on any country today, it would have devastating consequences for humanity and the environment, not only in the country attacked but in the surrounding countries as well. Therefore, principally speaking, even mad men should shirk from inflicting this nuclear overkill on human race.

For example, compared to 15 and 20 Kilo Ton yields of Little Boy and Fat Man, the Minuteman III ICBM carries a warhead with a 300 kiloton (KT) yield and the Trident II SLBM--475 KT. The B-2 and B-52 bombers carry nuclear warheads with yields ranging from 500 KT to the B83 mega-bomb yielding 1-2 megatons. These weapons` yields are capable of inflicting a horrendous level of collateral damage if detonated on the target`s surface in an attempt to create blast and overpressure sufficient enough to neutralize hardened and deeply buried targets. The awesome yields of these weapons, in fact, are so powerful that using these in the Iranian context would amount to killing a fly with a sledge hammer.

Concurrently, a recent Pentagon document for the first time spelled out the determination of US war planners to use nuclear weapons in a military conflict. The language of the report is purposely kept ambiguous. The document says that nuclear weapons "could be employed against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack," i.e. under any conditions where a conventional US military assault was going to prove ineffective.

Even more sweeping is the suggestion in the document that nuclear weapons could be used "in the event of surprising military developments." It is clear to see that the case for the use of nukes in the ongoing US-Iran stand-off is unmistakably established. As occupation of Iran for the purpose of neutralizing its nuclear facilities through ground forces is presently a non-option, the tactic of choice, therefore, is none other than using the Low Yield Bunker Busters.

However, even if the perceived economic and political costs and the cost of a violent Iranian reaction through groups like the Hezbollah and Iraq`s pro-Iranian Shia groups of such a venture are disregarded, there still remain some deep-seated problems attached with this option.

Firstly, in the 19 or so alleged Iranian nuclear facilities that are dispersed throughout Iran, it is very difficult to find one vital choke point neutralizing which the Iranian program is stopped or stalled for a long time. Even after a nuclear attack on these facilities, not only will the element of uncertainty surrounding Iran`s nuclear quest continue to linger, it may even spur Iran into an even more frenzied acceleration of its program in total disregard of all international actors.

Secondly, not only would the use of low-yield warheads make these a cherished weapon resulting in arms races amongst many potential adversaries, such an act would simply make their eventual use even more likely. That is because they promote the illusion that nuclear weapons could be used in ways which minimize their "collateral damage," making them tempting tools to be used like conventional weapons. In fact, for this very reason, a 1994 law specifically prohibits the nuclear laboratories from undertaking research and development that could lead to a precision nuclear weapon of less than 5 kilotons (KT), because "low-yield nuclear weapons blur the distinction between nuclear and conventional war." But then in a world gone lawless, who would care for such legal niceties.

Thirdly, no earth-burrowing missile can penetrate deep enough into the earth to contain an explosion with a nuclear yield even a fraction of the 15 kiloton Hiroshima weapon. It will still result in massive numbers of civilian casualties. Various studies have shown that in order to be fully contained, nuclear explosions must occur at a depth of 650 feet for a 5 kiloton explosive `” 1300 feet for a 100-kiloton explosive. Even then, there are no guarantees. Therefore, even if an earth penetrating missile were somehow able to drill hundreds of feet into the ground and then detonate, the explosion would most likely shower the surrounding region with highly radioactive dust and gas.

Last but not the least, the use of nuclear weapons, however low yield, would amount to lowering the nuclear threshold. As one has often said, Americans are neither the only country nor the only crazies in the world possessing nuclear weapons. Not only would the use of mini nukes by America be perceived as a loud and clear 'go-ahead` signal by other nuclear weapon states, it would also be taken as a final 'gloves-off` act by the extremist packs all around. Taking lives, their own or others`, toward a 'blessed cause` means nothing to these zealots.

The neocons are not the only mad men convinced of their cause. Even a crude one Kiloton nuclear bomb handed over to a suicide bomber under the table by a fired up scientist and exploded by the wannabe martyr can cast calamitous damage to America. The awesome power of the brief case nuke is neither news nor a fairy tale. A few years ago, General Alexander Lebed of Russia had gone public with the startling admission that a number of Russia's atomic demolition munitions (ADMs), popularly known as brief case bombs, were missing.

According to the Center of Defense Information, "if [such] a nuclear weapon had been available to the bombers of the World Trade Center, most of Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Staten Island would have been leveled." What's more, "if central New York City were leveled, besides injuring and killing millions of people, the exploding bomb would destroy the following institutions creating economic and social chaos in the world; United Nations Headquarters, Major communication centers i.e. NBC, CBS, ABC, etc., New York Stock Exchange, World banking centers where billions of dollars are transferred daily, Transportation centers within New York City and connecting New York City with other areas."

And so while the mad men decide whether to nuke or not to nuke, patting their Little Boys and Fat Men, let us heed the words of Edward Abbey who once wrote, "While you can. While it's still here. So get out there and hunt and fish and mess around with your friends, ramble out yonder and explore the forests, encounter the grizz, climb the mountains, bag the peaks, run the rivers, breathe deep of that yet sweet and lucid air, sit quietly for awhile and contemplate the precious stillness, that lovely, mysterious and awesome space."

May we always have our 'sweet and lucid` air. ( (
Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on May 13, 2006, 06:00:03 PM
Photo by Courtesy photo
An ICBM development rocket motor is test fired May 2 at Edwards AFB, Calif.
Mirroring size and weight of a Minuteman III stage 1 motor, the new motor
was built at the ATK Thiokol plant in Promontory, Utah, and supported by
members of Hill`s 826th ICBM Systems Group, Northrop Grumman Systems,
and the Integrated High Payoff Rocket Propulsion Technology Program
managed at Edwards.

First full-scale test of ICBM motor takes place

Thursday, May 11, 2006

by G. A. Volb | Ogden Air Logistics Center Public Affairs

A milestone within the Propulsion Applications Program, the first full-scale test of an ICBM development motor, took place May 2 at Edwards AFB, Calif.

Mirroring size and weight of a Minuteman III stage 1 motor, the new engine was built at the ATK Thiokol plant in Promontory, Utah, and supported by members of Hill`s 826th ICBM Systems Group, Northrop Grumman Systems, and the Integrated High Payoff Rocket Propulsion Technology Program managed at Edwards.

`The motor had an advanced case, propellant, thrust vector control and nozzle,` said Richard Fawcett, 826th ICBM Systems Group Propulsion Applications Program manager and lead engineer, `and produced over 282,000 pounds of thrust. In comparison, the Minuteman III version produces 200,000 pounds.`
According to Mr. Fawcett, increased capability also included over-flight and reentry angle flexibility. `If fielded, the new motor will save taxpayer dollars regarding operations and maintenance costs, reduce LCC costs and use low-cost materials in its manufacture `¦ meaning enhanced production.`

He said future Propulsion Applications Program demonstrations will include advanced second stage, third stage, and post boost rocket motors.

The program is the `brain child` of the 1998 Strategic Advisory Group and was created to sustain the ICBM industrial base as it relates to national security and the United States` strategic capability. (
Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on May 13, 2006, 06:03:37 PM
Boeing Awarded $25.2 Million Contract to Support Minuteman Flight Test Program

Sábado 13 de mayo de 2006

The U.S. Air Force has awarded Boeing [NYSE: BA] Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) Systems a $25.2 million contract to support the Minuteman Force Development Evaluation flight test program at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. The Minuteman ICBM is a three-stage, solid-fueled strategic missile.

The Boeing team will provide hardware for command destruct operations -- a system that destroys a launch vehicle when vehicle performance degrades enough to be a safety hazard -- and the transmission of missile data during flight tests. A Boeing-designed flight instrumentation wafer will enable the Air Force to obtain data to evaluate the missile's in-flight reliability and accuracy.

First deployed in the 1960s, there are now 500 Minuteman ICBMs deployed in the nation's arsenal.

"This contract is a tribute to the expertise of our more than 500 ICBM employees in Utah, California, Ohio and at the Air Force's ICBM field locations," said Dave Hicks, Boeing's Anaheim, Calif.-based ICBM program manager. "Our employees take great pride in supporting the Air Force by providing this flight test instrumentation wafer."

The contract calls for work to be completed by January 2010. (
Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on May 13, 2006, 06:16:05 PM
Forget the Middle East: North America Harbors the World's Most Dangerous Terrorists




`After the explosion itself, anyone on the edge of the explosion (who were lucky enough to survive) would have melted flesh and severe burns, the skin would literally fall off the bone. Anyone who had seen the blast from such a distance would have permanent loss of vision.` ( )

A little perspective, please

After years of living under the perpetual risk of the ultimate terrorist attack, most people have become acclimated to the distinct possibility of imminent extinction of life on Earth. Fortunately, humans tend to be highly adaptable beings, and most are able to go on with their daily tasks without dwelling on potential doomsday scenarios.

In fact, people have become so desensitized to the threat of nuclear holocaust that those who still believe American propaganda are more terrified of religious fanatics wielding box cutters than they are of an ICBM capable of annihilating millions.

According to the FBI, domestic terrorism is:

`the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or its territories without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.`

Given the knowledge that it is the United States which created and primarily wields the power to extinguish life on Earth, it is not a tremendous intellectual leap to classify the American government as the world`s most dangerous and most powerful terrorist.

America`s own domestic law enforcement entity has defined terrorism as `threatened use of force or violence`, intimidation, and coercion against governments or civilian populations for the `furtherance of political or social objectives`.

What could be more threatening or violent than a nuclear attack? What could be more coercive than the US imposition of its will, culture, and ruthless economic agenda on a global populace like a domineering father abusing his cowed children? Employing terrorist tools of intimidation, coercion and threats of violence, the United States consistently sets the political and social objectives for the rest of the world.

Remember, Iran, `All options are on the table.`

America is the Don Corleone of the world community. They make offers you can`t refuse. `Fat Man` and `Little Boy` delivered the Sicilian message that nations defying the United States would find many of their innocent civilians `sleeping with the fishes`. 200,000 dead Japanese showed the skeptics that the Godfather meant business.

Bearing in mind that the atomic bombs deployed in Japan were mere firecrackers relative to today`s nukes, the following puts a grim perspective on the situation:

`A single Hiroshima-size blast in downtown Los Angeles, according to a computer projection done several years ago by Physicians for Social Responsibility, would kill about 150,000 people immediately and 100,000 more from neutron and gamma radiation. An additional 800,000 people would be exposed to high-level radiation.`  (Seattle Times) ( (

Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on July 02, 2006, 04:24:30 PM
Pentagon Fireworks
By Tom Engelhardt
posted June 29, 2006 at 6:28 pm

One of the least noticed success stories of George Bush's years in power has been his administration's ability to focus the world's attention so singularly first on Saddam Hussein's "nuclear program" -- remember that yellowcake brick road? -- which had absolutely no basis ( in reality; then on a meager (though frightening) North Korean nuclear force (of questionable use), and finally on a questionable Iranian nuclear bomb (, which, according to the latest National Intelligence Estimate (, is perhaps ten years away and yet somehow has been ever in our midst. 

The near-civilization destroying Israeli nuclear arsenal ( is hardly ever even noted.  The Pakistani/Indian arsenals, aimed at each other on a hair-trigger and constantly being upgraded, are rarely in the news (though they may be the most obvious flashpoint for a nuclear conflagration on the planet).  Above all, the great nuclear arsenals of the two Cold War superpowers, those MAD (or mutually assured destruction) creations, have been allowed to slip into obscurity without faintly slipping into oblivion.  The Russians are again upgrading their aging nuclear forces and, with an ever shakier military, have, if anything, become more reliant on nuclear power for great-power status; while the Bush administration has been eager to upgrade the already gargantuan American arsenal ( with various kinds of mini-nukes, "bunker busters," and other weapons of mass destruction.

Everyone knows that the only nuclear weapons ever used against civilian populations came out of the American arsenal on August 6th and 9th, 1945, obliterating the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Everyone also knows that, since then, no power on Earth has ever used nuclear weapons against civilian populations -- an absolute truth that absolutely isn't so.  In fact, the vast program of nuclear testing ( that the U.S. undertook in the American West from the 1950s into the early 1990s has taken a terrible disease toll on "downwinders," particularly the citizens of Utah and Nevada (and wherever else fallout landed in the U.S., not to say, on the planet) as did the Russian nuclear testing program on its citizenry (as did the French program, though they were cannier and tested their bombs not outside Avignon but in the South Seas). 

The power of nuclear weapons was so beyond normal comprehension that the scientific director of the Manhattan Project, "the father of the atomic bomb," Robert Oppenheimer, on observing the first atomic test, immediately invoked the powers of the gods.  As he described it (taken from Richard Rhodes book, The Making of the Atomic Bomb):

"We waited until the blast had passed, walked out of the shelter and then it was extremely solemn.  We knew the world would not be the same.  A few people laughed, a few people cried.  Most people were silent.  I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita:  Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and to impress him he takes on his multi-armed form and says, 'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.' I suppose we all thought that, one way or another."

Now, the most religiously zealous administration in our history is invoking the "divine" power to destroy untold millions in seconds in the happy pursuit and maintenance of global nuclear superiority.  The Bush administration is, in fact, strikingly eager to proliferate in its supposed war against nuclear proliferation and so is willing once again to turn Americans into nuclear guinea pigs.  Chip Ward, whose book Canaries on the Rim ( took up the earlier round of testing in the Western U.S., returns to the subject below, giving those Fourth of July fireworks a slightly different meaning.

Fireworks Deferred
Divine Strake, Hellish Repercussions
By Chip Ward

Shock and awe is coming home.  The Bush administration is planning to conduct future preemptive wars with "mini-nukes" and, to that end, wants to set off a nuclear-sized explosion at the government's Nevada Test Site, sixty-five miles northwest of Las Vegas.  So far, the Department of Defense's latest testing plan -- code named "Divine Strake" -- has been thwarted by the organized citizens of Utah and Nevada, but the clock is running out.  The DOD announced the plan in April and scheduled the blast for early June.  After an initial public outcry in the region, it was postponed for two weeks, then postponed again until "September or later."  Those unfamiliar with the nightmarish ambitions and skewed reasoning of the nation's wannabe nuclear-warriors may find Divine Strake unfathomable.  Sadly, the inhabitants of America's original Ground Zero -- where our nuclear and chemical weapons were honed during the Cold War -- know that thinking all too well.  It's a dirty shame...   

Dirty Bomb: Imagine a fertilizer bomb 280 times more powerful than the one Tim McVeigh used to blow apart the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City -- enough to take down an entire city.  Imagine that bomb as fifty times more powerful than our largest conventional weapon -- the Massive Ordinance Air Blast Bomb, or MOAB, that has to be shoved by hand out of the belly doors of a specially fitted cargo plane and carries the nickname, "the Mother of All Bombs."  But the bomb we are imagining is way too large to be delivered by any known conventional method.  It would take two cargo planes to deliver the explosive fuel that will be packed into a pit thirty-six feet deep by thirty-two feet in circumference.  Imagine, then, that this massive pile of explosives is to be set off on an arid, windswept desert floor made of a fine, dry soil that has been contaminated by decades of exposure to nuclear radiation.  Although the explosive fuel itself will not be radioactive --  thus avoiding an obvious violation of international treaties that ban aboveground nuclear tests -- the dirt and debris that drifts downwind may very well be radioactive, a possibility that the Pentagon is not keen to know more about.

Now, picture what happens after the load is fired off.   If you see a gigantic, thick, and rolling mushroom cloud of toxic dirt that climbs 10,000 feet into the atmosphere, then you agree with the Department of Defense's own expectations.  That toxic cloud will drift and fall eastward over Utah, Colorado, the Midwest, or wherever the wind carries it.

If your mental image of that mushroom cloud is vivid, then you are of a certain age.  Maybe you also live in this neck of the West and so are familiar with the phenomenon from the hundred-plus aboveground atomic explosions set off at the Nevada Test Site in the 1950s or the more than 800 "underground" explosions that continued until 1992.  Most of those underground tests turned out to be "leakers," often producing smaller mushroom clouds that escaped through cracks fissured into the ground as the explosions displaced millions of tons of earth instantly and the surface of the desert collapsed into immense craters.  The radiation that was vented then drifted far and wide.

Divine Strake, the latest experiment in irradiating Americans, was postponed briefly when a public outcry ensued; then postponed indefinitely when the protests continued to mount and Utah's powerful Senator Orin Hatch joined Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson and various Nevada politicians calling for more risk assessment first.  Although an exact date to conduct Divine Strake has not been set, the Department of Defense is still intent on conducting their experiment as early as this autumn, according to the latest DoD announcement.

The citizens of Las Vegas, the nation's sex-alcohol-and-gambling mecca, and the puritanical Mormon citizens of Utah might seem unlikely political allies -- except for the fact that they share a legacy of cancer and chronic illness, a consequence of the last time our military rolled the nuclear dice on the Nevada desert floor.  Recent research reveals that most of the nation also suffers from that legacy of illness, they just aren't as aware of it as the "downwinders" of Nevada and Utah who actually saw the clouds of fallout heading their way.  Once again, the citizens of those two states find themselves on the front lines of a struggle with profound international repercussions.  For us, Divine Strake is a weapon of mass dejà vu.

Dirty Lies:  As in earlier decades, planning documents obscure what is happening; official reassurances are misleading; and the tests are facilitated by federal agencies whose hallmarks are being distant, secretive, inaccessible, and arrogant.  Last time the Nevada Test Site was active, the citizens of Utah and Nevada living directly downwind were described in a classified military report as "a low use segment of the population."  In other words, expendable.  Today, sanitized language cloaks the same old disregard for the consequences of military testing, again masking a willingness to sacrifice the health of citizens on the altar of nuclear hegemony.   

Listen to Irene Smith, a spokesperson for the Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency that will help facilitate the explosion.  According to her, the test would not be a nuclear simulation at all, but would merely "assess computer programs to reduce uncertainties in target characterization, target function, layout, operational status, and geotechnical features."  Oh, okay.  Another Pentagon spokesperson, David Rigby, put it a tad more directly. The purpose of Divine Strake, he stated, was "to develop better predictive tools for defeating hardened underground targets."  Then he added, "It is not a precursor to a nuclear test."

Unsaid: whether or not it's a precursor to such a test, it is certainly a precursor to nuclear use.  What, after all, are they predicting?  They want to know what size nuclear warhead will take out a hardened underground target in a geologic formation much like the one where we suspect Iran is developing nuclear weapons.  A tunnel has already been drilled through the jointed limestone directly below the site where Divine Strake would be exploded.  North Korea is thought to have similar tunnels to hide its nuclear weapons-making facilities.  Other nations have built such underground retreats for their national leaders, much as we did in hillsides around Washington D.C.  Then there are underground facilities for shielding the aircraft of potentially hostile powers of the future -- like a hardened "airbase" at Feidong, China.  The descriptions the Department of Defense has offered of Divine Strake paint the military as cautious and responsible in trying to determine the size of the smallest nuclear warhead that could destroy such buried targets.  Forget the fact that every target on their hit list is surrounded by innocent civilians who will certainly be killed, just as every target is upwind from everyone else on the planet.

Dirty Joke:  Then there's that name -- Divine Strake.  Strake, not strike, which might seem logical under the circumstances.  "Strake" is either an obscure nautical term meaning a line of horizontal planking running the length of a ship's hull or the aerodynamic surface mounted on the fuselage of an aircraft to control airflow.  Why it has been used in this faux-nuclear context is not clear.  Apparently, war planners regard the test as a platform, support, or control for something else -- but what?  Or maybe, consciously or not, strake is an amalgam of "strike" and "mistake."  Anyway, whatever one makes of "strake," "divine" conveys a breathtakingly unabashed and self-righteous hubris. It's also a clear case of linguistic bait n' switch since there is nothing divine about slaughtering innocents or destroying whole landscapes, unless of course it is death we are worshipping and our own power to play God and decide the fates of untold numbers of people.

If we wonder how the rest of the world, especially Islamic cultures, hear these words, we have only to think how we would hear them if they were used by Iranians to describe a weapons program they were developing with the obvious purpose of targeting us.  Proof of fanaticism, we would insist.  Maybe we are in a holy war, after all, at least in the minds of those fashioning the weapons to fight it.  While Islamacists set off car bombs and call it "jihad", we prepare a simulated nuclear explosion and label it "divine."   The people of Utah and Nevada may be forgiven if they feel like hostages caught in the crossfire of warring zealots. 

Dirty Trick: If Divine Strake happens, its mushroom cloud will rise like an extended middle finger to Congress, which killed funding for the "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator," a nuclear weapon the Bush administration has been eager to develop to penetrate the earth to hardened bunkers below, and has otherwise refused to fund the development of a new set of mini-nukes it also desperately wants, or to fund the rapid re-activation of the Nevada Test Site so it can resume testing for such "mini-nukes." Testing has always been a key component of developing new weapons of mass destruction -- war planners cannot use such a weapon if they are not sure what it does on the ground.  Since large-scale testing stopped in 1992, the Nevada Test Site has been operating with a skeleton crew.

Deprived of the means to develop a new class of bunker-buster nuclear weapons that can drill deep into the earth, the Bush administration's war gamers are now planning to simply blow-up nuclear warheads above such targets. If they can't dig the bastards out, they want to know just what size nuke will cave-in their hideouts from above. Whatever the Pentagon says, Divine Strake will closely resemble the destructive yield of a B-61 nuclear warhead, one of the smallest in the arsenal.  Eventually, war planners will argue that they need to build a new class of even smaller nukes so as to avoid the casualties and damage that the bigger ones in the American nuclear arsenal would cause -- such is the mad humanitarian logic of nuclear warriors.

The underlying willingness to launch a "preventive" nuclear war to prevent a nuclear war, as expressed in such planning, has already become embarrassing and so must now be hidden.  As late as 2005, budget documents describing the Tunnel Target Defeat Advanced Concept and Technology Demonstration Series (of which the Divine Strake is a key component) still made it clear that their overall purpose was to "improve war fighters confidence in selecting the smallest proper nuclear yield necessary to destroy underground facilities."  Similarly, the Divine Strake piece of the puzzle was clearly identified as a nuclear simulation.  But 2006 budget documents covering the same plans erased all references to nuclear simulation and nuclear weapons.  As has so often been the case in the Bush era, satisfied that they could alter reality simply via a new description of reality, Pentagon spokespeople now insist that the project that looked, walked, and quacked like a nuclear duck was just a conventional war chicken that, gosh, only  resembles a duck.  Or, as spokesperson Rigby proclaimed, "The planned detonation has been redefined."

Dirty Job:  Reactivating the semi-comatose Nevada Test Site is considered crucial to the development of a new set of nuclear warheads.  Hence, the rush to test by any means necessary -- even with a crude, mammoth fertilizer bomb. Unstated in the official documentation, and seldom considered by critics, the Department of Defense is also desperate to start up the testing again for another reason entirely:  The human infrastructure that developed and managed America's nuclear arsenal is retiring or dying off. 

We stopped underground testing in 1992 and haven't developed a new nuclear weapon since the W88 Trident II warheads over a decade ago. The human knowledge-and-experience base that learned how to handle nuclear weaponry and the skill sets that can only be attained firsthand are melting away over time.  Reviving the Nevada Test Site would give the Department of Energy that runs the facility for the DoD a valuable training ground to rebuild that knowledge base.  It would also give a new generation of technicians and engineers the hands-on experience they need to keep the nuclear ball rolling. If they can get the Test Site up and running soon, even for a fertilizer bomb, the veteran technicians left over from the Cold War will still be available to instruct and mentor the nuclear newbies.  Unfortunately for them, time is not on their side.   

Eat Dirt:  As citizens immediately downwind demanded evidence that Divine Strake would not raise soils still contaminated by generations of previous nuclear explosions, Pentagon spokespeople offered the usual assurances, even while admitting that they had little in the way of data to back them up.  Nothing resembling an environmental impact assessment had been done, but the implication was that the Pentagon's word should be good enough.  Richard Miller, an industrial health technician, has documented that six nuclear detonations from the 1950s were conducted within eight miles of the proposed Divine Strake site, contaminating the surface soil with radioactive debris that could be dangerous for many decades to come. Local activists who have visited the Nevada Test site note that DoD employees do not allow them to pick up and carry off stones from the area because, they were told, even dirt sometimes sets off the Geiger counters wielded by the guards at the gate. 

Contrary to Pentagon claims that the 10,000 foot mushroom cloud from Divine Strake should dissipate within a mile or two of the explosion, Miller's research shows that a similarly large debris column that leaked from the "Baneberry" underground test in 1970 was caught up in the jet stream and carried all the way to Canada before falling out.  Climate scientists who are studying how dust from storms in Mongolia coats Colorado mountain snowpack would not find this surprising; nor would scientists who suspect that high background levels of mercury in Western states can be explained by the prevailing winds sweeping across toxic residues from open-pit gold mining in Nevada and carrying mercury as well as other harmful chemicals hundreds of miles downwind. 

Miller's previous studies of fallout patterns ( from the Nevada Test site showed that, according to the government's own reports, radioactive materials from both aboveground and underground tests traveled much farther than previously assumed and in greater concentrations -- some hot clouds of fallout settled on places in the Midwest and even on the New York/New Jersey metropolitan areas.  Back in the 1950s and 60s, radiation from the Nevada testing grounds reached deep into food chains, contaminating grain harvests and milk production sometimes thousands of miles away. Although airborne debris from a non-nuclear explosion will contain less harmful materials than the debris from an actual nuclear blast, no analysis has been done of how arsenic and other naturally occurring toxins as well as the more exotic toxins that will result from blowing up 700 tons of ammonium nitrate will be dispersed into the wind.  Clearly, however, whatever is in that dirt ball will land on playgrounds, lawns, farms, cattle, and watersheds.  We have learned the hard way from pollution, cancer, and global climate change that we all live downwind and downstream from one another; that, through a complex global food web, we also eat each others' dirt. 

Salt of the Earth:  During the first era in which the Nevada Test Site practiced for the Apocalypse, the people immediately downwind were naive, trusting, and mostly silent.  No more.  By now the stories about misshapen calves, miscarried babies, and children with leukemia who died in the wake of atomic testing have become common lore. Everyone here can name a victim.  Cancer continues to stalk downwinders decades after the last exposure.  Birth defects and chronic illness are showing up in their children and grandchildren. Because health is complex, dynamic, synergistic, variable, and its patterns emerge slowly -- and because no effort has been made to track those exposed and collect data -- legal proof of the harm that came with the atomic winds is hard to come by and accountability is nowhere to be found. Congress did agree to compensate those who were most obviously exposed to fallout, but applicants had to document their exposure and the illnesses that followed and, in the process, jump through a bewildering set of bureaucratic hoops.  Most will die before they see a check.

Polls show that the citizens of Utah and Nevada are as overwhelmingly opposed to new atomic weapons testing at the Nevada Test Site as they are to having the waste from the nation's commercial nuclear power plants dumped in their deserts.  The same grassroots groups that have led the campaigns against proposed nuclear-waste repositories at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, and Skull Valley, Utah, responded quickly to the Divine Strake plan and mobilized media campaigns, Congressional lobbying, and sign-carrying demonstrations. 

In the face of immediate and widespread opposition, the DoD agreed to hold town-hall meetings in Las Vegas and in St. George, Utah.  Preston Truman, director of Downwinders (, a local organization that represents the victims of Cold War era nuclear testing, predicts that those public hearings will only lead "to escalating demands for hearings from Las Vegas to Boise.  Instead of quieting the ticked-off natives, the delay will give us time to organize and pressure elected representatives to draw a line and say 'no' we will not allow another generation of us to be created."

Local politicians understand that they will be judged by whether they can halt the explosion and that they will win important bragging rights if they succeed. They also know that postponements are not the same as a cancellation and that there is no guarantee the Pentagon will not eventually have its way.  We know from experience that military planners are tenacious in pursuit of pet projects and will do everything in their power to ignore or thwart a public that disagrees with them.  Vanessa Pierce, an organizer for HEAL Utah (, a grassroots group that has led the opposition to shipping and storing nuclear waste to Utah, warns that "weapons designers will do whatever it takes to get their fix."

The Real Dirt:  It is not hard to imagine that some future enemy might threaten our nuclear hegemony by constructing the radioactive equivalent of a car bomb -- what Mike Davis ( has termed "the poor man's air force" -- in some cave or bunker.  It is harder to imagine why war planners think that the development of a new class of bunker-busting bombs would be a "deterrent," or that we can meet the threats we face by blowing up nuclear warheads above bunkers and tunnels.  Do war planners seriously think we could use our nuclear weapons "preventively" on underground targets without horrific consequences to regional populations that would unleash such hatred and condemnation as well as the desire for revenge and violence as to render such a strike as impractical as it is immoral?   

This much is clear to those of us who live immediately downwind from the Nevada Test Site and other hellish places like Utah's Dugway Proving Grounds where the military did open-air tests with nerve agents that sickened hundreds of workers and unknown numbers of nearby residents, or Hanford, Washington, where the weapons were loaded with their nuclear fuel, also contaminating groundwater, soil, and the bloodstreams of hundreds of workers in the process.  Once again in a new age of nuclear testing, American citizens will be the first victims of our own weapons of mass destruction.  We will not be shredded or incinerated as an enemy would be. Domestic civilian casualties will sicken and die slowly. 

If there is a next time, we will not go unnoticed again, but neither will we be able to prove that our suffering resulted from military testing according to the narrow legal standards that apply.  There will yet again be little or no accountability; and, like unwilling guinea pigs in some ghastly experiment, we will live with uncertainty and doubt while waiting for the results of our own military folly to unfold in our tissues, our blood, our chromosomes, and our bones.  As an elderly woman walking a picket line in St. George to protest Divine Strake said, "This is supposed to be about national security.  I don't feel more secure.  Do you?" 

Chip Ward is a political activist, writer, and a library administrator. He is the author of Canaries on the Rim: Living Downwind in the West ( (Verso) and Hope's Horizon: Three Visions for Healing the American Land ( (Shearwater/Island Press).
Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: arden on July 08, 2006, 08:30:09 AM

Admirable work bump
Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on July 08, 2006, 09:03:00 PM

Nuclear Explosion Music-Video Montage (

Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on July 08, 2006, 10:13:10 PM
... more video shorts ...

First Experimental H-Bomb Test (
Sequence representing the first test of an H-Bomb or Hydrogen Bomb in 1952 during Operation Ivy. The Mike device exploded with a yield of 10.5 Megatons. 50 times larger than a nominal atomic bomb. Sequence from the film "Trinity and Beyond."

World's Largest Nuclear Explosion (Russia) (

Nukes in Space (
Trailer for program which follows the development of ICBM or Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles including Redstone, Atlas and Titan. Testing atomic and nuclear weapons in outer space (really!). Atomic and Hydrogen bomb tests.

B-52 and H-Bomb 2 (
A B-52 crew delivers a Hydrogen Bomb weapon or HBomb, more powerful than an Atomic Bomb and detonates off Bikini Atoll, circa 1956. Sequence from "Nuclear Rescue 911."

Atomic bomb test (
This is an A-Bomb or Atomic Bomb test detonated in 1953 from the atomic cannon. The yield was approximately the same as the bomb detonated over Hiroshima Japan.

Unedited footage of underground nuclear bomb blast (
Back in the day it was of great interest to both the government and citizens as to how effective a nuclear weapon that were made 15-20 years prior would be. The solution was to simply blow them up and measure the results, but detonating a bomb on the surface was not allowed anymore. So the solution was underground testing.

 For these tests to be effective, three things have to happen. Dig a hole, put bomb in hole and blow it up, and then the gather of results.

 My grandpa was the second man in charge of step one and three, digging holes. These were not your average holes, they were 24` to 36` in diameter, some up to 48` for a depth up to 2000 feet. As my grandpa was experienced in drilling holes in the oilfield (8-9 inch holes up to 16,000 feet deep) he had pretty applicable knowledge and experience of how one might accomplish this. As they were feeding in pipe (as the hole got deeper), by the time they got 2000` of pipe, the whole string of pipe weighed over one million pounds. By comparison, 13000 feet of 2-7/8` pipe in the oilfield weighs around 100,000 pounds.

 So once the hole was dug, my grandpa and his crew had to leave as they placed a building over the hole (for secrecy/privacy) then lowered the nuke in. They then put so much concrete over the top of the device and filled the rest with dirt.


1958 WS Underwater explosion + cloud engulfs US Navy drone target ship / Eneweta (

Atomic Cannon (
Atomic Cannon detonated at the Nevada Test Site in 1953, showing a-bomb or atom bomb detonation and weapon effects. Exploded with a force of 15 kilotons. Sequence from "Trinity and Beyond - The Atomic Bomb Movie"

Atomic Journeys - Welcome to Ground Zero (
Trailer for a documentary which covers Atomic and nuclear testing in places like Mississippi, Colorado, New Mexico and the Nevada Test Site (65 miles north of Las Vegas). Weird imagery. Atomic Bomb testing and explosions

The American Experience | Race for the Superbomb | Operation Castle (
Operation Castle, a series of thermonuclear tests, was conducted in the Marshall Islands in the spring of 1954. The Bravo detonation yielded the equivalent of 15 megatons of TNT.

Operation Castle yielded more fallout than any of the other U.S. thermonuclear tests, contaminating military personnel and civilians on nearby islands.

The Trinity Test (

Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: Skywalker on July 08, 2006, 10:21:42 PM
Interesting and informative thread.  Bump.
Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on July 08, 2006, 11:18:16 PM
(       T R I N I T Y       (

 1 6 . J U L Y . 1 9 4 5

If the radiance of a thousand suns
Were to burst at once into the sky,
That would be like the splendor of the Mighty One...
I am become Death,
The shatterer of Worlds.

 ~ The Bhagavad-Gita ~

The first nuclear explosion in history took place in New Mexico, at the Alamogordo Test Range,
on the Jornada del Muerto (Journey of Death) desert, in the test named Trinity.

This test was intended to prove the radical new implosion weapon design that had been developed
at Los Alamos during the previous year. This design, embodied in the test device called Gadget,
involved a new technology that could not be adequately evaluated without a full scale test.
The gun-type uranium bomb, in contrast, was certain to be effective and did not merit testing.
In addition, since no nuclear explosion had ever occurred on Earth, it seemed advisible that at least one
 should be set off with careful monitoring to test whether all of the theoretical predictions held.

The origin of the name Trinity for this event is uncertain. It is commonly thought that
Robert Oppenheimer provided the name, which would seem logical, but even this is not definitely known.
 A leading theory is that Oppenhimer did select it, and that he did so with reference to the divine
Hindu trinity of Brahma (the Creator), Vishnu (the Preserver), and Shiva (the Destroyer).
Oppenheimer had an avid interest in Sanskrit literature (which he had taught himself to read),
and following the Trinity test is reported to have recited the passage from the Bhagavad-Gita
that opens this page.

Before Trinity: The 100 Ton Test
May 7, 1945:

To help in preparing the instrumentation for the Trinity shot the "100 Ton Test" was fired on 7 May 1945.
This test detonated 108 tons of TNT stacked on a wooden platform 800 yards from Trinity ground zero.
The pile of high explosive was threaded with tubes containing 1000 curies of reactor fission products.
This is the largest instrumented explosion conducted up to this date. The test allowed the calibration of
instruments to measure the blast wave, and gave some indication of how fission products might be
distributed by the explosion.

(     (     (

The Gadget
July 12, 1945:

The Gadget components arrive at the test site.
Assembly of the test device begins at the McDonald Ranch farmhouse at Alamogordo at 1300 hours.

Sgt. Herbert Lehr delivering the plutonium core (or more probably half of it)
for the Gadget in its shock-mounted carrying case
to the assembly room in the McDonald Ranch farmhouse.

July 14, 1945:

Robert Bacher drives the assembled core to Zero,
where final assembly of the Gadget was conducted in a canvas tent at the basis of the tower.

Silhouetted against the canvas, we see the plutonium core being inserted
into the explosive shell of the Gadget.

Later that same day, the assembled Gadget (without detonators)
was hoisted to the top of the 100 foot test tower.

July 15, 1945:

On the night of July 15th, the detonators were installed in the Gadget, and assembly was completed. Dr. Norris Bradbury, supervising the assembly process noted in his log book: "Look for rabbit's feet and four leaf clovers. Should we have the chaplain down here?"

The partially assembled Gadget atop the test tower.
Visible in this picture is Norris Bradbury, who later became the director
of Los Alamos for several decades upon Oppenheimer's departure.

(   (
Partially assembled Gadget. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The fully assembled Gadget.

The Trinity Test

July 16 1945, 5:29:45 A.M. (Mountain War Time)
Trinity Site Zero, Alamogordo Test Range, Jornada del Muerto desert.

Yield: 20-22 Kilotons

(          (


"In that brief instant in the remote New Mexico desert the tremendous effort of the brains and brawn
of all these people came suddenly and startlingly to the fullest fruition. Dr. Oppenheimer, on whom
has rested a very heavy burden, grew tenser as the last seconds ticked off. He scarcely breathed.
He held on to a post to steady himself. For the last few seconds, he stared directly ahead and then
when the announcer shouted "Now!" and there came a tremendous burst of light followed shortly
thereafter by the deep growling roar of the explosion, his face relaxed into an expression of
tremendous relief. Several of the observers standing back of the shelter to warch the lighting effects
were knocked flat by the blast.

...All seemed to feel that they had been present at the birth of a new age -- The Age of Atomic Energy --
and felt their profound responsibility to help in guiding into the right channels the tremendous forces
which had been unlocked for the first time in history."

Brigadier General Thomas F. Farrell, describing his impressions
at S-10,000 a bunker 10,000 yards south of Trinity;
quoted in
The Day the Sun Rose Twice by Ferenc M. Szasz, pg. 88.


Below is the aftermath of the detonation, about 24 hours later.
A dark area of fused soil (trinitite) radiates from ground zero.
In the lower right portion of the picture, the crater from the 100 Ton Test is visible.


Another view of Trinity ground zero.

Oppenheimer and Groves inspecting the remains of the Trinity test tower, 9 September 1945.

The heat of the Trinity explosion melted the sandy soil around the tower to form a glassy crust
known as "trinitite". Years later, with a view towards making the Trinity site a tourist-accessible
national historic site (a plan that has never been carried out), the mildly radioactive crust
was bulldozed into heaps and covered with soil.

~ Trinitrite Specimens Gallery ~ (


Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: Sue on July 09, 2006, 09:05:57 AM
Wow! You have been busy...good posts...did you read all that?
Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on July 09, 2006, 10:56:17 AM
Of course. :)

And thanks for the compliment. :)
Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on July 09, 2006, 11:43:22 AM
Richard Miller: Charting the Far-Reaching Shadow
of Nuclear Fallout

By Mary Dickson | Catalyst Magazine | April, 2003

Other people keep pictures of their children in their wallets. I keep a small map I've had laminated to protect it from wear. I pull that map out during many conversations to show how far and wide fallout from nuclear testing was scattered. People are always shocked when they see it. Utah and Nevada are almost completely blacked out, and the black ink spreads as far north as Canada and as far east as New York, with heavy patches scattered throughout the country. Most Americans, even most Utahns, mistakenly think radioactive fallout affected only Southern Utah. Radiation isn't a respecter of arbitrary lines on a map. There is no magic shield that stopped it mid-point in Utah. The wind carried it across the country. That's how it got to Nebraska, Missouri , Iowa and other states where it put millions of Americans at risk of cancer and other fallout-related illnesses. The map in my wallet speaks volumes.


The map, from Richard Miller's book, Under the Cloud: The Decades of Nuclear Testing, shows where fallout went during the 12 years of above ground nuclear weapons testing from 1951 to 1962. Miller calls his map a "connect the dots" of all points in the United States that were crossed by three or more trajectories of fallout. The map doesn't include the fallout from the three decades of underground testing that ended only in 1993. According to Miller, "there is no such thing as a test that is totally underground" since so many of those tests leaked. Baneberry, an infamous 1970 test, for instance, ejected fallout 8,000 feet into the air and went on for hours. Radioactive debris from another underground test showed up in southeastern Georgia.

Miller, who has recently published a five-volume compendium of fallout data, The U.S. Atlas of Nuclear Fallout, has compiled and analyzed more data on the radioactive fallout that blanketed America than any other researcher. He and other internationally renowned experts, including Helen Caldicott, was in Salt Lake City for "The Nuclear West: Legacy and Future," the eighth annual Stegner Center Symposium at the University of Utah College of Law.

The implications of his work are enormous. In his fallout atlas, he correlates fallout levels with cancer levels, county-by-county across the United States. "If someone lives in Peoria or in Washington state, I want them to know the history of their county in terms of fallout," he says. "It's part of their history." Norman Solomon, co-author of Killing our Own: The Disaster of America's Experience with Atomic Radiation, writes that the nationwide statistics in Miller's atlas "make us think exactly where we or our loved ones were at the time each diffuse radioactive cloud scattered its hazardous debris."

Miller first became interested in fallout in the 1970s while working with OSHA. In 1974, he found pockets of cancer in Valley, Nebraska and a string of cancers in northern Missouri, a place that was notorious for high cancer rates. "I talked OSHA into getting outside the box and looking at these things because I wondered if there could be an occupational component, but I never did find anything work-related."

When the National Cancer Institute came out with its model of fallout in October of 1997, Miller discovered that there were hot spots all across America, including an amazing hot spot in southern Iowa and northern Missouri, where he had, years before, found the high incidence of cancers.

In the late 1970s, he and others in the OSHA office where he worked began finding high incidences of brain cancer at a site in Texas near chemical plants. As they were looking for causes, one team member, a physician with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, jokingly suggested it could be fallout from nuclear tests. "I got to thinking about it and said that no one knows where those fallout tracks went," he says.

Using data collected by the old Atomic Energy Commission, the Defense Nuclear Agency and the U.S. Weather Service, Miller began doing the research. In 1986, Macmillan published his book, Under the Cloud, charting all the fallout tracks.

When the 1997 NCI study came out showing the trajectory of fall-out at 103 points across the United States, Miller was sure it would create a major uproar, but surprisingly, not much came of the report. Nor did people pay attention when the NCI Journal soon after published an article showing a statistically significant link between thyroid
cancer and fallout.

 "The NCI study was a little complicated," he says, noting that it was so extensive that it had to be published on the Internet instead of by conventional means. "Not many people downloaded it," he says. " I was one of those people bone-headed enough to take the NCI data and do the calculations."

Miller crunched the data over a period of several years and published his findings in 2000 as The U.S. Atlas of Nuclear Fallout. "There were hot spots all across the country, not only for Iodine-131 which is linked to thyroid cancer, but for a variety of other radionuclides and radioisotopes associated with fallout."

As part of his analysis, Miller compared the data against the Center for Disease Control "Wonder Database," which assigns a disease an International Disease Classification code and shows what the rates of that disease are for every county in the U.S. from 1979 on.

Miller took about 25 different types of radiation-induced cancers and correlated them with fallout levels for the entire United States. His findings show an association between fallout levels and cancer rates, but he is careful to note, this does not prove causation. "However," he says, "the statistics suggest that the chance that these are random associations is very, very small - far less than one in a hundred. Given the numbers, it's clear that further research is necessary."

Unfortunately, in February, the National Academies of Science called for an end to any more study of cancer risk associated with fallout, claiming that further research wasn't needed and saying that "neither data nor consequences justify a more detailed study." Says Miller, "They've said it's not worth the time. Of course, I don't agree with that assessment."

Further studies could get far more specific than the 1997 NCI study. "The NCI study could be evaluated using tools and techniques that have been around for 20 years or more," he says. "Since fallout likely ended up in ponds and low areas, you could go to where we know fallout came down, sink a core into a pond, bring up the material and analyze it for radioisotopes."

Now, here's where it gets interesting. Miller says, that in theory, you can actually pinpoint which nuclear test was responsible for fallout in a specific area by looking at the ratios between the radioactive isotopes found there. These ratios have been published and available since the early 1980s, courtesy of University of California
researcher Harry G. Hicks. In fact, Miller used Hick's research data - known in the health physics community as the Hicks Table - to estimate total fallout as well as 66 individual fallout isotopes from the NCI's radio-iodine data. These values form the core of the U.S. Fallout Atlas series.

"The point I'm making is that, while the analyses procedures are slow and cumbersome, the derived information is not particularly complex, and the means to evaluate the NCI study is almost low-tech," he says. "From every perspective, it's a feasible study. If the government decides not to follow this up, it would be a huge waste of he NCI's work. While I somewhat enjoy having the only book series with this kind of detail, I think that science and the public would be better served with a formal government evaluation of nuclear fallout."

The implications of Miller's work, contained in his five volume atlas, are huge. If a link exists between some of the radionuclides and certain types of cancers, physicians across the country could use that information as an important diagnostic tool. They could ask patients where they grew up and where they've lived. If a patient lived in an area that got hit with high levels of Cobalt 60, for instance, a physician might want to consider looking at female colon cancer, which seems to be highly correlated with Cobalt 60 deposits.

So far, he's had no luck convincing Congress to continue such studies. "I would think that some senators and representatives would look at their own families and the people they know and love who have cancer and want to study this more, " says Miller. "I would think they owe it to their constituency."

"Atomic weapons testing was a very unique period of history, and everyone's backyard was a part of that history. "It's a technohistory that we've ignored," he says.

Not only have we ignored that chapter of our past, but we don't seem to have learned anything from the human toll of nuclear weapons testing. In fact, the Bush administration is making noise about starting up nuclear testing again. "That's probably going to happen," says Miller. "At some point - perhaps during the so-called bunker-buster tests - I would not be surprised to see what in effect will be above ground nuclear testing. Some of these things are supposed to have 300-kiloton warheads. There is no way a device like that can be field tested without producing a huge debris cloud."

Given what he knows, isn't Miller tempted to become an activist? "You know," he says, "I followed my first book on nuclear testing with a novel, The Atomic Express. In it I included everything I knew about the military, about nuclear weapons, the 1950s, and everything else. In that book I projected what some might suggest is a negative view of the Atomic Energy Commission. If someone wants my personal opinion about the bomb, they can read that. But research for the Fallout Atlas was different. For that research I was just trying to learn something new. That was my only stake in the data. I always got a kick out of seeing those statistical results for the first time. There for a while, it was at least one surprise a day. Just being able to parse the data was enough for me. I always say the data should speak for itself. Look at the data."

Miller's data, indeed, makes a powerful case. Just look at the map. It speaks volumes. (
Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on July 15, 2006, 03:45:02 PM
The Secret History Of The Atomic Bomb
 ( Eustace C. Mullins


When I returned to the United States, I knew I had to unearth the sinister figures behind greatest of human catastrophes. It took many weeks of research to uncover what turned out to be the most far-reaching conspiracy of all time, the program of a few dedicated revolutionaries to seize control of the entire world, by inventing the powerful weapon ever unveiled.

The story begins in Germany.   In the 1930s, Germany and Japan had a number of scientists icing on the development of nuclear fission. In both of these countries, their leaders sternly forbade them to continue their research.   Adolf Hitler said he would never allow anyone in Germany to work to work on such an inhumane weapon.

The Emperor of Japan let his scientists know that he would never approve such a weapon.   At that time the United States had no one working on nuclear fission. The disgruntled German scientists contacted friends in the United States, and were told that there was a possibility of government support for their work here.   As Don Beyer tells these immigrants to the United States pushed their program.

"Leo Szilard, together with his long time friends and fellow Hungarian physicists, Eugene Wigner and Edward Teller, agreed that the President must be warned; fission bomb tehnology was not so farfetched. The Jewish emigres, now living in America, had personal experience of fascism in Europe. In 1939, the three physicists enlisted the support of Albert Einstein, letter dated August 2 signed by Einstein was delivered by Alexander Sachs to Franklin D. Roosevelt at the White House on October 11, 39."


At the Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum, photographs of two men are prominently displayed; Albert Einstein, and J. Robert Oppenheimer, who developed the atomic bomb at Los Alamos laboratories, New Mexico. Also on display is a statement from General Eisenhower, who was then supreme Military Commander, which is found in number of books about Eisenhower, and which can be found on p.426, Eisenhower by Stephen E. Ambrose, Simon & Shuster, NY, 1983.

"Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson first told Eisenhower of the bomb's existence. Eisenhower was engulfed by "a feeling of depression'. When Stimson said the United States proposed to use the bomb against Japan, Eisenhower voiced 'my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use (of atomic weapons).' Stimson was upset by Eisenhower's attitude 'almost angrily refuting the reasons I gave for my quick conclusion'. Three days later, Eisenhower flew to Berlin, where he met with Truman and his principal advisors. Again Eisenhower recommended against using the bomb, and again was ignored.

Other books on Eisenhower state that he endangered his career by his protests against the bomb, which the conspirators in the highest level of the United States government had already sworn to use against Japan, regardless of any military developments. Eisenhower could not have known that Stimson was a prominent member of Skull and Bones at Yale, the Brotherhood of Death, founded by the Russell Trust in 1848 as a bunch of the German Illuminati, or that they had played prominent roles in organizing wars and revolutions since that time. Nor could he have known that President Truman had only had one job in his career, as a Masonic organizer for the State of Missouri, and that the lodges he built up later sent him to the United States Senate and then to the presidency.


The man who set all this in motion was Albert Einstein, who left Europe and came to the United States in October 1933. His wife said that he "regarded human beings with detestation". He had previously corresponded with Sigmund Freud about his projects of "peace" and "disarmament", although Freud later said he did not believe that Einstein ever accepted any of his theories. Einstein had a personal interest in Freud's work because his son Eduard spent his life in mental institutions, undergoing both insulin therapy and electroshock treatment, none of which produced any change in his condition.

When Einstien arrived in the United States, he was feted as a famous scientist, and was invited to the White House by President and Mrs. Roosevelt. He was soon deeply involved with Eleanor Roosevelt in her many leftwing causes, in which Einstein heartily concurred. Some of Einstein's biographers hail the modern era as "the Einstein Revolution" and "the Age of Einstein", possibly because he set in motion the program of nuclear fission in the United States. His letter to Roosevelt requesting that the government inaugurate an atomic bomb program was obviously stirred by his lifelong commitment to "peace and disarmament". His actual commitment was to Zionism; Ronald W. Clark mentions in Einstein; His Life And Times, Avon, 1971, p.377, "He would campaign with the Zionists for a Jewish homeland in Palestine." On p.460, Clark quotes Einstein, "As a Jew I am from today a supporter of the Jewish Zionist efforts." (1919) Einstein's letter to Roosevelt, dated august 2, 1939, was delivered personally to President Roosevelt by Alexander Sachs on October 11. Why did Einstein enlist an intermediary to bring this letter to Roosevelt, with whom he was on friendly terms? The atomic bomb program could not be launched without the necessary Wall Street sponsorship. Sachs, a Russian Jew, listed his profession as "economist" but was actually a bagman for the Rothschilds, who regularly delivered large sums of cash to Roosevelt in the White House. Sachs was an advisor to Eugene Meyer of the Lazard Freres International Banking House, and also with Lehman Brothers, another well known banker. Sachs' delivery of the Einstein letter to the White House let Roosevelt know that the Rothschilds approved of the project and wished him to go full speed ahead.


In May of 1945, the architects of postwar strategy, or, as they liked to call themselves, the "Masters of the Universe", gathered in San Francisco at the plush Palace Hotel to write the Charter for the United Nations. Several of the principals retired for a private meeting in the exclusive Garden Room. The head of the United States delegation had called this secret meeting with his top aide, Alger Hiss, representing the president of the United States and the Soviet KGB; John Foster Dulles, of the Wall Street law firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, whose mentor, William Nelson Cromwell, had been called a "professional revolutionary" on the floor of Congress; and W. Averill Harriman, plenipotentiary extraordinary, who had spent the last two years in Moscow directing Stalin's war for survival. These four men represented the awesome power of the American Republic in world affairs, yet of the four, only Secretary of State Edward Stettinius Jr., had a position authorized by the Constitution. Stettinius called the meeting to order to discuss an urgent matter; the Japanese were already privately suing for peace, which presented a grave crisis. The atomic bomb would not be ready for several more months. "We have already lost Germany," Stettinius said. "If Japan bows out, we will not have a live population on which to test the bomb."

"But, Mr. Secretary," said Alger Hiss, "no one can ignore the terrible power of this weapon." "Nevertheless," said Stettinius, "our entire postwar program depends on terrifying the world with the atomic bomb." "To accomplish that goal," said John Foster Dulles, "you will need a very good tally. I should say a million." "Yes," replied Stettinius, "we are hoping for a million tally in Japan. But if they surrender, we won't have anything." "Then you have to keep them in the war until the bomb is ready," said John Foster Dulles. "That is no problem. Unconditional surrender." "They won't agree to that," said Stettinius. "They are sworn to protect the Emperor." "Exactly," said John Foster Dulles. "Keep Japan in the war another three months, and we can use the bomb on their cities; we will end this war with the naked fear of all the peoples of the world, who will then bow to our will."

Edward Stettinius Jr. was the son of a J.P. Morgan partner who had been the world's largest munitions dealer in the First World War. He had been named by J.P. Morgan to oversee all purchases of munitions by both France and England in the United States throughout the war. John Foster Dulles was also an accomplished warmonger. In 1933, he and his brother Allen had rushed to Cologne to meet with Adolf Hitler and guaranteed him the funds to maintain the Nazi regime. The Dulles brothers were representing their clients, Kuhn Loeb Co., and the Rothschilds. Alger Hiss was the golden prince of the communist elite in the united States. When he was chosen as head of the prestigious Carnegie Endowment for International Peace after World War II, his nomination was seconded by John Foster Dulles. Hiss was later sent to prison for perjury for lying about his exploits as a Soviet espionage agent.

This secret meeting in the Garden Room was actually the first military strategy session of the United Nations, because it was dedicated to its mission of exploding the world's first atomic weapon on a living population. It also forecast the entire strategy of the Cold War, which lasted forty-three years, cost American taxpayers five trillion dollars, and accomplished exactly nothing, as it was intended to do. Thus we see that the New World Order has based its entire strategy on the agony of the hundreds of thousands of civilians burned alive at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, including many thousands of children sitting in their schoolrooms. These leaders had learned from their master, Josef Stalin, that no one can rule without mass terrorism, which in turn required mass murder. As Senator Vandenberg, leader of the Republican loyal opposition, was to say (as quoted in American Heritage magazine, August 1977), "We have got to scare the hell out of "em."


The atomic bomb was developed at the Los Alamos Laboratories in New Mexico. The top secret project was called the Manhattan Project, because its secret director, Bernard Baruch, lived in Manhattan, as did many of the other principals. Baruch had chosen Maj. Gen. Leslie R. Groves to head the operation. He had previously built the Pentagon, and had a good reputation among the Washington politicians, who usually came when Baruch beckoned.

The scientific director at Los Alamos was J. Robert Oppenheimer, scion of a prosperous family of clothing merchants. In Oppenheimer; the Years Of Risk, by James Kunetka, Prentice Hall, NY, 1982, Kunetka writes, p. 106, "Baruch was especially interested in Oppenheimer for the position of senior scientific adviser." The project cost an estimated two billion dollars. No other nation in the world could have afforded to develop such a bomb. The first successful test of the atomic bomb occurred at the Trinity site, two hundred miles south of Los Alamos at 5:29:45 a.m. on July 16, 1945. Oppenheimer was beside himself at the spectacle. He shrieked, "I am become Death, the Destroyer of worlds." Indeed, this seemed to be the ultimate goal of the Manhattan Project, to destroy the world. There had been considerable fear among the scientists that the test explosion might indeed set off a chain reaction, which would destroy the entire world. Oppenheimer's exultation came from his realization that now his people had attained the ultimate power, through which they could implement their five-thousand-year desire to rule the entire world.


Although Truman liked to take full credit for the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan, in fact, he was advised by a prestigious group, The National Defense Research Committee, consisting of George L. Harrison, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; Dr. James B. Conant, president of Harvard, who had spent the First World War developing more effective poison gases, and who in 1942 had been commissioned by Winston Churchill to develop an Anthrax bomb to be used on Germany, which would have killed every living thing in Germany. Conant was unable to perfect the bomb before Germany surrendered, otherwise he would have had another line to add to his resume.  His service on Truman's Committee which advised him to drop the atomic bomb on Japan, added to his previous record as a chemical warfare professional, allowed me to describe him in papers filed before the United States Court of Claims in 1957, as "the most notorious war criminal of the Second World War". As Gauleiter of Germany after the war, he had ordered the burning of my book, The Federal Reserve Conspiracy, ten thousand copies having been published in Oberammergau, the site of the world-famed Passion Play.

Also on the committee were Dr. Karl Compton, and James F. Byrnes, acting Secretary of State. For thirty years, Byrnes had been known as Bernard Baruch's man in Washington. With his Wall Street profits, Baruch had built the most lavish estate in South Carolina, which he named Hobcaw Barony. As the wealthiest man in South Carolina, this epitome of the carpet-bagger also controlled the political purse strings. Now Baruch was in a position to dictate to Truman, through his man Byrnes, that he should drop the atomic bomb on Japan.


Despite the fact that the Manhattan Project was the most closely guarded secret of World War II, one man, and one many only, was allowed to observe everything and to know everything about the project. He was Lipman Siew, a Lithuanian Jew who had come to the United States as a political refugee at the age of seventeen. He lived in Boston on Lawrence St., and decided to take the name of William L. Laurence. At Harvard, he became a close friend of James B. Conant and was tutored by him. When Laurence went to New York, he was hired by Herbert Bayard Swope, editor of the New York World, who was known as Bernard Baruch's personal publicity agent. Baruch owned the World. In 1930, Laurence accepted an offer from the New York Times to become its science editor. He states in Who's Who that he "was selected by the heads of the atomic bomb project as sole writer and public relations." How one could be a public relations writer for a top secret project was not explained. Laurence was the only civilian present at the historic explosion of the test bomb on July 16, 1945. Less than a month later, he sat in the copilots seat of the B-29 on the fateful Nagasaki bombing run.

Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on July 15, 2006, 03:47:20 PM
(continued from above post)


There were still many anxious moments for the conspirators, who planned to launch a new reign of terror throughout the world. Japan had been suing for peace. Each day it seemed less likely that she could stay in the war. On March 9 and 10, 1945, 325 B-29s had burned thirty-five square miles of Tokyo, leaving more than one hundred thousand Japanese dead in the ensuing firestorm. Of Japan's 66 biggest cities, 59 had been mostly destroyed. 178 square miles of urban dwellings had been burned, 500,000 died in the fires, and now twenty million Japanese were homeless. Only four cities had not been destroyed; Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata, and Nagasaki. Their inhabitants had no inkling that they had been saved as target cities for the experimental atomic bomb. Maj. Gen. Leslie Groves, at Bernard Baruch's insistence, had demanded that Kyoto be the initial target of the bomb. Secretary of War Stimson objected, saying that as the ancient capital of Japan, the city of Kyoto had hundreds of historic wooden temples, and no military targets. The Jews wanted to destroy it precisely because of its great cultural importance to the Japanese people.


While the residents of Hiroshima continued to watch the B-29s fly overhead without dropping bombs on them, they had no inkling of the terrible fate which the scientists had reserved for them. William Manchester quotes General Douglas MacArtbur in American Caesar, Little Brown, 1978, p.437

[quoting:] There was another Japan, and MacArthur was one of the few Americans who suspected its existence. He kept urging the Pentagon and the State Department to be alert for conciliatory gestures. The General predicted that the break would come from Tokyo, not the Japanese army. The General was right. A dovish coalition was forming in the Japanese capital, and it was headed by Hirohito himself, who had concluded in the spring of 1945 that a negotiated peace was the only way to end his nation's agony. Beginning in early May, a six-man council of Japanese diplomats explored ways to accommodate the Allies. The delegates informed top military officials that "our resistance is finished". [End quoting]

On p.359, Gar Alperowitz quotes Brig. Gen. Carter W. Clarke, in charge of preparing the MAGIC summary in 1945, who stated in a 1959 historical interview, "We brought them down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and when we didn't need to do it, and knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."

Although President Truman referred to himself as the sole authority in the decision to drop the bomb, in fact he was totally influenced by Bernard Baruch's man in Washington, James F. Byrnes. Gar Alperowitz states, p. 196, "Byrnes spoke with the authority of`”personally represented`”the president of the United States on all bomb-related matters in the Interim Committee's deliberations." David McCullough, in his laudatory biography of Truman, which was described as "a valentine", admitted that "Truman didn't know his own Secretary of State, Stettinius. He had no background in foreign policy, no expert advisors of his own."

The tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was that a weak, inexperienced president, completely under the influence of Byrnes and Baruch, allowed himself to be manipulated into perpetrating a terrible massacre. In the introduction to Hiroshima's Shadows, we find that "Truman was moving in quite the opposite direction, largely under the influence of Byrnes. The atom bomb for Byrnes was an instrument of diplomacy-atomic diplomacy." (p.ix)


On August 6, 1945, a uranium bomb 3-235, 20 kilotons yield, was exploded 1850 feet in the air above Hiroshima, for maximum explosive effect. It devastated four square miles, and killed 140,000 of the 255,000 inhabitants. In Hiroshima's Shadows, we find a statement by a doctor who treated some of the victims; p.415, Dr. Shuntaro Hida: "It was strange to us that Hiroshima had never been bombed, despite the fact that B-29 bombers flew over the city every day. Only after the war did I come to know that Hiroshima, according to American archives, had been kept untouched in order to preserve it as a target for the use of nuclear weapons. Perhaps, if the American administration and its military authorities had paid sufficient regard to the terrible nature of the fiery demon which mankind had discovered and yet knew so little about its consequences, the American authorities might never have used such a weapon against the 750,000 Japanese who ultimately became its victims."

Dr. Hida says that while treating the terribly mangled and burned victims, "My eyes were ready to overflow with tears. I spoke to myself and bit my lip so that I would not cry. If I had cried, I would have lost my courage to keep standing and working, treating dying victims of Hiroshima."

On p.433, Hiroshima's Shadows, Kensaburo Oe declares, "From the instant the atomic bomb exploded, it became the symbol of all human evil; it was a savagely primitive demon and most modern curse.... My nightmare stems from a suspicion that a 'certain trust in human strength' or 'humanism' flashed across the minds of American intellectuals who decided upon the project that concluded with the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima."

In the introduction to Hiroshima's Shadows, we find that "One of the myths of Hiroshima is that the inhabitants were warned by leaflets that an atomic bomb would be dropped. The leaflets Leonard Nadler and William P. Jones recall seeing in the Hiroshima Museum in 1960 and 1970 were dropped after the bombing. This happened because the President's Interim Committee on the Atomic Bomb decided on May 31 'that we could not give the Japanese any warning'. Furthermore, the decision to drop 'atomic' leaflets on Japanese cities was not made until August 7, the day after the Hiroshima bombing. They were not dropped until August 10, after Nagasaki had been bombed. We can say that the residents of Hiroshima received no advance warning about the use of the atomic bomb. On June 1, 1945, a formal and official decision was taken during a meeting of the so-called Interim Committee not to warn the populations of the specific target cities. James Byrnes and Oppenheimer insisted that the bombs must be used without prior warning."

"Closely linked to the question of whether a warning of an atomic bomb attack was given to the civilian populations of the target cities is the third 'article of fifth' that underpins the American legend of Hiroshima; the belief that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets. The Headquarters of the Japanese Second army were located in Hiroshima and approximately 20,000 men`”of which about half, or 10,000 died in the attack. In Nagasaki, there were about 150 deaths among military personnel in the city. Thus, between the two cities, 4.4% of the total death toll was made up of military personnel. In short, more than 95% of the casualties were civilians."

On p.39 of Hiroshima's Shadows we find that (at Hiroshima) "strictly military damage was insignificant." How are we to reconcile this statement with Harry Truman's vainglorious boast in Off The Record; the Private Papers of Harry S. Truman Harper, 1980, p.304, "In 1945 I had ordered the Atomic Bomb dropped on Japan at two places devoted almost exclusively to war production." In fact, many thousands of the Hiroshima casualties were children sitting in their classrooms.

The bomb was dropped because (p.35) "The Manhattan Project's managers were lobbying to use the atomic bomb. Byrnes sat in on these meetings. Maj. Gen. Groves seems to have been the author of the claim that the use of the bomb would save a million American lives`”-a figure in the realm of fantasy."

Truman himself variously stated that the use of the use of the atomic bomb saved "a quarter of a million American lives", a "half-million American lives", and finally settled on the Gen. Groves figure of "a million American lives saved."

Meanwhile (p.64) William L. Laurence, who was writing for the New York Times at full salary while also receiving a full salary from the War Department as the "public relations agent for the atomic bomb" published several stories in the New York Times denying that there had been any radiation effects on the victims of the Hiroshima bombing (Sept. 5, 1945 et seq.) in which he quotes General Groves' indignant comment, "The Japanese are still continuing their propaganda aimed at creating the impression we won the war unfairly and thus attempting to create sympathy for themselves."

(p.66) "The Legation of Switzerland on August 11, 1945 forwarded from Tokyo the following memorandum to the State Department (which sat on it for twenty-five years before finally releasing it): 'The Legation of Switzerland has received a communication from the Japanese Government.' On August 6, 1945, American airplanes released on the residential district of the town of Hiroshima, bombs of a new type, killing and injuring in one second a large number of civilians and destroying a great part of the town. Not only is the city of Hiroshima a provincial town without any protection or special military installations of any kind, but also none of the neighboring regions or towns constitutes a military objective."

The introduction to Hiroshima's Shadows concludes that (p.lxvii) "The claim that an invasion of the Japanese home islands was necessary without the use of the atomic bombs is untrue. The claim that an 'atomic warning' was given to the populace of Hiroshima is untrue. And the claim that both cities were key military targets is untrue."


Corroboration of these statements is found in the remarkable record of Ellsworth Torrey Carrington, "Reflections of a Hiroshima Pilot", (p.9) "As part of the Hiroshima atomic battle plan my B-29 (named Jabbitt III, Captain John Abbott Wilson's third war plane) flew the weather observation mission over the secondary target of Kokura on August 6, 1945." (p. 10) "After the first bomb was dropped, the atom bomb command was very fearful that Japan might surrender before we could drop the second bomb, so our people worked around the clock, 24-hours-a-day to avoid such a misfortune." This is, of course, satire on Carrington's part. (p. 13) "in city after city all over the face of Japan (except for our cities spared because reserved for atomic holocaust) they ignited the most terrible firestorms in history with very light losses (of B-29s). Sometimes the heat from these firestorms was so intense that later waves of B-29s were caught by updrafts strong enough to loft them upwards from 4 or 5,000 feet all the way up to 8 or 10,000 feet. The major told us that the fire-bombing of Japan had proven successful far beyond anything they had imagined possible and that the 20th Air Force was running out of cities to burn. Already there were no longer (as of the first week in June 1945) any target cities left that were worth the attention of more than 50 B-29s, and on a big day, we could send up as many as 450 planes!" "The totality of the devastation in Japan was extraordinary, and this was matched by the near-totality of Japan's defencelessness." (as of June 1, 1945, before the atomic bombs were dropped.) (p. 14) "The Truman government censored and controlled all the war information that was allowed to reach the public, and of course, Truman had a vested interest in obscuring the truth so as to surreptitiously prolong the war and be politically able to use the atom bomb. Regarding the second element of the Roosevelt-Truman atomic Cold War strategy of deceiving the public into believing that Japan was still militarily viable in the spring and summer of 1945, the centerpiece was the terribly expensive and criminally unnecessary campaign against Okinawa.

Carrington quotes Admiral William D. Leahy, p. 245, I Was There, McGraw Hill: "A large part of the Japanese Navy was already on the bottom of the sea. The combined Navy surface and air force action even by this time had forced Japan into a position that made her early surrender inevitable. None of us then knew the potentialities of the atomic bomb, but it was my opinion, and I urged it strongly on the Joint Chiefs, that no major land invasion of the Japanese mainland was necessary to win the war. The JCS did order the preparation of plans for an invasion, but the invasion itself was never authorized."

Thus Truman, urged on by General Groves, claims that "a million American lives were saved" by the use of the atomic bomb, when no invasion had ever been authorized, and was not in the cards. Carrington continues, p. 16, "The monstrous truth is that the timing of the Okinawa campaign was exclusively related to the early August timetable of the atomic bomb. J'accuse!  I accuse Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman of deliberately committing war crimes against the American people for the sole purpose of helping set the stage for the criminally unnecessary use of atomic weapons on Japan."

Carrington further quotes Admiral Leahy, from I Was There, "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagaski was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."

Carrington concludes, p.22, "Truman's wanton use of atomic weapons left the American people feeling dramatically less secure after winning World War II than they had ever felt before, and these feelings of insecurity have been exploited by unscrupulous Cold War Machine Politicians ever since." As Senator Vandenberg said, "We have to scare the hell out of 'em" in order to browbeat the American people into paying heavy taxes to support the Cold War.


Admiral William Leahy also stated in I Was There, "My own feeling is that being the first to use it (the atomic bomb) we had adopted an ethical standard common to the Barbarism of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

Gar Alperowitz notes, p. 16, "On May 5, May 12 and June 7, the Office of Strategic Services (our intelligence operation), reported Japan was considering capitulation. Further messages came on May 18, July 7, July 13 and July 16."

Alperowitz points out, p.36, "The standing United States demand for 'unconditional surrender' directly threatened not only the person of the Emperor but such central tenets of Japanese culture as well."

Alperowitz also quotes General Curtis LeMay, chief of the Air Forces, p.334, "The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb. PRESS INQUIRY: You mean that, sir? Without the Russians and without the atomic bomb? LeMay: The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all." September 29, 1945, statement.


When the Air Force dropped the atomic bomb on Nagasaki, with William Laurence riding in the co-pilot's seat of the B-29, pretending to be Dr. Strangelove, here again the principal target was a Catholic church. P.93, The Fall Of Japan, by William Craig, Dial, NY, 1967, "the roof and masonry of the Catholic cathedral fell on the kneeling worshippers. All of them died." This church has now been rebuilt, and is a prominent feature of the Nagasaki tour.

After the terror bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the victorious Allies moved promptly to try Japanese officials for their "war crimes". From 1945-51 several thousand Japanese military men were found guilty of war crimes by an International Military Tribunal which met in Tokyo from 1946 to 1948. Twenty-eight Japanese military and civilian leaders were accused of having engaged in conspiracy to commit atrocities. The dissenting member of the Tokyo tribunal, Judge Radhabinod of India, dismissed the charge that Japanese leaders had conspired to commit atrocities, stating that a stronger case might be made against the victors, because the decision to use the atomic bomb resulted in indiscriminate murder.

A very popular movie in Japan today is Pride, The Fateful Moment, which shows Prime Minister General Hideki Tojo in a favorable light. With six others, he was hanged in 1968 as a war criminal. During his trial, his lawyers stated to the International Tribunal for the Far East, the Asian version of Nuremberg Trials, that Tojo's war crimes could not begin to approach the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The prosecutors immediately objected, and censored their statements. That was the last time there was any official recognition of the atomic bomb massacres in Japan. Japanese officials have been effectively prevented from taking any stand on this matter because the American military occupation, which officially ended in 1952 with the Treaty with Japan, was quietly continued. Today, 49,000 American troops are still stationed in Japan, and there is no public discussion of the crimes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on July 15, 2006, 03:49:11 PM
(continued from above post)


The most authoritative Air Force unit during World War II was the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, which selected targets on the basis of need, and which analyzed the results for future missions. In Hiroshima's Shadow, the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey report of July 1, 1946 states, "The Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs did not defeat Japan, nor by the testimony of the enemy leaders who ended the war did they persuade Japan to accept unconditional surrender. The Emperor, the lord privy seal, the prime minister, the foreign minister, and the navy minister had decided as early as May 1945 that the war should be ended even if it meant acceptance of defeat on allied terms.... It is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to December 1, 1945 and in all probability prior to November 1, 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

Both military, political and religious leaders spoke out against the atomic bombing of Japanese civilians. The Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America issued a formal statement in March 1946 (cited by Gar Alperowitz):

"The surprise bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are morally indefensible. Both bombings must be judged to have been unnecessary for winning the war. As the power that first used the atomic bomb under these circumstances, we have sinned grievously against the laws of God and against the people of Japan."`”Commission on the Relation of the Church to the War in the Light of the Christian Faith.

On p.438, Gar Alperowitz quotes James M. Gillis, editor of Catholic World, "I would call it a crime were it not that the word 'crime' implies sin, and sin requires a consciousness of guilt. The action taken by the Untied States government was in defiance of every sentiment and every conviction upon which our civilization is based."

One of the most vociferous critics of the atomic bombings was David Lawrence, founder and editor of U.S. News and World Report. He signed a number of stinging editorials, the first on August 17, 1945.

"Military necessity will be our constant cry in answer to criticism, but it will never erase from our minds the simple truth, that we, of all civilized nations, though hesitating to use poison gas, did not hesitate to employ the most destructive weapon of all times indiscriminately against men, women and children." On October 5, Lawrence continued his attack, "The United States should be the first to condemn the atomic bomb and apologize for its use against Japan. Spokesmen for the Army Air Forces said it wasn't necessary and that the war had been won already. Competent testimony exists to prove that Japan was seeking to surrender many weeks before the atomic bomb came." On November 23, Lawrence wrote, "The truth is we are guilty. Our conscience as a nation must trouble us. We must confess our sin. We have used a horrible weapon to asphyxiate and cremate more than 100,000 men, women and children in a sort of super-lethal gas chamber`” and all this in a war already won or which spokesman for our Air Forces tell us we could have readily won without the atomic bomb. We ought, therefore, to apologize in unequivocal terms at once to the whole world for our misuse of the atomic bomb."

David Lawrence was an avowed conservative, a successful businessman, who knew eleven presidents of the United States intimately, and was awarded the Medal of Freedom by President Richard M. Nixon, April 22, 1970.


Although Eisenhower never changed his opinion of the use of the atomic bomb, during his presidency he repeatedly voiced his opinion, as quoted by Steve Neal, The Eisenhowers Doubleday, 1978. P.225, "Ike would never lose his scepticism of the weapon and later referred to it as a 'hellish contrivance'."

His brother, Milton Eisenhower, a prominent educator, was even more vocal on this subject. As quoted by Gar Alperwitz, p.358, Milton Eisenhower said, "Our employment of this new force at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a supreme provocation to other nations, especially the Soviet Union. Moreover, its use violated the normal standards of warfare by wiping out entire populations, mostly civilians, in the target cities. Certainly what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki will forever be on the conscience of the American people."

During his Presidency, Dwight Eisenhower tried to find peaceful uses for atomic energy. In The Eisenhower Diaries, p.261, we find that "The phrase 'atoms for peace' entered the lexicon of international affairs with a speech by Eisenhower before the United Nations December 8, 1953." Control of atomic energy had now given the New World Order clique enormous power, and Eisenhower, in his farewell speech to the American people on leaving the Presidency In Review (Doubleday, 1969), on January 17, 1961, warned, "In the councils of government we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the miliary-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

By failing to name the power behind the military-industrial complex, the international bankers, Eisenhower left the American people in the dark as to he was actually warning them against. To this day they do not understand what he was trying to say, that the international bankers, the Zionists and the Freemasons had formed an unholy alliance whose money and power could not be overcome by righteous citizens of the United States.


General Douglas MacArthur also tried to warn the American people of this threat, as quoted in American Ceaser, by William Manchester, Little Brown, 1978, p.692, "In 1957, he lashed out at large Pentagon budgets. 'Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear`”kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor`”with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant funds demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real."

This was the restatement of Senator Vandenberg's famous comment, "We have to scare the hell out of 'em."


The scientists who had built the atomic bomb were gleeful when they received the news of its success at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In the book, Robert Oppenheimer, Dark Prince, by Jack Rummel, 1992, we find, p.96, "Back in the United States the news of the bombing of Hiroshima was greeted with a mixture of relief, pride, joy, shock and sadness. Otto Frisch remembers the shouts of joy, 'Hiroshima has been destroyed!' 'Many of my friends were rushing to the telephone to book tables at the La Fonda Hotel in Santa Fe in order to celebrate. Oppenheimer walked around "like a prizefighter, clasping his hands together above his head as he came to the podium".'"

Oppenheimer had been a lifelong Communist. "He was heavily influenced by Soviet Communism ": A New Civilization, by Sidney and Beatrice Webb, the founders of Fabian Socialism in England. He became director of research at the newly formed U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, with his mentor, Bernard Baruch, serving as chairman. Oppenheimer continued his many Communist Party Associations; his wife was Kitty Peuning, widow of Joe Dallet, an American Communist who had been killed defending Communism with the notorious Lincoln Brigade in Spain. Because Oppenheimer was under Party discipline, the Party then ordered him to marry Kitty Peuning and make a home for her.

Baruch resigned from the Atomic Energy Commission to attend to his business interests. He was replaced by Lewis Lichtenstein Strauss, of Kuhn, Loeb Co. Strauss was apprised of Oppenheimer's many Communist associations, but he decided to overlook them until he found that Oppenheimer was sabotaging progress on developing the new and much more destructive hydrogen bomb. It seemed apparent that Oppenheimer was delaying the hydrogen bomb until the Soviet Union could get its own version on line. Furious at the betrayal, he asked Oppenheimer to resign as director of the Commission. Oppenheimer refused. Strauss then ordered that he be tried. A hearing was held from April 5 to May 6, 1954. After reviewing the results, the Atomic Energy Commission voted to strip Oppenheimer of his security clearance, ruling that he "possessed substantial defects of character and imprudent dangerous associations with known subversives".

Oppenheimer retired to Princeton, where his mentor, Albert Einstein, presided over the Institute for Advanced Study, a think tank for refugee "geniuses", financed by the Rothschilds through one of their many secret foundations. Oppenheimer was already a trustee of the Institute, were he remained until his death in 1966.

Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on July 15, 2006, 03:52:38 PM

Einstein considered the atomic age merely as a stage for the rebirth of Israel. On p.760 of Einstein; His Life And Times we find that Abba Eban, the Israeli Ambassador, came to his home with the Israeli consul, Reuben Dafni. He later wrote, "Professor Einstein told me that he saw the rebirth of Israel as one of the few political acts in his lifetime which had an essential moral quality. He believed that the conscience of the world should, therefore, be involved in Israel's preservation." by Ronald W. Clarke, Avon Books 1971.

On March 1, 1946, Army Air Force Contract No. MX-791 was signed, creating the RAND Corporation as an official think tank, defining Project RAND as "a continuing program of scientific study and research on the broad subject of air warfare with the object of recommending to the Air Force preferred methods of techniques and instrumentalities for this purpose." On May 14, 1948, RAND Corporation funding was taken over by H. Rowan Gaither, head of the Ford Foundation. This was done because the Air Force had sole control of the atomic bomb, RAND Corp. developed the Air Force and atomic bomb program for the Cold War, with the Strategic Air Command, the missile program, and many other elements of the "terror strategy". It became a billion dollar game for these scientists, with John von Neumann, their leading scientist, becoming world famous as the inventor of "game theory", in which the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in a worldwide "game" to see which would be the first to attack the other with nuclear missiles. In the United States, the schools held daily bomb drills, with the children hiding under their desks. No one told them that thousands of schools children in Hiroshima had been incinerated in their classrooms; the desks offered no protection against nuclear weapons. The moral effect on the children was devastating. If they were to be vaporized in the next ten seconds, there seemed little reason to study, marry and have children, or prepare for a steady job. This demoralization through the nuclear weapons program is the undisclosed reason for the decline in public morality.

In 1987, Phyllis LaFarge published The Strangelove Legacy, The Impact Of The Nuclear Threat On Children, chronicling through extended research the moral devastation wreaked on the children by the daily threat of annihilation. She quotes Freeman Dyson, who stated the world has been divided into two worlds, the world of the warriors, and the world of the victims, the children. It was William L. Laurence, sitting in the co-pilot's seat of a B-29 over Nagasaki, and the children waiting to be vaporized below. This situation has not changed.


Because Japan was occupied by the U.S. Military in 1945, the Japanese Government was never allowed any opportunity to file any legal charges about the use of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Although Japanese leaders were tried and executed for "war crimes" no one was ever charged for the atomic bombings. It was not until 1996 that the World Court delivered an opinion on the use of nuclear weapons, (p.565, Hiroshima's Shadows) "In July 1996, the World court took a stand in its first formal opinion on the legality of nuclear weapons. Two years earlier, the United Nations had asked the Court for an advisory opinion. The General Assembly of the United Nations posed a single, yet profoundly basic, question for consideration. It the threat of use of nuclear weapons on any circumstances permitted under international law? For the first time, the world's pre-eminent judicial authority has considered the question of criminality vis-a-vis the use of a nuclear weapon, and, in doing so, it has come to the conclusion that the use of a nuclear weapon is 'unlawful'. It is also the Court's view that even the threat of the use of a nuclear weapon is illegal. Although there were differences concerning the implications of the right of self-defense provided by Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, ten of the fourteen judges hearing the case found the use of threat to use a nuclear weapon to be illegal on the basis of the existing canon of humanitarian law which governs the conduct of armed conflict. The judges based their opinion on more than a century of treatise and conventions that are collectively known as the 'Hague' and 'Geneva' laws."

Thus the Court ruled that nuclear weapons are illegal under the Hague and Geneva conventions , agreements which were in existence at the time of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. They were illegal then, and they are illegal now.


Among world leaders who spoke out about the United States' use of atomic weapons in Japan, Mahatma Gandhi echoed the general climate of opinion. P.258, Hiroshima's Shadow: "The atomic bomb has deadened the finest feelings which have sustained mankind for ages. There used to be so-called laws of war which made it tolerable. Now we understand the naked truth. War knows no law except that of might. The atomic bomb brought an empty victory to the Allied armies. It has resulted for the time being in the soul of Japan being destroyed. What has happened to the soul of the destroying nation is yet too early to see. Truth needs to be repeated as long as there are men who do not believe it."

Memorial Day, 1998

Cast of Characters: The House of Rothschild; international bankers who made enormous profits during the nineteenth century, and used their money to take over governments.

Bernard Baruch: New York agent of the Rothschilds who at the turn of the century set up the tobacco trust, the copper trust and other trusts for the Rothschilds. He became the grey eminence of the United States atomic bomb program when his lackey, J. Robert Oppenheimner, became director of the Los Alamos bomb development, and when his Washington lackey, James F. Byrnes, advised Truman to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Albert Einstein; lifelong Zionist who initiated the United States' atomic bomb program with a personal letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1939.


The Private Lives Of Albert Einstein, by Roger Highfield, St. Martins Press, NY, 1993.

The Wizards Of Armageddon, by Fred Kaplan, Simon & Shuster, NY, 1993.

Albert Einstein, by Milton Dank, Franklin Watts, 1983.

Off The Record; The Private Papers Of Harry S. Truman, Harper & Row, 1980.

The Eisenhowers, by Steve Neal, Doubleday, 1978.

The Eisenhower Diaries, W.W. Norton, 1981.

In Review, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Doubleday, 1969.

Eisenhower, Stephen E. Ambrose, Simon & Schuster, 1983.

The Strangelove Legacy, Phyllis LaFarge, Harper & Row, 1987.

Einstein, His Life & Times, Ronald W. Clark, Avon books, 1971.

Robert Oppenheimer, Dark Prince, by Jack Rummel, 1992.

The Manhattan Project, by Don E. Beyer, Franklin Wat, 1991.

The Great Decision, The Secret History Of The Atomic Bomb, Michael Amrine, Putnams, NY, 1959.

Eisenhower At War, by David Eisenhower, Random House, NY, 1986.

The Fall Of Japan, by William Craig, Dial, NY, 1967.

Oppenheimer, The Years Of Risk, Jas W. Kunetka, Prentice Hall, 1982.

Target Tokyo, Gordon W. Prange, McGraw Hill, 1984.

Hiroshima's Shadow, edited by Kai Bird, Pamphleteer Press, 1998.

The Decision To Use The Atomic Bomb, by Gar Alperowitz, Knopf, NY, 1995.

Was Einstein Right? by Clifford M. Will, Basic Books, 1986.
Title: Hiroshima ~ 61st Anniversary
Post by: dominique on August 06, 2006, 09:37:36 PM
(       H I R O S H I M A       (

 6 . A U G U S T . 1 9 4 5


From what we read in the general media, it seems like almost everyone felt the atomic bombings of Japan were necessary.
Aren't the people who disagree with those actions just trying to find fault with America?

Positions listed refer to WWII positions.



" [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan.  I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act.  ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.  It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'.  The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

 - Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

 - Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

(  (

(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.  The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening.  My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.  I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

 - William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.



On May 28, 1945, Hoover visited President Truman and suggested a way to end the Pacific war quickly: "I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over."

Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, pg. 347.

On August 8, 1945, after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Hoover wrote to Army and Navy Journal publisher Colonel John Callan O'Laughlin, "The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul."

quoted from Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 635.

"...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs."

 - quoted by Barton Bernstein in Philip Nobile, ed., Judgment at the Smithsonian, pg. 142

Hoover biographer Richard Norton Smith has written: "Use of the bomb had besmirched America's reputation, he [Hoover] told friends.  It ought to have been described in graphic terms before being flung out into the sky over Japan."

Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, pg. 349-350.

In early May of 1946 Hoover met with General Douglas MacArthur.  Hoover recorded in his diary, "I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished.  MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria."

Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 350-351.

She was just a junior high school girl, only 14 years old....


MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.'  MacArthur was appalled.  He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it.  Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign.  Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.

Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan.  Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed."  He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted.  What, I asked, would his advice have been?  He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb.  The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.


(Under Sec. of State)

In a February 12, 1947 letter to Henry Stimson (Sec. of War during WWII), Grew responded to the defense of the atomic bombings Stimson had made in a February 1947 Harpers magazine article:

" the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision.

"If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the [Pacific] war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer."

Grew quoted in Barton Bernstein, ed.,The Atomic Bomb, pg. 29-32.


(Assistant Sec. of War)

"I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted.  Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration.  When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented.  I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs."

McCloy quoted in James Reston, Deadline, pg. 500.


(Under Sec. of the Navy)

On June 28, 1945, a memorandum written by Bard the previous day was given to Sec. of War Henry Stimson.  It stated, in part:

"Following the three-power [July 1945 Potsdam] conference emissaries from this country could contact representatives from Japan somewhere on the China Coast and make representations with regard to Russia's position [they were about to declare war on Japan] and at the same time give them some information regarding the proposed use of atomic power, together with whatever assurances the President might care to make with regard to the [retention of the] Emperor of Japan and the treatment of the Japanese nation following unconditional surrender.  It seems quite possible to me that this presents the opportunity which the Japanese are looking for.

"I don't see that we have anything in particular to lose in following such a program."  He concluded the memorandum by noting, "The only way to find out is to try it out."

Memorandum on the Use of S-1 Bomb, Manhattan Engineer District Records, Harrison-Bundy files, folder # 77, National Archives (also contained in: Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed, 1987 edition, pg. 307-308).

Later Bard related, " definitely seemed to me that the Japanese were becoming weaker and weaker.  They were surrounded by the Navy.  They couldn't get any imports and they couldn't export anything.  Naturally, as time went on and the war developed in our favor it was quite logical to hope and expect that with the proper kind of a warning the Japanese would then be in a position to make peace, which would have made it unnecessary for us to drop the bomb and have had to bring Russia in...".

quoted in Len Giovannitti and Fred Freed, The Decision To Drop the Bomb, pg. 144-145, 324.

Bard also asserted, "I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss.  And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted."  He continued, "In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb.  Thus, it wouldn't have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb."

War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75.


(Special Assistant to the Sec. of the Navy)

Strauss recalled a recommendation he gave to Sec. of the Navy James Forrestal before the atomic bombing of Hiroshima:

"I proposed to Secretary Forrestal that the weapon should be demonstrated before it was used.  Primarily it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over.  The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate...  My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to Japanese observers and where its effects would be dramatic.  I remember suggesting that a satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo.  The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood...  I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest... would lay the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they were matchsticks, and, of course, set them afire in the center.  It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities at will...  Secretary Forrestal agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation..."

Strauss added, "It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world...".

quoted in Len Giovannitti and Fred Freed, The Decision To Drop the Bomb, pg. 145, 325.


(Vice Chairman, U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey)

In 1950 Nitze would recommend a massive military buildup, and in the 1980s he was an arms control negotiator in the Reagan administration.  In July of 1945 he was assigned the task of writing a strategy for the air attack on Japan.  Nitze later wrote: 

"The plan I devised was essentially this: Japan was already isolated from the standpoint of ocean shipping.  The only remaining means of transportation were the rail network and intercoastal shipping, though our submarines and mines were rapidly eliminating the latter as well.  A concentrated air attack on the essential lines of transportation, including railroads and (through the use of the earliest accurately targetable glide bombs, then emerging from development) the Kammon tunnels which connected Honshu with Kyushu, would isolate the Japanese home islands from one another and fragment the enemy's base of operations.  I believed that interdiction of the lines of transportation would be sufficiently effective so that additional bombing of urban industrial areas would not be necessary.

"While I was working on the new plan of air attack... {I} concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months.  My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945."

Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pg. 36-37 (my emphasis)   

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that was primarily written by Nitze and reflected his reasoning:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

quoted in Barton Bernstein, The Atomic Bomb, pg. 52-56.

In his memoir, written in 1989, Nitze repeated,

"Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands [scheduled for November 1, 1945] would have been necessary."

Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pg. 44-45.



Einstein was not directly involved in the Manhattan Project (which developed the atomic bomb).  In 1905, as part of his Special Theory of Relativity, he made the intriguing point that a relatively large amount of energy was contained in and could be released from a relatively small amount of matter.  This became best known by the equation E=mc2.  The atomic bomb was not based upon this theory but clearly illustrated it.

In 1939 Einstein signed a letter to President Roosevelt that was drafted by the scientist Leo Szilard.  Received by FDR in October of that year, the letter from Einstein called for and sparked the beginning of U.S. government support for a program to build an atomic bomb, lest the Nazis build one first.

Einstein did not speak publicly on the atomic bombing of Japan until a year afterward.  A short article on the front page of the New York Times contained his view:

"Prof. Albert Einstein... said that he was sure that President Roosevelt would have forbidden the atomic bombing of Hiroshima had he been alive and that it was probably carried out to end the Pacific war before Russia could participate."

Einstein Deplores Use of Atom Bomb, New York Times, 8/19/46, pg. 1.

Regarding the 1939 letter to Roosevelt, his biographer, Ronald Clark, has noted:

"As far as his own life was concerned, one thing seemed quite clear.  'I made one great mistake in my life,' he said to Linus Pauling, who spent an hour with him on the morning of November 11, 1954, '...when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was some justification - the danger that the Germans would make them.'".

Ronald Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, pg. 620.

(  (  (

(The first scientist to conceive of how an atomic bomb might be made - 1933)

For many scientists, one motivation for developing the atomic bomb was to make sure Germany, well known for its scientific capabilities, did not get it first.  This was true for Szilard, a Manhattan Project scientist.

"In the spring of '45 it was clear that the war against Germany would soon end, and so I began to ask myself, 'What is the purpose of continuing the development of the bomb, and how would the bomb be used if the war with Japan has not ended by the time we have the first bombs?".

Szilard quoted in Spencer Weart and Gertrud Weiss Szilard, ed., Leo Szilard: His Version of the Facts, pg. 181.

After Germany surrendered, Szilard attempted to meet with President Truman.  Instead, he was given an appointment with Truman's Sec. of State to be, James Byrnes.  In that meeting of May 28, 1945, Szilard told Byrnes that the atomic bomb should not be used on Japan.  Szilard recommended, instead, coming to an international agreement on the control of atomic weapons before shocking other nations by their use:

"I thought that it would be a mistake to disclose the existence of the bomb to the world before the government had made up its mind about how to handle the situation after the war.  Using the bomb certainly would disclose that the bomb existed."  According to Szilard, Byrnes was not interested in international control: "Byrnes... was concerned about Russia's postwar behavior.  Russian troops had moved into Hungary and Rumania, and Byrnes thought it would be very difficult to persuade Russia to withdraw her troops from these countries, that Russia might be more manageable if impressed by American military might, and that a demonstration of the bomb might impress Russia."  Szilard could see that he wasn't getting though to Byrnes; "I was concerned at this point that by demonstrating the bomb and using it in the war against Japan, we might start an atomic arms race between America and Russia which might end with the destruction of both countries.". 

Szilard quoted in Spencer Weart and Gertrud Weiss Szilard, ed., Leo Szilard: His Version of the Facts, pg. 184.

Two days later, Szilard met with J. Robert Oppenheimer, the head scientist in the Manhattan Project.  "I told Oppenheimer that I thought it would be a very serious mistake to use the bomb against the cities of Japan.  Oppenheimer didn't share my view."  "'Well, said Oppenheimer, 'don't you think that if we tell the Russians what we intend to do and then use the bomb in Japan, the Russians will understand it?'.  'They'll understand it only too well,' Szilard replied, no doubt with Byrnes's intentions in mind."
Szilard quoted in Spencer Weart and Gertrud Weiss Szilard, ed., Leo Szilard: His Version of the Facts, pg. 185; also William Lanouette, Genius In the Shadows: A Biography of Leo Szilard, pg. 266-267.



The race for the atomic bomb ended with the May 1945 surrender of Germany, the only other power capable of creating an atomic bomb in the near future.  This led some Manhattan Project scientists in Chicago to become among the first to consider the long-term consequences of using the atomic bomb against Japan in World War II.  Their report came to be known as the Franck Report, and included major contributions from Leo Szilard (referred to above).  Although an attempt was made to give the report to Sec. of War Henry Stimson, it is unclear as to whether he ever received it.

International control of nuclear weapons for the prevention of a larger nuclear war was the report's primary concern:

"If we consider international agreement on total prevention of nuclear warfare as the paramount objective, and believe that it can be achieved, this kind of introduction of atomic weapons [on Japan] to the world may easily destroy all our chances of success.  Russia... will be deeply shocked.  It will be very difficult to persuade the world that a nation which was capable of secretly preparing and suddenly releasing a weapon, as indiscriminate as the rocket bomb and a thousand times more destructive, is to be trusted in its proclaimed desire of having such weapons abolished by international agreement."

The Franck Committee, which could not know that the Japanese government would approach Russia in July to try to end the war, compared the short-term possible saving of lives by using the bomb on Japan with the long-term possible massive loss of lives in a nuclear war:

"...looking forward to an international agreement on prevention of nuclear warfare - the military advantages and the saving of American lives, achieved by the sudden use of atomic bombs against Japan, may be outweighed by the ensuing loss of confidence and wave of horror and repulsion, sweeping over the rest of the world...".

The report questioned the ability of destroying Japanese cities with atomic bombs to bring surrender when destroying Japanese cities with conventional bombs had not done so.  It recommended a demonstration of the atomic bomb for Japan in an unpopulated area.  Facing the long-term consequences with Russia, the report stated prophetically:

"If no international agreement is concluded immediately after the first demonstration, this will mean a flying start of an unlimited armaments race.".

The report pointed out that the United States, with its highly concentrated urban areas, would become a prime target for nuclear weapons and concluded:

"We believe that these considerations make the use of nuclear bombs for an early, unannounced attack against Japan inadvisable.  If the United States would be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race of armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons.".

Political and Social Problems, Manhattan Engineer District Records, Harrison-Bundy files, folder # 76, National Archives (also contained in: Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed, 1987 edition, pg. 323-333).

(  (

(Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence)

Based on a series of intelligence reports received in late 1944, Zacharias, long a student of Japan's people and culture, believed the Japan would soon be ripe for surrender if the proper approach were
taken.  For him, that approach was not as simple as bludgeoning Japanese cities:

"...while Allied leaders were immediately inclined to support all innovations however bold and novel in the strictly military sphere, they frowned upon similar innovations in the sphere of diplomatic and psychological warfare."

Ellis Zacharias, The A-Bomb Was Not Needed, United Nations World, Aug. 1949, pg. 29.

Zacharias saw that there were diplomatic and religious (the status of the Emperor) elements that blocked the doves in Japan's government from making their move:

"What prevented them from suing for peace or from bringing their plot into the open was their uncertainty on two scores.  First, they wanted to know the meaning of unconditional surrender and the fate we planned for Japan after defeat.  Second, they tried to obtain from us assurances that the Emperor could remain on the throne after surrender." 

Ellis Zacharias, Eighteen Words That Bagged Japan, Saturday Evening Post, 11/17/45, pg. 17.

To resolve these issues, Zacharias developed several plans for secret negotiations with Japanese representatives; all were rejected by the U.S. government.  Instead, a series of psychological warfare radio broadcasts by Zacharias was later approved.  In the July 21, 1945 broadcast, Zacharias made an offer to Japan that stirred controversy in the U.S.: a surrender based on the Atlantic Charter.  On July 25th, the U.S. intercepted a secret transmission from Japan's Foreign Minister (Togo) to their Ambassador to Moscow (Sato), who was trying to set up a meeting with the Soviets to negotiate an end to the war.  The message referred to the Zacharias broadcast and stated:

"...special attention should be paid to the fact that at this time the United States referred to the Atlantic Charter.  As for Japan, it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter."

U.S. Dept. of State, Foreign Relations of the United States: Conference of Berlin (Potsdam) 1945, vol. 2, pg. 1260-1261.

But on July 26th, the U.S., Great Britain, and China publicly issued the Potsdam Proclamation demanding "unconditional surrender" from Japan.  Zacharias later commented on the favorable Japanese response to his broadcast:

"But though we gained a victory, it was soon to be canceled out by the Potsdam Declaration and the way it was handled.

"Instead of being a diplomatic instrument, transmitted through regular diplomatic channels and giving the Japanese a chance to answer, it was put on the radio as a propaganda instrument pure and simple.  The whole maneuver, in fact, completely disregarded all essential psychological factors dealing with Japan."

Zacharias continued, "The Potsdam Declaration, in short, wrecked everything we had been working for to prevent further bloodshed...

"Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia.

"Washington decided that Japan had been given its chance and now it was time to use the A-bomb.

"I submit that it was the wrong decision.  It was wrong on strategic grounds.  And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds."

Ellis Zacharias, How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look, 6/6/50, pg. 19-21.


(In charge of Air Force operations in the Pacific)

General Spaatz was the person who received the order for the Air Force to "deliver its first special bomb as soon as weather will permit visual bombing after about 3 August 1945..."(Leslie Groves, Now It Can Be Told, pg. 308).  In a 1964 interview, Spaatz explained:

"The dropping of the atomic bomb was done by a military man under military orders.  We're supposed to carry out orders and not question them."

In the same interview, Spaatz referred to the Japanese military's plan to get better peace terms, and he gave an alternative to the atomic bombings:

"If we were to go ahead with the plans for a conventional invasion with ground and naval forces, I believe the Japanese thought that they could inflict very heavy casualties on us and possibly as a result get better surrender terms.  On the other hand if they knew or were told that no invasion would take place [and] that bombing would continue until the surrender, why I think the surrender would have taken place just about the same time." (Herbert Feis Papers, Box 103, N.B.C. Interviews, Carl Spaatz interview by Len Giovannitti, Library of Congress).

(  (

(The military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables -
the MAGIC summaries - for Truman and his advisors)

"...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."

Quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 359.


Source (text): (

Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on August 06, 2006, 10:17:27 PM

H I R O S H I M A   W E B L I N K S

The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II: A Collection of Primary Sources (

Video Short ~ Atomic Bomb Dropped on Hiroshima (

Hiroshima ~ Footage (

Web Links to Hiroshima (

Photography Gallery "Hiroshima" by Hiromi Tsuchida (

Hiroshima Image Gallery (

Video Testimony ~ Hiroshima Survivors (

A Personal Record of Hiroshima A-bomb Survival (

Interviews with Japanese A-Bomb survivors (

Eyewitness to Hiroshima -- August 6th, 1945 (

Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on August 07, 2006, 12:03:11 AM
Chronology on Decision to Bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki


March 25
At the urging of Leo Szilard , Albert Einstein signs a letter of introduction of Szilard to President Roosevelt . Szilard wishes to warn Roosevelt of the post-war dangers of a nuclear arms race if the atomic bomb is used against Japan. The letter states: "The terms of secrecy under which Dr. Szilard is working at present do not permit him to give me information about his work; however, I understand that he now is greatly concerned about the lack of adequate contact between scientists who are doing this work and those members of your Cabinet who are responsible for formulating policy." In the memorandum accompanying the letter, Szilard wrote: "our 'demonstration' of atomic bombs will precipitate a race in the production of these devices between the United States and Russia and that if we continue to pursue the present course, our initial advantage may be lost very quickly in such a race."

Eleanor Roosevelt,
who received a copy of Szilard's letter to President Roosevelt , replies to Szilard proposing a meeting in her Manhattan apartment on May 8. The president, however, died on April 12.

April 12
Franklin Roosevelt dies, and Harry Truman becomes the 33rd President of the United States.

April 25
Secretary of War Stimson and General Groves brief President Truman on the bomb. In this briefing, Groves insists that Japan had always been the target of the bomb's use.

April 25
Joint Chief Planners advise Joint Chiefs of Staff that "unless a definition of unconditional surrender can be given which is acceptable to the Japanese, there is no alternative to annihilation and no prospect that the threat of absolute defeat will bring about capitulation."

April 27
The Target Committee meets for the first time to decide which Japanese cities to target with the atomic bomb. By the end of May the following cities are selected: Kyoto, Hiroshima, Kokura and Niigata. [See minutes of the second meeting of the Target Committee in Related Sites.] Eventually Kyoto is replaced by Nagasaki and the listed cities are spared further conventional bombing by the American Army Air Force.

April 29
In a report entitled Unconditional Surrender , the Joint Intelligence Committee informs the Joint Chiefs of Staff that "numbers of informed Japanese, both military and civilian, already realize the inevitability of absolute defeat."

May 8
War in Europe ends.

May 9
The Interim Committee meets for the first time. Its purpose is "to study and report on the whole problem of temporary war controls and later publicity, and to survey and make recommendations on post war research, development and controls, as well as legislation necessary to effectuate them." The Interim Committee appoints a Scientific Panel, which included Oppenheimer, Lawrence, Fermi and Compton .

May 12
William Donovan , Director of the Office of Strategic Services, reports to President Truman that Japan's minister to Switzerland, Shunichi Kase , wished "to help arrange for a cessation of hostilities."
May 25
Leo Szilard
visits White House with letter of introduction from Albert Einstein to warn President Truman of the dangers atomic weapons pose for the post-War world and to urge him not to authorize use of atomic weapons against Japan. Szilard is referred Matthew J. Connelly , Truman's appointments secretary, to James Byrnes in Spartanburg, South Carolina.

May 28
Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy argues to Secretary of War Stimson that the term "unconditional surrender" should be dropped: "Unconditional surrender is a phrase which means loss of face and I wonder whether we cannot accomplish everything we want to accomplish in regard to Japan without the use of that term."

May 28
In a State Department Memorandum of Conversation, Acting Secretary of State Joseph Grew describes a meeting with President Truman that day. Grew writes: "The greatest obstacle to unconditional surrender by the Japanese is their belief that this would entail the destruction or permanent removal of the Emperor and the institution of the Throne. If some indication can now be given the Japanese that they themselves, when once thoroughly defeated and rendered impotent to wage war in the future will be permitted to determine their own future political structure, they will be afforded a method of saving face without which surrender will be highly unlikely."

May 30
Wanting to influence the Interim Committee, Szilard arranges a meeting with Oppenheimer in Groves' office. Oppenheimer tells Szilard, "this is a weapon with no military significance. It will make a big bang - a very big bang - but it is not a weapon which is useful in war."

May 31
The Interim Committee agrees that "the most desirable target would be a vital war plant employing a large number of workers and closely surrounded by workers' houses." Among those agreeing is James Conant , the president of Harvard University.

May 31
The Office of Strategic Services (OSS) reports on receiving a Japanese peace feeler through a Japanese diplomat stationed in Portugal. The Japanese diplomat says that the actual terms are unimportant so long as the term "unconditional surrender" is not used.

June 1
Interim Committee makes formal decision decides not to warn the civilian populations of the targeted cities.

June 9
Chief of Staff General George Marshall , in a memo to Secretary of War Stimson , writes, "We should cease talking about unconditional surrender of Japan and begin to define our true objective in terms of defeat and disarmament."

June 11
The Franck Committee on the social and political implications of the atomic bomb, headed by Nobel Laureate James Franck , issues a report advising against a surprise atomic bombing of Japan. The report states, "If we consider international agreement on total prevention of nuclear warfare as the paramount objective.this kind of introduction of atomic weapons to the world may easily destroy all our chances of success." The report correctly predicts that dropping an atomic bomb "will mean a flying start toward an unlimited armaments race."

June 14
The Franck Committee Report - with its recommendation that bomb be demonstrated to Japan before being used on civilians - is taken by Compton to Los Alamos, and copies were given to Fermi, Lawrence and Oppenheimer .

June 16
Compton, Fermi, Lawrence and Oppenheimer conclude: "We can propose no technical demonstration likely to bring an end to the war; we see no acceptable alternative to direct military use."

June 17
McCloy tells Stimson that "there were no more cities to bomb, no more carriers to sink or battleships to shell; we had difficulty finding targets."

June 18
President Truman convenes a meeting of his chief advisors to discuss the military's contingency plans for the invasion of Japan. The invasion was to begin no earlier than November 1, 1945 and, according to Admiral William Leahy , "The invasion itself was never authorized." McCloy is asked to prepare language for what is to become Article 12 of the draft Potsdam Declaration. It specifies that the post-war Japanese government "may include a constitutional monarchy under the present dynasty."

June 18
Admiral Leahy makes diary entry noting, "It is my opinion at the present time that a surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provision for America's defense against future trans-Pacific aggression." He also notes that General Marshall believes that an invasion of Kyushu, the southern-most Japanese island, "will not cost us in casualties more than 63,000 of the 190,000 combatant troops estimated as necessary for the operation." This may be compared to later estimates, after the atomic bombings, of 500,000 to 1,000,000 American lives saved.

June 19
James Forrestal's
diary describes top-secret "State-War-Navy Meeting" in which surrender terms are discussed. He writes, "Grew's proposal, in which Stimson most vigorously agrees, that something be done in the very near future to indicate to the Japanese what kind of surrender terms would be imposed upon them and particularly to indicate to them that they would be allowed to retain their own form of government and religious institutions while at the same time making it clear that we propose to eradicate completely all traces of Japanese militarism."

June 20
A meeting of the Supreme War Direction Council before Emperor Hirohito is held on the subject of ending the war. According to the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, "the Emperor, supported by the premier, foreign minister and Navy minister, declared for peace; the army minister and the two chiefs of staff did not concur."

June 26
Stimson , Forrestal and Grew agree that a clarification of surrender terms should be issued well before an invasion and with "ample time to permit a national reaction to set in." The three agreed that "Japan is susceptible to reason."

July 1
Szilard begins circulating a petition to President Truman expressing opposition on moral grounds to using the atomic bomb against Japan.

July 2
Secretary of War Henry Stimson advises Truman to offer a definition of unconditional surrender, and states, "I think the Japanese nation has the mental intelligence and versatile capacity in such a crisis to recognize the folly of a fight to the finish and to accept the proffer of what will amount to an unconditional surrender."

July 3
James Byrnes becomes U.S. Secretary of State.

July 3
New York Times reports, "Senator [William] White of Maine, the minority [Republican] leader, declared that the Pacific war might end quickly if President Truman would state, specifically, in the upper chamber just what unconditional surrender means for the Japanese."

July 4
Szilard writes to a colleague regarding the petition to president: "I personally feel it would be a matter of importance if a large number of scientists who have worked in this field went clearly and unmistakably on record as to their opposition on moral grounds to the use of these bombs in the present phase of the war."

July 7
Truman leaves for Potsdam on the Augusta accompanied by Secretary of State Byrnes .

July 10
At a meeting of the Supreme War Direction Council, Emperor Hirohito urges haste in moves to mediate the peace through Russia.

July 13
Washington intercepts and decodes a cable from Japanese Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo to his Ambassador in Moscow that states, "Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace.."

July 13
Secretary of Navy Forrestal writes in his secret diary: "The first real evidence of a Japanese desire to get out of the war came today through intercepted messages from Togo , Foreign Minister, to Sato , Jap Ambassador in Moscow, instructing the latter to see Molotov if possible before his departure for the Big Three meeting and if not then immediately afterward to lay before him the Emperor's strong desire to secure a a termination of the war."

July 13
Farrington Daniels
, Director of the Met Lab at the University of Chicago, reported to James Compton that 72 percent of the scientists favored a military demonstration of the bomb in Japan or in the U.S. with Japanese representatives present before using the weapon on civilians.

July 15
President Truman
lands at Antwerp on his way to Potsdam meeting . Byrnes has convinced him to drop Article 12 of the Potsdam Declaration, which had provided assurance that the Emperor would be allowed to retain his throne as a constitutional monarch.

July 16
Trinity test, a plutonium implosion device, takes place at 5:29:45 a.m. mountain war time at Alamogordo, New Mexico. It is the world's first atomic detonation. The device has a yield of 19 kilotons, which is equivalent to 19,000 tons of TNT. J. Robert Oppenheimer recalls a quote from the Bhagavad Gita, a Hindu classic: "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds." Brigadier General T.F. Farrell , General Groves ' deputy commander, describes the explosion in this way: "The effects could well be called unprecedented, magnificent, beautiful, stupendous, and terrifying. The lighting effects beggared description. The whole country was lighted by a searing light with the intensity many times that of the midday sun. It was golden, purple, violet, gray, and blue. It lighted every peak, crevasse and ridge of the nearby mountain range with a clarity and beauty that cannot be described but must be seen to be imagined.."

July 17
President Truman at Potsdam writes in his diary, "Just spend [sic] a couple of hours with Stalin.. He'll be in the Jap War on August 15 th . Fini Japs when that comes about."

July 17
Leo Szilard
, unaware of Trinity test, prepares final draft of Petition to the President of the United States, calling on the President to "exercise your power as Commander-in-Chief to rule that the United States shall not resort to the use of atomic bombs in this war unless the terms which will be imposed upon Japan have been made public in detail and Japan knowing these terms has refused to surrender; second, that in such an event the question whether or not to use atomic bombs be decided by you in the light of the considerations presented in this petition as well as all other moral responsibilities which are involved." The petition was signed by 155 Manhattan Project scientists.

July 18
President Truman writes in his diary, "P.M. [ Churchill ] &amp; I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace. Stalin also read his answer to me. It was satisfactory. Believe the Japs will fold up before Russia comes in. I am sure they will when Manhattan [reference to Manhattan Project] appears over their homeland. I shall inform about it at an opportune time."

July 21
President Truman approves order for atomic bombs to be used.

July 23
UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill remarks, "{I}t is quite clear that the United States do not at the present time desire Russian participation in the war against Japan."

July 23 and 24
McCloy writes in diary in Potsdam, "Throughout it all the 'big bomb' is playing its part - it has stiffened both the Prime Minister and the President. After getting Groves' report they went to the next meeting like little boys with a big red apple secreted on their persons."

July 24
Walter Brown
, special assistant to Secretary of State Byrnes , writes in his journal that Byrnes was now "hoping for time, believing after atomic bomb Japan will surrender and Russia will not get in so much on the kill, thereby being in a position to press claims against China."

July 24
Secretary of War Henry Stimson passes on orders for atomic attack.

July 25
President Truman writes in his diary: "We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley era, after Noah and his fabulous ark. Anyway we think we have found the way to cause a disintegration of the atom. An experiment in the New Mexican desert was startling - to put it mildly.. This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10. I have told the secretary of war, Mr. Stimson , to use it so that military objectives and soldiers are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop this terrible bomb on the old capital or the new. He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler's crowd or Stalin's did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful."

July 25
General Carl Spatz , commander of the United States Army Strategic Air Forces, receives the only written order on the use of atomic weapons  from acting Chief of Staff, General Thomas Handy .

July 26
Potsdam Declaration calls upon Japanese government "to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces." The alternative, the Declaration states, is "prompt and utter destruction."

July 26
Forrestal secret diary states, "In the past days Sato in Moscow has been sending the strongest language to the Foreign Office at Tokyo his urgent advice for Japan to surrender unconditionally. Each time the Foreign Minister, Togo , responds by saying that they want Sato to arrange for the Russians to receive Prince Konoye as a special representative of the Emperor to Moscow. Sato's persistent reply to these messages was that this is a futile hope, that there is no possibility of splitting the concert of action now existing between Great Britain, the United States and Russia."

July 28 |
Japan rejects Potsdam Declaration.

August 3
President Truman aboard Augusta receives new report that Japan is seeking peace. Walter Brown, special assistant to Secretary of State Byrnes, writes in his diary, "Aboard Augusta - President, Leahy , JFB agreed Japs looking for peace. (Leahy had another report from Pacific.) President afraid they will sue for peace through Russia instead of some country like Sweden."

August 6
The world's second atomic bomb, Little Boy , a gun-type uranium bomb, is detonated 1,900 feet above Hiroshima, Japan. It has a yield of approximately 15 kilotons TNT. Some 90,000 to 100,000 persons are killed immediately; about 145,000 persons will perish from the bombing by the end of 1945. Statement from President Truman  | Responses to Dropping the Bomb

August 6
Upon hearing the news of the atomic bombing of Japan on his way home from Potsdam, President Truman remarked that this was "the greatest day in history."
Leo Szilard , the atomic scientist who had worked so hard to prevent the use of the bomb, writes to a friend, "Using atomic bombs against Japan is one of the greatest blunders of history. "

August 7
Decision is made to drop warning pamphlets on Japanese cities.

August 8
Soviet Union informs Japan that it is entering the war.

August 8
Decision is made to set up International Tribunal at Nuremberg.

August 9
At 9:44 a.m. Bockscar , a B-29 carrying Fat Man , the world's third atomic bomb, arrives at its primary target, Kokura. The city is covered in haze and smoke from an American bombing raid on a nearby city. Bockscar turns to its secondary target Nagasaki . At 11:02 a.m. the world's third atomic bomb explosion devastates Nagasaki, the intense heat and blast indiscriminately slaughters its inhabitants. Reflections  | Strategic Implications
August 9
President Truman  speaks to the American people via radio broadcast  He states, "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in the first instance to avoid, in so far as possible, the killing of civilians." [The official Bombing Survey Report stated: "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population." More than 95 percent of those killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilians.]

August 9
Atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki.

August 9
Soviet Union begins its offensive against Japan in Manchuria.

August 10
U.S. drops warning leaflets on Nagasaki on the day after the bombing.

August 13-14
Japanese physicists investigating the epicenter of the Hiroshima bomb burst start noticing high levels of radioactivity.

August 14
Japan surrenders.

August 15
Emperor Hirohito of Japan, in a radio broadcast to his nation announces that Japan has lost the war. The Emperor's announcement is hard to understand because he speaks in archaic court Japanese, but one fact is understood: "Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to damage is indeed incalcuable, taking the toll of many innocent lives."

August 15
New York Times
reports, "Russia's entry into the Japanese war was the decisive factor in speeding its end and would have been so, even if no atomic bombs had been dropped, is the opinion of Major-General Claire Chennault .."

August 24
Soviet Union announces that the Japanese Manchurian Army has surrendered.

September 2
Japan formally signs documents of surrender.

September 9
The Trinity test site is opened to the press for the first time. General Groves and J. Robert Oppenheimer dispel rumors of lingering high radiation levels there.


July 1
United States Strategic Bombing Survey states: "The Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs did not defeat Japan, nor by the testimony of the enemy leaders who ended the war did they persuade Japan to accept unconditional surrender. The Emperor, the lord privy seal, the prime minister, the foreign minister and the navy minister had decided as early as May of 1945 that the war should be ended even it meant acceptance of defeat on allied terms." The Survey also states: "On 10 July [1945] the Emperor again urged haste in the moves to mediate through Russia, but Potsdam intervened. While the government still awaited a Russian answer, the Hiroshima bomb was dropped on 6 August." The Survey concluded: "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." (
Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on August 07, 2006, 07:13:51 PM

Nuclear Weapons .m4v Podcast Video

2:04 mins./12.2Mb/.m4v Podcast Video - U.S. Department of Defense archival nuclear weapons film music video, includes early weapons testing, cuban missile crisis, ICBM's, blast effects, hiroshima and nagasaki destruction.

Download here:
Title: Re: Nagasaki ~ 61st Anniversary
Post by: dominique on August 08, 2006, 08:33:36 PM
(       N A G A S A K I       (

 9 . A U G U S T . 1 9 4 5

The Bombing of Nagasaki, August 9 1945: The Untold Story

August 9, 2001 | Gary G. Kohls, MD

56 years ago this week, on August 9th, 1945, the second of the only 2 atomic bombs ever used as instruments of aggressive war (and against essentially defenseless civilian populations, at that) was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan by an all-Christian bomb crew. The well-trained American soldiers were only "doing their job"and they did it well.


It had been 3 days since the first bomb, a uranium bomb, had decimated Hiroshima, with chaos and confusion in Tokyo, where the fascist military government and the Emperor had been searching for months for a way to honorably end the war. (The only obstacle to surrender had been the United States' insistence on unconditional surrender, which meant that the Emperor Hirohito, whom the Japanese regarded as a deity, would be removed from his figurehead position in Japan, an intolerable demand for the Japanese.)


The Russian army was advancing across Manchuria with the stated aim of entering the war against Japan on August 8, so there were extra incentives to end the war quickly. The US did not want to divide any spoils or share power after Japan was defeated.


The US bomber command had for months spared Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Kokura from the conventional bombing that had leveled and burned 60+ other major Japanese cities during the first half of 1945. One of the reasons for targeting relatively undamaged cities was scientific: to see what would happen to intact buildings--and their living creatures--when atomic weapons were exploded over them.


Early in the morning of August 9, 1945, a B-29 Superfortress called Bock's Car, took off from Tinian Island, with the prayers and blessings of its Lutheran and Catholic chaplains, and headed for Kokura, the primary target (its plutonium bomb was code-named "Fat Man", after Winston Churchill). The only field test of a nuclear weapon, blasphemously named "Trinity", had occurred just three weeks earlier, on July 16, 1945 at Alamogordo, New Mexico. The molten lavarock that resulted, still found at the site today, is called trinitite.


With instructions to only drop the bomb on visual sighting, Bock's Car arrived at Kokura, which was clouded-over. So, after circling three times, looking for a break in the clouds, and using up a tremendous amount of valuable fuel in the process, it headed for its secondary target, Nagasaki.


Nagasaki is famous in the history of Japanese Christianity. Not only was it the site of the largest Christian church in the Orient, St. Mary's Cathedral, but it also had the largest concentration of baptized Christians in all of Japan. It was the city where the legendary Jesuit missionary, Francis Xavier, established a mission church in 1549, a Christian community which thrived and multiplied for several generations until, in the early 1600s, it became the target of brutal Japanese Imperial persecutions. Within 50 years of the planting of Xaviar's mission church, it was a capital crime to be a Christian. The Japanese Christians who refused to recant their beliefs suffered ostracism, horrific torture and even crucifixions similar to the Roman persecutions in the first three centuries of Christianity. After the reign of terror was over, it appeared to all observers that Christianity had been stamped out.


However, 250 years later, in the 1850s, after the coercive gunboat diplomacy of Commodore Perry forced open an offshore island for American trade purposes, it was discovered that there were still thousands of baptized Christians in Nagasaki, living their faith in a catacomb existence, completely unknown to the governmentwhich immediately started another purge. But because of international pressure, the persecutions were soon stopped, and Nagasaki Christianity came up from the underground. And by 1917, with no help from the government, the Japanese Christian community had organized and, after decades of work, built the massive St. Mary's Cathedral, in the Urakami River Valley district.


Now it turned out, in the mystery of good and evil, that St. Mary's Cathedral was one of the landmarks that the Bock's Car bombardier had been briefed on, and, looking through his bomb site over Nagasaki that day, he identified the cathedral, ordered the drop, and, at 11:02 am, Nagasaki Christianity was carbonized, then vaporized, in a scorching, radioactive fireball. And so the persecuted, vibrant, faithful center of Japanese Christianity became ground zero, and what Japanese Imperialism couldn't do in 200 years of persecution, American Christians did in 9 seconds; the entire worshipping community of Nagasaki was wiped out.


The above true (and unwelcome) story should stimulate discussion among those who claim to be disciples of Jesus. The Catholic chaplain for the 509th Composite Group (the 1500 man Army Air Force group whose only job was delivering the atomic bombs) was Father George Zabelka, who several decades later saw his grave theological error in religiously legitimating the mass slaughter that is modern war. He finally recognized that the enemies of a nation were not the enemies of God, but rather children of God whom God loved, and whom the followers of Jesus should also love. Fr. Zabelka's conversion led him to devote the remaining decades of his life speaking out against violence in any form, especially the violence of militarism. The Lutheran chaplain, William Downey, in his counseling of soldiers who were troubled by the immorality of "the bomb", later denounced all killing, whether by a single bullet or by a weapon of mass destruction.


In Daniel Hallock's important book, "Hell, Healing and Resistance" the author talks about a 1997 Buddhist retreat led by Thich Nhat Hanh that attempted to deal with the hellish post-war existence of combat-traumatized Vietnam War veterans. Hallock commented, "clearly, Buddhism offers something that cannot be found in institutional Christianity. But then why should veterans embrace a religion that has blessed the wars that ruined their souls? It is no wonder they turn to a gentle Buddhist monk to hear what are, in large part, the truths of Christ."


As a lifelong Christian, that comment stung me, but it was the sting of a sobering truth. And as a physician who deals with psychologically traumatized patients all too often, I know that it is violence, in its myriad of forms, that bruises the human psyche and soul, and that that trauma is deadly and highly contagious and spreads through the families and progeny of trauma victims.


One of the most difficult "mental illnesses" to treat is combat-induced posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In its most severe form it is virtually incurable. It is also a well-known fact that whereas most Vietnam War recruits came from churches where they actively practiced their faith, if they came home significantly traumatized by the war, the percentage returning to the faith community approached zero.


This is a serious spiritual problem for any church that, either actively or by its silence on issues of militarism, glorifies war or fails to thoroughly inform its youth about what Jesus and the earliest form of Christianity taught about conscientious objection to war and killing: that both were forbidden to the followers of Jesus.


If a worshipping community fails to at least fully inform its confirmands about the gruesome realities of the war zone before they are forced to register for potential conscription into the military, it invites the condemnation that Jesus warned about in Matthew 18:5-6: "And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."

The purpose of this essay is to stimulate open and honest discussion (at least among the followers of Jesus) about the ethics of killing by government, not from the perspective of national security ethics, not from the perspective of military ethics (an oxymoron, according to most critical thinkers), not from the perspective of (the pre-Christian) eye-for-an-eye retaliation, but from the perspective of the Sermon on the Mount, the core ethical teachings of the founder.

Out of that discussion, if any are willing to engage in it, should come answers to those horrible realities that seem to immobilize decent Bible-believing Christians everywhere: Why are some of us willing to commit (or support or pay for others to commit) homicidal violence against other fellow children of a loving, merciful, forgiving God, the God whom Jesus clearly calls us to imitate? And what can we do, starting now, to prevent the next war, the next epidemic of combat-induced posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the next Mylai massacre, the next Auschwitz, the next Dresden, the next El Mozote, the next Rwanda, the next Jonestown, the next black church bombing, the next Columbine, the next execution of an innocent death row inmate or the next Nagasaki? (

Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: Skywalker on August 08, 2006, 10:04:58 PM
Thank-you Dominique. Very nice letter.

And what can we do, starting now, to prevent the next war, the next epidemic of combat-induced posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the next Mylai massacre, the next Auschwitz, the next Dresden, the next El Mozote, the next Rwanda, the next Jonestown, the next black church bombing, the next Columbine, the next execution of an innocent death row inmate or the next Nagasaki?

Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on August 09, 2006, 07:09:22 AM

A classy and well-done compendium of photos and information, here:
Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on August 09, 2006, 07:50:18 PM

On August 6 and 9, 1945, the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
were destroyed by the first atomic bombs used in warfare.

Documents on the decision to use the atomic bomb are reproduced
here in full-text form. In most cases, the originals are in the U.S.
National Archives. Other aspects of the decision are shown from
accounts by the participants. This page was new May 29, 1995, and it was
last updated August 9, 2003.

International Law - Bombing of Civilians (
- At the beginning of World War II, the bombing of
civilians was regarded as a barbaric act. As the war continued,
however, all sides abandoned previous restraints. But international law has
always distinguished between civilians and combatants. Legal
context to the decision, from a variety of international
treaties and the 1996 World Court opinion

Target Committee, Los Alamos, May 10-11, 1945 ( - Minutes of the
Target Committee, meeting in the office of J. Robert Oppenheimer,
as they decided the best use of the "gadget."

The Franck Report, June 11, 1945  ( - The Franck Report, written by
a seven-man panel of scientists at the University of Chicago, urged
that the bomb be demonstrated "before the eyes of representatives of
all United Nations, on the desert or a barren island."

Scientific Panel, June 16, 1945 ( - Despite the arguments against
using the bomb made by the Franck Report, a panel composed of
Oppenheimer, Fermi, Compton, and Lawrence found "no acceptable
alternative to direct military use."

Bard Memorandum, June 27, 1945  ( - Undersecretary of the Navy
Ralph A. Bard wrote that use of the bomb without warning was
contrary to "the position of the United States as a great
humanitarian nation," especially since Japan seemed close to

Setting the Test Date, July 2, 1945 (
- President Truman had delayed his meeting with Stalin until the
atomic bomb could be tested. On July 2, General Groves told Robert
Oppenheimer that the test date was being set by "the upper

Szilard Petition, first version, July 3, 1945  (
- The first version of Leo Szilard's petition called atomic bombs
"a means for the ruthless annihilation of cities." It asked the
President "to rule that the United States shall not, in the
present phase of the war, resort to the use of atomic bombs."

Petition cover letter, July 4, 1945  ( - Szilard sent copies of the
July 3 version of his petition to colleagues at Oak Ridge and Los
Alamos. This cover letter discussed the need for scientists to take
a moral stand on the use of the bomb

Groves Seeks Evidence, July 4, 1945  ( - As Szilard circulated his
petition, General Groves sought ways to take action against him. On
July 4, 1945, Groves wrote to Lord Cherwell, Winston Churchill's
science advisor

Oak Ridge petition, July 13, 1945  ( - The first version of
Szilard's petition inspired a similar petition at the Manhattan
Project laboratory at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The names of the 18
signers are included

Oak Ridge petition, mid-July 1945  ( - Another petition at Oak
Ridge called for the power of the bomb to be "adequately described
and demonstrated" before use. The names of the 67 signers are

Trinity Test, July 16, 1945 - Radiation Monitoring  ( - The test of
the atomic bomb in the New Mexico desert on July 16 was a
spectacular success. This report by Manhattan Project Chief of
Medical Section Stafford Warren shows that radioactive fallout from
the test was an important concern

Trinity Test, July 16, 1945 - Eyewitness Accounts (
- Even 32 kilometers (20 miles) away, scientists felt the heat of
the explosion on exposed skin. Declassified eyewitness accounts of
the Trinity test by Luis Alvarez, Enrico Fermi, Philip Morrison,
Robert Serber, Victor Weisskopf, and others

Szilard Petition, July 17, 1945  ( - Leo Szilard, and 69 co-signers
at the Manhattan Project "Metallurgical Laboratory" in Chicago,
petitioned the President of the United States. The names and
positions of the signers are included

Szilard Petition, July 17, 1945, GIF image  (
- See Szilard's petition. The image is only 38k, but your monitor
must support at least 800x600 resolution to view it properly

Truman Tells Stalin, July 24, 1945  (
- At the Potsdam Conference in defeated Germany, President Truman
told Stalin only that the U.S. "had a new weapon of unusual
destructive force." What did Truman say, and what did Stalin
understand? Seven eyewitness accounts

Truman Diary, July 25, 1945  (
- President Truman told his diary that he had ordered the bomb dropped
on a "purely military" target, so that "military objectives and
soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children."

Official Bombing Order, July 25, 1945  (
- The bombing order issued to General Spaatz made no mention of
targetting military objectives or sparing civilians. The cities
themselves were the targets

Groves-Oppenheimer transcript, August 6, 1945  ( - General Groves
informed Robert Oppenheimer of the Hiroshima bombing. Transcript
of telephone conversation

Truman radio speech, August 9, 1945 (excerpt)  ( - In his radio speech to the
nation on August 9, President Truman called Hiroshima "a
military base." This is a 50k (.AU format) audio file. Hear Truman say it.
Or read the full text of that paragraph. (

Leo Szilard, Interview: "President Truman Did Not Understand" (
- A 1960 interview with Leo Szilard about the use of the bomb, reprinted
by permission from U.S. News &amp; World Report
Title: Nuclear bomb work triggers opposition
Post by: dominique on August 10, 2006, 03:23:01 PM
Signs of increased nuclear activity in the USA - for bunker busters, perchance?...

Nuclear bomb work triggers opposition

By Wire reports
August 10, 2006
The Albuquerque Tribune (,2564,ALBQ_19858_4907544,00.html)

LOS ALAMOS - A proposal by the federal government for Los Alamos National Laboratory to quadruple its production of triggers for nuclear weapons has met opposition from watchdog groups.

The National Nuclear Security Administration, which oversees the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, proposes that Los Alamos increase its production of plutonium pits from 20 a year to 80.

"We can be assured that accidents will happen," said Greg Mello of the Los Alamos Study Group. "We just don't know how severe they'll be."

He said the proposal will change the character of the laboratory, making it "a manufacturing center for a new generation of nuclear weapons" that could affect everything from the identity of northern New Mexico to property values.


Plutonium Pit Production `” LANL's Pivotal New Mission

The first plutonium (Pu) atomic bomb core (`pit`) was made at Los Alamos in 1945 and detonated near Alamogordo on July 16. The second core was detonated over Nagasaki, Japan a few days later, destroying the city and 74,000 of its inhabitants.

Los Alamos continued to make all the pits for the U.S. nuclear stockpile, first at Building D (where the Quality Inn is today) and then at DP Site (TA-21) until 1949, when the Hanford site in WA began pit production, supplemented by Rocky Flats in 1952.

`Rocky` took over plutonium machining completely in 1965. LANL and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) continued to make pits for nuclear testing (and possibly for the stockpile at times) until 1992.

In 1988 the Department of Energy (DOE) realized that the mounting environmental, safety, and moral protest problems at `Rocky` would doom the plant and issued the first of many plans to replace it in December of that year. Rocky Flats stopped production in 1989 after an FBI/EPA raid and extensive public protest. Partial cleanup there has cost taxpayers about $12 billion.

DOE has tried to restart production again and again

DOE`s December 1988 plan for nuclear weapons production was followed by a stealth 1989 plan, a February 1991 plan, a July 1993 plan, and a May 1995 plan that was finalized in late 1996. All have been defeated so far by citizen intervention, Congressional skepticism, and the facts on the ground.

In the 1995/1996 plan, DOE announced that LANL would re-establish the capacity to make up to 50 pits/year with single-shift operations, a capacity which DOE also said at the time LANL already had. But in September 1997, internal revelations about serious LANL seismic problems (obtained and publicized by LASG) caused DOE to downscale and delay production, aiming instead for 20 pits/yr by 2007.

LANL pit production is housed in Building PF-4 at TA-55, built in 1978. Pit production per se occupies about 30% of the available PF-4 space, with an additional 25% devoted to Pu metal preparation.

After the 1997 decision to downscale and delay, six years passed before Los Alamos manufactured its first `certifiable` pit in 2003 `” meaning that the pit could have been used in the stockpile if needed. Since then, LANL has been tuning up its production processes and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA, that part of DOE which manages the nuclear weapons program) now expects to begin producing an initial 10 pits/yr by FY08, down from its earlier 20 pits/yr target and delayed one year.

As long as LANL is the only pit production facility, NNSA is keeping LLNL as a pit production backup and has taken steps to increase its Pu inventory.

The rise and fall of the `Modern Pit Facility`

Meanwhile in September 2002 NNSA issued a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for a big new pit production facility called the Modern Pit Facility (MPF), with a proposed capacity of 125-450 pits/yr. This facility was estimated to cost $2-4 billion and would be built at one of five sites, one of which was LANL. It was to begin production in 2019 (later, 2021).

The MPF siting decision was expected in April 2004 but congressional appropriators led by the House concluded in late 2003 that it was premature to pursue further decisions on MPF given that NNSA had no firm plan for the future of the stockpile at that time. Congress trimmed the project`s FY04 budget accordingly.

In FY05 Congress again tied NNSA`s hands on MPF, directing the agency to focus on producing pits at LANL. The MPF budget was slashed by almost 80%. In FY06 Congress took away all MPF funds, instead requesting NNSA to look hard into a consolidated production center that would allegedly save money, provide greater security, and be safer to operate. In the meantime, LANL would make what pits might be needed.

NNSA asked for no MPF funds for FY07 and none are contemplated in Congress. It should be noted that the entire New Mexico congressional delegation supported the MPF.

A shiny new bomb factory vs. a`stealth` factory vs. no factory

In March 2004, DOE promised in House testimony to study consolidating the nuclear weapons complex. The study began in January 2005 and was completed in July of that year by the Secretary of Energy`s Advisory Board (SEAB), since disbanded. The SEAB concluded it was in the nation`s interest to build a Consolidated Nuclear Production Center (CNPC) and close down most nuclear materials operations at LANL, Y-12, and other sites by roughly 2030, with CNPC construction costs to be more than offset in the long run by reduced overhead.

Meanwhile many parties, including Senator Domenici, were engaged in trying to expand LANL`s pit production capacity and thereby commit the U.S. to large-scale pit production at LANL. The centerpiece of this plan is the proposed Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) facility, to be located at TA-55 adjacent and connected to PF-4. The CMRR replaces an old facility at TA-3 which was to be used for pit production in DOE`s 1996 plan but which was found to be situated over an active earthquake fault. The CMRR is similar to a facility proposed in 1989 that was defeated by New Mexico activists in 1990.

The CMRR, a $900+ million project, has been opposed by House appropriators but promoted by Senator Domenici `“ so far successfully. Construction on the first phase could begin at any time, despite that fact that the House Appropriations Committee proposes to remove $100 million (out of $112 million) in next year`s project funding, calling the project `irrational.` They argue that there is no current need to make pits in any quantity and they also argue that if the CMRR is built, it might operate for only a few years before being superseded by the CNPC.

By the end of FY06, DOE/NNSA will have spent about $2.5 billion on pit production at LANL alone. With the CMRR and related expenses needed to rebuild PF-4 and other facilities, sunk pit production costs at LANL would be least $5 billion by 2012, more than the estimated cost of the MPF! A renewed PF-4 plus CMRR plus the other facilities needed would be in fact a kind of crazy-quilt MPF, with key facilities and systems not designed for production and already quite old when production would begin.

Why does NNSA want to make more pits?

The U.S. has about 23,000 pits, of which about 10,000 are in weapons and roughly 13,000 are in storage at the Pantex Plant near Amarillo , TX .

Nearly all the pits in the stockpile were made between 1978 and 1989. No one knows how long pits will ultimately last, but weapons experts and congressional studies have said that pits will last at least 60 years. No signs of degradation or any upper limit on working age have been found. All deployed pits will thus last through 2038 at a minimum. Through accelerated aging experiments, NNSA is gathering an additional 14-16 years of pit `longevity` data each year, raising serious questions about the rush to spend billions of dollars on a new pit production factory.

At LANL, pit production is being established to build W88 pits, an existing type used in warheads for Trident submarine missiles. NNSA now plans to curtail W88 production in favor of a new type of pit, called the `Reliable Replacement Warhead` (RRW), which is to be the prototype of a family of new (and untested) warheads meant to replace all existing U.S. warheads.

Despite occasional denials, NNSA has stated that the evolving nuclear arsenal, for which evolution RRW is to be the primary means, will provide new military capabilities as well as foster a `responsive` production infrastructure.

NNSA hopes to begin trial production of RRW pits at LANL in the 2009-2012 period, proceeding in parallel at first with W88 manufacture and then replacing W88 production entirely by 2015.

We should be careful, because no one outside NNSA and LANL can be sure exactly what pits LANL is making now or is preparing to make in the future, since these programs are classified. Many details can be withheld even from Congress in a variety of ways. Most workers in these programs have no access to this information.

The first RRW pits are meant to replace pits in W76 Trident warheads, which are currently near the beginning of an extensive and militarily significant $2.5 billion upgrade.

Missile upgrades are also underway, with dramatic improvements in accuracy now tested and approaching possible deployment. These accuracy improvements are said to be for `conventional` warheads but it is virtually certain they will also be applied to nuclear warheads sooner or later as well, enabling new `warfighting` uses for nuclear warheads with `mininuke` yields. It is very unlikely that RRW warheads would be incompatible with these striking developments.

In all these plans, LANL is the pivotal site

Of all the nuclear weapons facilities, Los Alamos is the most pivotal because it is only at Los Alamos that pits can be made. And this will remain true for at least the next 15 years. With no new pits, new weapon designs can only be made from recycled pits, limiting design options and constraining the future stockpile as well as the weapons complex itself.

Unfortunately, innovative weapons based on RRW designs or other clandestine designs may be requested in small quantities only, as LANL managers, military staff, and DoD officials have frequently discussed over the last 14 years. It has happened already. Only 50 B61-11 earth-penetrating bombs were produced in 1997 `“ and these were ordered in secret, without congressional debate. Thus even a small pit production capability could produce adequate quantities of new `warfighting` weapons, with most observers none the wiser.

Former U.S. Strategic Commander in Chief General Lee Butler, who eventually came to believe that nuclear deterrence was a specious doctrine, has said: `The nuclear beast must be chained, its soul expunged, its lair laid waste.`

Ending pit production at Rocky Flats seriously injured the nuclear beast. It is a momentous fact that plans to produce new nuclear weapons, and all they portend for humanity`s prospects, will succeed or fail depending in substantial part upon the actions of New Mexico citizens. We are at a moment of truth in which decades of citizen resistance to weapons of mass destruction have come to renewed focus, here and now.

Weapons production pollutes the environment

Needless to say, pit production creates a great deal of nuclear waste, currently disposed at LANL and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad . LANL`s nuclear waste dump, `Area G,` is already the largest nuclear dump in New Mexico and three surrounding states and is slated to expand indefinitely as more waste is generated from LANL`s nuclear missions. This is a dump located on a narrow mesa adjacent to springs which is not lined, not licensed, not externally regulated, and not subject to cleanup. Management of the dump was recently taken from environmental scientists and given to LANL`s pit production chief.

As long as such dumping continues, LANL`s billion-dollar `cleanup` program is really running in reverse, notwithstanding a great deal of distracting rhetoric and more than a billion dollars spent so far. The dumping won`t end until nuclear weapons design and production, which produce nearly all the waste at Los Alamos , likewise come to an end. Once nuclear waste is made it must be disposed somewhere. Better not to make it.

The greater environmental impact of the New Mexico nuclear labs occurs in other ways, however. Historically, the nuclear labs led the way in polluting the entire biosphere with radioactive fallout, reliably estimated to have caused several hundred thousand early deaths so far. These labs have played key roles in promoting nuclear technologies worldwide, the global effects of which, from mining to spent fuel disposal to weapons proliferation and everything in between, have been vast.

Today LANL and SNL are key players in the proposed worldwide resurgence of nuclear power. They have been working for many years to promote nuclear technologies through the semi-secret Global Nuclear Vision Project and by many other means. They have especially promoted fantastically expensive, exotic, and unproven nuclear technologies using plutonium and spent nuclear fuel, approaches which create large amounts of nuclear and hazardous waste, but which also happen to create more work for themselves (viz. the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership).

To summarize a longer argument, the identities and cultures of the nuclear weapons labs have been built around technologies of mass environmental destruction, developed in a Faustian quest for power over nature that has no place for humble human stewardship of the earth. Pollution `“ here, there, or everywhere `“ is not an accidental byproduct of these ambitions but rather an inherent aspect of them. (
Title: Re: I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on September 18, 2006, 09:32:42 AM
September 18, 2006

Not One of the Soldiers Admitted Knowing That They Were Guarding Nuclear Missiles

Showing Conviction at Echo 9


The Echo 9 launching facility for the intercontinental nuclear missile Minuteman III is about 100 miles northwest of Bismarck, North Dakota. Endless fields of sunflowers and mown hay dazzle those who travel there.

The fenced off site at first appears innocent. Until you get close you cannot see the sign that says deadly force is authorized against trespassers. A 40 ton nuclear missile lies coiled beneath the surface of a bland concrete bunker. Echo 9 is but 50 feet from a gravel road. This one Minuteman III missile has over 20 times the destructive power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

After you realize what a launching facility looks like, you can see that the pastoral countryside is full of nuclear weapon silos. One nuclear weapon launching site lies just across the road from a big country farmhouse, another just down from a camp for teens. There are 150 other such nuclear launching facilities in North Dakota alone.

Sunflowers, farmhouses, teen camps and nuclear weapons who would have thought the power to destroy the world many times over could fit in so well? The people of this state will not need to turn on CNN to know when the nuclear holocaust arrives.

On the morning of June 20, 2006, three people dressed as clown arrived at Echo 9. The clowns broke the lock off the fence and put up peace banners and posters. One said: "Swords into plowshares - Spears into pruning hooks." Then they poured some of their own blood and hammered on the nuclear launching facility.

Fr. Carl Kabat, 72, along with Greg Boertje-Obed, 52, and Michael Walli, 57, were the people dressed as clowns. Carl Kabat is a catholic priest. Greg is an ex-military officer, married and the father of an 11 year old daughter. Mike is a Vietnam vet who has worked with the homeless for decades. Greg and Carl are members of the Loaves and Fishes Community in Duluth. The three are called the Weapons of Mass Destruction Here Plowshares.

They placed a copy of the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, international legal condemnations of nuclear weapons, bibles, rosaries, bread, wine, and a picture of Greg's daughter on the top of the missile silo.

Then they waited until the air force security forces came and arrested them.

They were charged with felony damage to government property and were kept in North Dakota jails until their trial in September.

In their trial they planned to argue to the jury that because the Minuteman III is a weapon of mass destruction it is illegal under international law. They hoped to share with the jury testimony from the Mayor of Hiroshima about the effects of nuclear weapons. They asked to have Professor Francis Boyle testify about the illegality of nuclear weapons. And they planned to introduce the 1996 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice outlawing nuclear weapons.

They hoped to put on evidence that warheads launched from the Minuteman III missile silo can reach any destination within 6000 miles in 35 minutes. The nuclear bomb launched from a Minuteman silo produces uncontrollable radiation, massive heat and a blast capable of vaporizing and leveling everything within miles. Outside the immediate area of the blast, wide-spread heat, firestorms and neutron and gamma rays are intended to kill, severely wound and poison every living thing and cause long-term damage to the environment.

But the judge ruled the jury was not permitted to hear this evidence.

The night before the trial, the peace community of North Dakota, along with friends and supporters from across the US shared a Festival of Hope potluck supper, songs, prayers and calls for peace at a local Unitarian church. The North Dakota peace community was very supportive. Even the federal prosecutor and an air force investigator joined the festival after being invited to attend by Carl, Greg and Mike. They too were welcomed by the community.

On the day of the trial, the judge asked people about their backgrounds and their opinions about nuclear weapons. Those who expressed any skepticism about the use of nuclear weapons were struck from serving on the jury by the government. Likewise, a Baptist missionary with a dove on her collar and all the Catholics were excluded.

Fr. Carl Kabat represented himself in the trial and gave his own opening statement. Dressed in a rumpled roman collar, black jeans and white tennis shoes, it was apparent he came right out of jail to the courtroom.

Fr. Kabat told the jury that he had been a priest for 47 years and spent three years in the Philippines and several more in Brazil were he witnessed poverty and hunger on a scale unimaginable to the US. After that, he said, he was ruined to life in the United States. He could not allow 40,000 children a day to die from malnourishment while our country built and maintained thousands of nuclear weapons.

Carl admitted that he had spent over sixteen years in prison for protesting against nuclear weapons. He told the jury that he understood that because he was 72 he might die in jail in punishment for this protest. "I don't know if I am doing the right thing or not, I am only doing the best I can. If anyone can think of anything better to do to stop this insanity then, by all means, do it! It is up to all of us to do something to stop this madness!"

He said they dressed up as clowns as "fools for Christ," and because "court jesters were often the only ones who could tell the truth to the king and not be killed for it!" We realize most people do not care about nuclear weapons. "To them we are nutballs," he said. "We are doing the best we can to stand up against these evils. My feeling is do what you can do about injustice, then sing and dance!"

Fr. Carl pointed out in some detail that nuclear weapons violated international laws. "Now I am not a lawyer," he kept saying, "but I know the International Court of Justice has ruled these are illegal." He asked the jury "Why do you think it is it illegal for North Korea or Iran to have nuclear weapons when we have thousands? I don't want anyone to have them.

The weapon at Echo 9 can kill the entire population of New York City--just that one missile and we have thousands of them! This is insane! Polls say that 87% of the people in the US want us to get rid of nuclear weapons--let's do it! People may think we're nuts for dressing up as clowns and risking jail to get rid of these weapons, but it is these weapons that are actually insane!"

Greg Boertje-Obed spoke briefly to the jury about growing up in the Midwest and the south. He was dressed in rumpled pants and a t-shirt decorated with the symbol of a local Native American tribe. He told them that he was married and the father of a young daughter. He admitted he basically did not know anything about nuclear weapons or civil rights. He joined ROTC to be able to attend college and was made an officer. His military group discussed nuclear war and one made a powerful case for first-strike. All the time he was a churchgoer. In graduate school he started awakening to the contrast between the religious values he found in church and the actions and priorities around him. Greg told the jurors of his journey into resistance as he realized that nuclear weapons were both illegal and immoral.

Michael was described to the jury as one of 14 children who grew up in the Midwest. He joined the Army and spent two tours in Vietnam. After a religious conversion, he began a life of voluntary poverty and assisting the homeless and sick.

The prosecutor called an FBI agent who told the jury all about the events of June 20, 2006. He described the defendants as polite at all times. The prosecution projected huge photos of the three dressed as clowns, pictures of the Echo 9 launching facility, and pictures of the items left behind on the wall of the courtroom.

Fr. Carl asked the FBI agent if he had found a statement that the three left on site. The judge allowed Carl to read the statement into the record at this time. Carl put on his reading glasses and in a loud voice read to the courtroom:

"Please pardon the fracture of the good order. When we were children we thought as children and spoke as children. But now we are adults and there comes a time when we must speak out and say that the good order is not so good, and never really was. We know that throughout history there have been innumerable war crimes. Two of the most terrible war crimes occurred on August 6th and 9th, 1945. On August 6th, 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima , Japan , killing more than 100,000 people (including U.S. prisoners of war). Three days later the U.S. dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, Japan, killing more than 50,000 people. Use of these weapons of mass destruction on civilian populations were abominable crimes against humanity.

"The U.S. has never repented of these atrocities. On the contrary, the U.S. has deepened and expanded its commitment to nuclear weapons. The U.S. built a large nuclear-industrial complex which has caused the deaths of many workers and has resulted in killing many more people by nuclear testing. Our country built thousands of nuclear weapons and has dispersed weapons-grade uranium to 43 nations. Each Minuteman III missile carries a bomb that is 27 times more powerful than those dropped on the Japanese people. The building of these weapons signifies that our hearts have assented to mass murder. Currently the U.S. is seeking to research a new class of smaller nuclear weapons demonstrating its desire to find new uses for weapons of mass destruction."

The prosecution then called a succession of young Air Force folks, who served as security for the Minuteman missiles in the silos in this area, to briefly describe the arrest and detention of Carl, Greg and Mike. Each one said the clowns were cooperative, non-violent and peaceful.

At the conclusion of the first soldier's testimony, Fr. Kabat asked him, "Do you know what was in the ground at Echo-9?" The flustered airman said, "No, sir, I do not." "You don't know what is in the ground there?" Fr. Kabat asked again incredulously. "No sir," repeated the helicopter airman. The courtroom was stunned.

For the next half hour, every one of the rest of the young Air Force people called as witnesses by the government either said they did not know what was in the ground, or refused to answer Fr. Carl, saying "that is not my area of expertise, sir."

Not one single soldier acknowledged that they were guarding nuclear weapons!

The final prosecution witness was a Lieutenant Colonel who said the damage to the site was over $15,000 because a spin dial lock on a hatch was damaged and had to be exchanged for another.

The Lt. Colonel, after initially refusing to do so, admitted that a Minuteman III missile was in the silo but that the Department of Defense would not allow him to say anything more.

After the prosecution rested, the judge ushered the jury out of the room. Then the three were allowed to introduce into the record the evidence of the International Court of Justice decision about the illegality of nuclear weapons, the testimony of the mayor of Hiroshima, and two statements by Professor Boyle about international law and its condemnation of nuclear weapons. The judge was asked to dismiss the case because of this evidence. When the judge declined, Greg told the judge that he was making a mistake. The judge responded that in light of all the other federal cases he had reviewed he was not making a mistake. "But in the judgment of history, you are," Greg responded. The judge noted Greg's objection for the record and re-started the trial.

With all the rest of their evidence excluded, the three defendants tried in their own words to tell the jury about how international law condemned nuclear weapons, what kind of damage the weapons caused, and how the very existence of nuclear weapons was robbing the poor of the world of much needed resources.

Fr. Carl choked up several times talking to the jury when he described the extent of hunger and starvation he had witnessed. "Nuclear weapons," he said softly, "and hungry children, are the two greatest evils in our world."

Michael told the jury how he joined the army at the suggestion of a family member and ended up spending years in Vietnam. While there he heard about the death of Martin Luther King, Jr., described on the base as "an agitator." He described his later work with the poor and how it was consistent with his peace work. He concluded by correcting the record. "These young military people testified that after we arrived at Echo--9 it became a crime scene. But in truth, Echo 9 was a crime scene long before we ever got there. Nuclear weapons are war crimes that are designed to kill innocent civilians. They are outlawed by international law and by God's law. This was a crime scene long before we got there, and is still a crime scene today."

Greg showed the jury the picture of his daughter. "I brought this to Echo 9 as a symbol of why we again and again try to disarm nuclear weapons. We do this for the children."

With the evidence finished, it was time for the jury to decide. The judge would give instructions to the jury about how to decide the case.

The defense asked for two instructions about justice one from the preamble to the US Constitution another from Judge Learned Hand--both were denied by the judge. Defendants asked that the jury be read the First Amendment--denied. International law? Denied. Nuremberg Principles? Denied. The US statute defining war crimes? Denied. The US statute defining genocide? Denied.

The judge then went forward and instructed the jury to disregard anything about nuclear weapons, international law, and the good motives of the defendants. The effect of these instructions was to treat the actions of the defendants the same as if they had poured blood and hammered on a Volkswagen pure property damage.

Limited like this, the jury came back with felony guilty verdicts for all three defendants. As they filed out, Fr. Carl called out to them, "Thank you brothers and sisters!"

One of the jurors told people afterwards that many on the jury learned a lot in the trial and were sympathetic to the defense, but "the judge's instructions left us no option but to find them guilty." As she walked away, the juror waved to supporters and yelled "Peace!"

The local paper reported one lawyer concluding that, despite their convictions, "History will have different judgment on their actions."

The three remain in jail. They are in good spirits and at peace in the justice of their convictions. Greg pointed out that juries in Europe were allowed to learn about international law when evaluating the actions of peace protestors. "Why do English, Scottish, and Irish juries get to know about international law, but not US juries? Why do our judges keep our juries deaf and blind to the law of the world?"

Mike noted "The ungodly will always say Let our might be our norm of justice.'"

Fr. Carl, who feels "fantastic--as usual," said, "One with God is a majority, and some day the will of the majority will triumph!"

For their convictions, they face sentences of up to 10 years in prison and fines of up to $250,000 each.

They will remain in jail in North Dakota until their sentencing date of December 4, 2006.


For more information about the men contact the Loaves and Fishes Community in Duluth at 218.728.0629 or Nukewatch at 715.472.4185. Copies of some pleadings in the case, pictures and updates from the men are posted on the Jonah House website

Bill Quigley is a human rights lawyer and professor at Loyola University New Orleans College of Law. Bill and Dan Gregor assisted the defendants in this matter. You can reach Bill at
Title: - I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on January 23, 2012, 05:56:45 PM
Finally found it. Too bad most of the photos aren't linked anymore.
Title: - I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: Vidarr on January 23, 2012, 09:12:51 PM
Title: - I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: wag on January 24, 2012, 05:29:10 AM

Interesting photo.  I wonder when this was constructed and who paid.  I would have been condemned at some point anyway due to seismic codes.
Title: - I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: wag on January 24, 2012, 05:32:25 AM
Interesting photo.  I wonder when this was constructed and who paid.  I would have been condemned at some point anyway due to seismic codes.


What still stands today.  Looks worth a visit.
Title: - I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: FrankDialogue on January 24, 2012, 06:36:56 AM
Quote from: Robert Oppenheimer
" I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.." Words from Oppenheimers mouth as he watched the first successful nuke test, taken from the Bhagavad Gita...

Only Oppenheimer's connections saved him from the fate of the Rosenbergs...He tried to pass bomb secrets to Jewish scientists in the Soviet Union, but was spared the electric chair.
Title: - I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: Sue on January 06, 2013, 03:11:43 PM

The Untold Story

by Eustace C. Mullins  June 1998

Cast of Characters

Mass Murder Inc. (

STATE GENOCIDE - another keeper! (

(  (

There are some pretty choice quotes from shockingly honest Zionists.
1. "We came here to a country that was populated by Arabs and we are building here a Hebrew, a Jewish state; instead of the Arab villages, Jewish villages were established. You even do not know the names of those villages, and I do not blame you because these villages no longer exist. There is not a single Jewish settlement that was not established in the place of a former Arab Village." ­ Moshe Dyan, March 19, 1969, speech at the Technion in Haifa, quoted in Ha'aretz, April 4, 1969.
The State of Israel was built after a movement called Zionism.The term Zionism first came to public attention as a result of the works of Viennese Jewish journalist Theodor Herzl, who argued in his 1896 book Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) that the best way of avoiding anti-Semitism in Europe was to create an independent Jewish state or national homeland. (He was originally thinking of Uganda or South America). The movement eventually culminated in establishing the State of Israel in 1948 in Palestine. Some 700,000 Palestinians became refugees and a similar number of Jews arrived in the new state. Since then, the term "Zionism" properly refers to supporters of the Israeli state.

More disturbing quotes here: (
Title: - I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on September 08, 2013, 06:56:47 AM

Complete text of above is posted earlier in the thread, starting here:,4015.msg42681.html#msg42681
Title: - I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on September 08, 2013, 06:58:57 AM
Israel forced to apologise to Japan over offensive Hiroshima comments

Head of online public diplomacy disparaged commemorations for victims of atomic bombs in Facebook posting

Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem, Thursday 22 August 2013 07.25 EDT

Israel has been forced to issue a formal apology to Japan over offensive comments posted on Facebook by its head of online public diplomacy.

The apology followed a complaint by the Japanese ambassador to Israel, Hideo Sato, after senior government official Daniel Seaman disparaged commemorations for the victims of the 1945 atomic bombs, causing a wave of protests in Japan.

"I am sick of the Japanese, 'Human Rights' and 'Peace' groups the world over holding their annual self-righteous commemorations for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims," Seaman wrote on his Facebook page. "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the consequence of Japanese aggression. You reap what you sow."

According to the Haaretz newspaper, Israel's ambassador in Tokyo, Nissim Ben-Shitrit, was forced to embark on a damage control exercise. "The incident is very slowly subsiding, but it's too early to assess the damage to Israel's image that it caused," the Israeli embassy in Tokyo wrote in a cable to the foreign ministry in Jerusalem.

The apology was issued by Ya'akov Amidror, national security adviser to the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu. A government official said the incident was "one of the least comfortable moments for Israel in Japan".

Seaman, a former director of the government press office who has a reputation for being abrasive, recently took up a new post to promote positive images of Israel on social media networks. He has since been suspended and is under orders not to speak to the media.

The comments about Japan were part of a string of strongly worded postings by Seaman over recent months.

They included a response to a demand by the Palestinian chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat, for an end to new settlement expansion that read: "Is there a diplomatic way of saying 'Go F*** yourself'?"

At the start of Ramadan, Seaman posted: "Does the commencement of the fast of the Ramadan means [sic] that Muslims will stop eating each other during the daytime?"

In response to a Church of Scotland report that argued that Jews do not have a divine right to the land, he wrote: "Why do they think we give a flying F*** what you have to say?"

In a statement last week, Israel's National Information Directorate said: "Danny Seaman's statements on Facebook are unacceptable and do not express the view of the Israeli government. The directorate instructed Seaman to immediately refrain from making such statements."

"the damage to Israel's image"
.....because that's all that matters, right?

"The directorate instructed Seaman to immediately refrain from making such statements"

Any other country would have simply fired his ass.
Title: - I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: Wulfgar on September 08, 2013, 10:19:14 AM

"I am sick of the Japanese, 'Human Rights' and 'Peace' groups the world over holding their annual self-righteous commemorations for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims," Seaman wrote on his Facebook page. "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the consequence of Japanese aggression. You reap what you sow."

Meanwhile, the HolyCost is rammed down everybody's throats on a constant basis.
Title: - I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on September 08, 2013, 10:26:25 AM
Meanwhile, the HolyCost is rammed down everybody's throats on a constant basis.

He's just sore that there's competition with jews for world pity. And that THIS cause is legitimate, provable, and CAUSED by the jews, and much of the world knows it.
Title: - I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: Wulfgar on September 08, 2013, 01:05:25 PM
He's like many of his fellow Chosenites, as they place no value on goy life.
Title: Report: Israel stopped producing nukes in 2004
Post by: dominique on September 19, 2013, 07:26:42 AM
Report: Israel stopped producing nukes in 2004

September 15, 2013 8:04am

(JTA) — Israel stopped producing nuclear warheads nine years ago when it reached a stockpile of 80, according to a new report.

According to the September-October issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which was released over the weekend, some 125,000 nuclear warheads have been built since 1945 — approximately 97 percent by the United States, the Soviet Union and Russia.

The report by Hans Kristensen and Robert Norris calculated that Israel began making nuclear warheads in 1967 and produced between two and three each year through 2004 before freezing production.
Citing U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency data, the article said that Israel’s nuclear stockpile will “modestly increase” by 2020.

Israel has neither confirmed nor denied that is possesses nuclear weapons.

The article noted rumors that Israel is equipping some of its submarines with nuclear-capable cruise missiles and is estimated to have produced fissile material sufficient for 115 to 190 warheads.

Read more:

Link to pdf of original report:

Sooo...where's the American/British outrage over the fact that Israel STILL hasn't signed the NPT? Or had to relinquish THEIR chemical weapons, for that matter?

Title: Let’s Be Honest About Israel’s Nukes
Post by: dominique on September 19, 2013, 07:30:13 AM
September 18, 2013

Let’s Be Honest About Israel’s Nukes


THE recent agreement between the United States and Russia on Syria’s chemical weapons made clear what should have been obvious long ago: President Obama’s effort to uphold international norms against weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East will entangle the United States in a diplomatic and strategic maze that is about much more than Syria’s chemical arsenal.

President Bashar al-Assad of Syria insists that the purpose of his chemical arsenal was always to deter Israel’s nuclear weapons. If Syria actually disarms, what about Egypt and Israel? Egypt (about whose chemical weapons the United States has been strangely silent) points to Israel. And Israel of course has its own chemical weapons to deter Syria’s and Egypt’s, and it is not about to give them up. A headline in the Israeli daily Haaretz a few days ago stated: “Israel adamant it won’t ratify chemical arms treaty before hostile neighbors.”

These three countries have not adhered to the Biological Weapons Convention either. And Israel is not a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, despite having developed a formidable nuclear arsenal of its own, which will soon become the central fact in this drama, whether the United States likes it or not.

An obstacle of America’s own making has long prevented comprehensive negotiations over weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. While the world endlessly discusses Iran’s nuclear capabilities and the likelihood that it will succeed in developing an atomic arsenal, hardly anyone in the United States ever mentions Israel’s nuclear weapons.

Mr. Obama, like his predecessors, pretends that he doesn’t know anything about them. This taboo impedes discussions within Washington and internationally. It has kept America from pressing Egypt and Syria to ratify the chemical and biological weapons conventions. Doing so would have brought immediate objections about American acceptance of Israel’s nuclear weapons.

What sustains this pretense is the myth that America is locked into covering up Israeli nuclear bombs because of a 1969 agreement between President Richard M. Nixon and Israel’s prime minister, Golda Meir. For Mr. Nixon, it was mainly about gaining Israeli support in the cold war. He and Mrs. Meir understood the need to discourage the Soviets from providing their Arab allies with nuclear weapons. A declared Israeli nuclear arsenal would have led to pressure for Moscow to do so. But such cold war reasons for America to stay mum evaporated decades ago. Everyone knows the Israelis have nuclear bombs. Today, the main effect of the ambiguity is to prevent serious regional arms-control negotiations.

All other countries in the region are members of the nonproliferation treaty, but there are still unresolved issues. Syria was caught building an illicit nuclear reactor in 2007, which Israel swiftly bombed. Mr. Assad still has not allowed international inspectors to fully investigate that obliterated reactor site. And Syria’s ally Iran is suspected of trying to assemble its own weapons program to challenge Israel’s nuclear monopoly. Indeed, many analysts believed that Mr. Obama’s decision to issue a “red line” barring the use of chemical weapons in Syria was in fact driven by the perceived need to demonstrate that he was prepared to use force against Iran if it moved further toward nuclear weapons.

This witches’ brew was supposed to become the subject of an international conference, mandated in 2010 by the unanimous vote of the members of the nonproliferation treaty, including the United States. But that conference hasn’t happened, in part because of White House ambivalence about how it might affect Israel.

In April, the American assistant secretary of state for international security and nonproliferation, Thomas M. Countryman, expressed hope that the conference would be held by this fall. And earlier this month, Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, urged all parties to set a conference date “as quickly as possible.” He also argued that it should include Israel and Iran. Russia attempted to include the conference in last week’s agreement, but Secretary of State John Kerry resisted. It is not going to go away.

If Washington wants negotiations over weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East to work — or even just to avoid making America appear ridiculous — Mr. Obama should begin by being candid. He cannot expect the countries participating in a conference to take America seriously if the White House continues to pretend that we don’t know whether Israel has nuclear weapons, or for that matter whether Egypt and Israel have chemical or biological ones.

And if Israel’s policy on the subject is so frozen that it is unable to come clean, Mr. Obama must let the United States government be honest about Israel’s arsenal and act on those facts, for both America’s good and Israel’s.

Victor Gilinsky, a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, is an energy consultant. Henry D. Sokolski, a former deputy for nonproliferation policy in the defense department, is executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center.
Title: Putin: Israel's nuclear weapons just make it a target
Post by: dominique on September 20, 2013, 08:28:53 AM
Heh! This is the moment for which we've all been waiting. Putin is now calling out Israel and putting its nuclear and chemical weapons at the center of the Syria debate.

Putin: Israel's nuclear weapons just make it a target



Russian president: Syria's WMDs a counter to Israel's alleged nukes, which create "foreign policy problems."
Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday that Israel’s alleged nuclear weapons stockpile only serves to make the Jewish state “a target” and creates “foreign policy problems.”

Putin’s comments, reported by AFP, came in response to questions from reporters on the US and Russia-brokered deal to put Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal under international supervision.

According to AFP, Putin said that Syria had developed chemical weapons “as an alternative to the nuclear weapons of Israel.”

The Russian president claimed that “the technical advantage of Israel – we need to say this directly – is such that it doesn’t need nuclear weapons. Israel is already in a technical military sense several heads above the countries in the region.”

Putin added that “nuclear weapons just make it a target. They just create foreign policy problems.”

The chemical weapons deal with Syria has increased pressure on Israel to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Some 190 states have joined the NPT, whose goal is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology.

Of the world’s nuclear powers, only four have not joined the treaty. Of these, India, Pakistan and North Korea have all openly tested nuclear weapons. Israel continues with its policy of nuclear ambiguity.

Israel has refused to sign the NPT despite pressure from the international community.

However, when it comes to the Chemical Weapons Convention, the country might be more flexible.

“Israel has an interest in a chemical free zone as opposed to a nuclear-free zone,” Eitan Barak, a professor of international relations from Hebrew University said.

“That would leave Israel with its alleged monopoly on nuclear weapons,” he said.

The state has always kept a low profile when it comes to its own chemical weapons program. They signed the CWC in 1982 but never ratified it, which means that Israel considers itself bound by the spirit of the treaty, but not legally obligated to observe it.

“The main pretext for Israel’s refusal to ratify the treaty was the Syrian arsenal,” Eitan Barak, a professor of international relations from Hebrew University, told The Media Line. “Israel says Syria is a neighboring country, hostile, with a large arsenal of chemical weapons and we need to be able to retaliate.”

He said that given Israel’s pharmaceutical success, it is likely that the state has a significant arsenal of these armaments. Local officials say that efforts to force it to join the CWC are duplicitous.

Linda Gradstein/The Media Line contributed to this report.
Title: US nearly detonated atomic bomb over North Carolina
Post by: dominique on September 26, 2013, 09:50:23 AM
US nearly detonated atomic bomb over North Carolina – secret document

Exclusive: Journalist uses Freedom of Information Act to disclose 1961 accident in which one switch averted catastrophe

Ed Pilkington in New York
The Guardian, Friday 20 September 2013 12.03 EDT

The bomb that nearly exploded over North Carolina was 260 times more powerful than the device which devasted Hiroshima in 1945. Photo: Three Lions/Getty Images

A secret document, published in declassified form for the first time by the Guardian today, reveals that the US Air Force came dramatically close to detonating an atom bomb over North Carolina that would have been 260 times more powerful than the device that devastated Hiroshima.

The document, obtained by the investigative journalist Eric Schlosser under the Freedom of Information Act, gives the first conclusive evidence that the US was narrowly spared a disaster of monumental proportions when two Mark 39 hydrogen bombs were accidentally dropped over Goldsboro, North Carolina on 23 January 1961. The bombs fell to earth after a B-52 bomber broke up in mid-air, and one of the devices behaved precisely as a nuclear weapon was designed to behave in warfare: its parachute opened, its trigger mechanisms engaged, and only one low-voltage switch prevented untold carnage.

Each bomb carried a payload of 4 megatons – the equivalent of 4 million tons of TNT explosive. Had the device detonated, lethal fallout could have been deposited over Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia and as far north as New York city – putting millions of lives at risk.

Though there has been persistent speculation about how narrow the Goldsboro escape was, the US government has repeatedly publicly denied that its nuclear arsenal has ever put Americans' lives in jeopardy through safety flaws. But in the newly-published document, a senior engineer in the Sandia national laboratories responsible for the mechanical safety of nuclear weapons concludes that "one simple, dynamo-technology, low voltage switch stood between the United States and a major catastrophe".

Writing eight years after the accident, Parker F Jones found that the bombs that dropped over North Carolina, just three days after John F Kennedy made his inaugural address as president, were inadequate in their safety controls and that the final switch that prevented disaster could easily have been shorted by an electrical jolt, leading to a nuclear burst. "It would have been bad news – in spades," he wrote.

Jones dryly entitled his secret report "Goldsboro Revisited or: How I learned to Mistrust the H-Bomb" – a quip on Stanley Kubrick's 1964 satirical film about nuclear holocaust, Dr Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.

The accident happened when a B-52 bomber got into trouble, having embarked from Seymour Johnson Air Force base in Goldsboro for a routine flight along the East Coast. As it went into a tailspin, the hydrogen bombs it was carrying became separated. One fell into a field near Faro, North Carolina, its parachute draped in the branches of a tree; the other plummeted into a meadow off Big Daddy's Road.

Jones found that of the four safety mechanisms in the Faro bomb, designed to prevent unintended detonation, three failed to operate properly. When the bomb hit the ground, a firing signal was sent to the nuclear core of the device, and it was only that final, highly vulnerable switch that averted calamity. "The MK 39 Mod 2 bomb did not possess adequate safety for the airborne alert role in the B-52," Jones concludes.

The document was uncovered by Schlosser as part of his research into his new book on the nuclear arms race, Command and Control. Using freedom of information, he discovered that at least 700 "significant" accidents and incidents involving 1,250 nuclear weapons were recorded between 1950 and 1968 alone.

"The US government has consistently tried to withhold information from the American people in order to prevent questions being asked about our nuclear weapons policy," he said. "We were told there was no possibility of these weapons accidentally detonating, yet here's one that very nearly did."
Title: Goldsboro revisited: account of hydrogen bomb near-disaster over North Carolina
Post by: dominique on September 26, 2013, 09:54:36 AM
Goldsboro revisited: account of hydrogen bomb near-disaster over North Carolina – declassified document

This document was written on 22 October 1969 by Parker F Jones, the supervisor of the nuclear weapons safety department at Sandia national laboratories. The document has recently been declassified having been acquired under freedom of information provisions by the investigative reporter Eric Schlosser for his new book Command and Control. It is published here for the first time.

In the document, Jones gives his response to a passage in a book by Dr Ralph Lapp, a physicist involved in the Manhattan Project that developed the first nuclear bombs, that describes the accident in 1961 in which two hydrogen bombs were dropped inadvertently over North Carolina. An extract of Lapp's book is reprinted on the left hand column of the first page of this document, and Jones's expert response is printed on the right hand column.

The second page of the document is all in Jones's words, giving his expert opinion on the serious nature of the accident and how close America came to catastrophe

See original document at source:

Title: 'The people who are most anti-nuclear are the ones who know most about it'
Post by: dominique on September 26, 2013, 10:05:08 AM
Eric Schlosser: 'The people who are most anti-nuclear are the ones who know most about it'

The American author tells Ed Pilkington about his six-year all-out immersion in the terrifying and surreal world of nuclear weapons for his latest book, Command and Control

Ed Pilkington
The Guardian, Friday 20 September 2013

In the autumn of 1999 Eric Schlosser was invited to Vandenberg Air Force base in California to witness the launch of a Titan II missile, the largest intercontinental ballistic missile America has ever built. At the time, he was a moderately well-known magazine writer, and Fast Food Nation, the book that would act as his personal rocket launcher propelling him into the literary stratosphere, was still two years away from publication.

"They let me go up into the tower and I found myself standing next to the missile. It was right there," he says, stretching out his hand as though to touch the missile's cool metal shell. "It was a deeply impressive thing."

Schlosser was a child of the 70s and grew up with dire warnings of nuclear Armageddon ringing in his ears, largely dismissing them in his mind as fear-mongering and make-believe. "But my God! Watching that missile take off, seeing it soar over the coast of Mexico – it was visceral. These are real! They work! That ICBM was more powerful than any cold war story I'd heard."

That shattering experience set Schlosser on a journey that has resulted, 14 years later, in Command and Control, his take on the terrifying and surreal world of nuclear weapons. The past six of those years have been spent in what he describes as "all-out immersion" in the subject. The writer is notoriously meticulous about his research, wearing out more shoe leather per book than most journalists do in a lifetime.

For Fast Food Nation, his expose of what he called the "dark side of the all-American meal", he interviewed scores of labourers, meatpackers and ranchers, and visited countless abattoirs and factory farms. In a similar vein, he spent time with more than 100 bomber pilots, nuclear scientists and weapons designers for Command and Control, as well as reviewing thousands of pages of newly released official documents. "I really went down the rabbit hole into the nuclear madness," he says when we meet in a coffee bar in Soho, New York. He speaks languidly, elongating his vowels like a West Coast hippie, even though he was born in Manhattan and spent part of his youth here.

Shoe-leather aside, there's no instantly apparent theme that connects Schlosser's disparate subjects. From fast food he turned to the war on drugs in Reefer Madness (2003). His next book after Command and Control will be on America's prison system. Food-dope-nukes-slammers: where's the logic?

"Powerful systems of control that aren't being discussed and that work very hard to disguise how they operate," he answers. "It's not like I have a megalomaniacal 'I'm going to save the world' mentality, but what my work is designed to do is to provoke discussion. I want to produce not a diatribe or  a rant but writing that is factually based and footnoted." (Command and Control certainly is footnoted – the notes and bibliography run to more than 100 pages.)

When he started on his nuclear researches, Schlosser conceived the book as something contained and compact. It would be the tale of one of the most serious accidents in the nuclear age, when, in September 1980, a Titan II missile, similar to the one he had witnessed taking off from Vandenberg, exploded in its silo in Arkansas following routine repair work that turned bad. The missile was carrying a thermonuclear warheadwith a yield 600 times that of "Little Boy", the bomb dropped over Hiroshima. The warhead was blasted hundreds of meters into a ditch, but failed to detonate.

As he started digging his way down into the rabbit hole, he began stumbling on other examples of mistakes and near-misses. One led to another until he found himself sitting on a mushroom cloud of disturbing nuclear accidents. When he requested under the Freedom of Information Act the release of an official record of all the incidents that had befallen the American nuclear arsenal in the 10 years to 1967, he was astounded to find it extending to 245 pages.

The stories he came across suggest that nothing but a miracle has prevented an accidental Hiroshima or Nagasaki taking place on US soil. In 1958 a Mark 6 atom bomb was accidentally dropped into the backyard of the Gregg family in Mars Bluff, South Carolina. Three years later, two hydrogen bombs, with a combined power of more than 500 Hiroshimas, were accidentally dropped over North Carolina after a B-52 broke up in mid air. Neither bomb detonated when they landed in a meadow, but a later secret investigation concluded that in the case of one of the devices only a single low-voltage switch stood between the US and catastrophe. In 1966 a hydrogen bomb was dropped inadvertently over the coast of Spain, also from a stricken B-52; it took six weeks of intensive searching before it was found and retrieved from the ocean bed.

As the mass of detail piles up, an important lesson emerges from the book. The way Schlosser explains it to me is that "our ability to create dangerous things exceeds our ability to control them. We are talking about hubris – our lack of understanding of our own flaws and lack of humility in the way we approach technology."

At this point in our conversation, that elusive link between Command and Control and Fast Food Nation – nukes and burgers– begins to reveal itself. The hydrogen bomb and the Chicken McNugget: two seemingly disparate creations that are both the product of brilliant engineering and human ingenuity, and which harnessed the power of nature. The hydrogen bomb unleashed the power of the atom to allow mankind to kill millions of people astonishingly quickly; the Chicken McNugget unleashed the power of animal protein to feed millions of people astonishingly quickly.

Yet in the process, both established systems of such centralised force and complexity that nobody – not even successive US presidents – was able to hold them back or even subject them to rational judgement. "In Britain," Schlosser reminds me, "for a while it was thought a good idea to feed cattle to other cattle – that was seen as efficient use of feed, until BSE came along."

In Command and Control he similarly reminds us that the United States, a country that prides itself in being the most rounded democracy in the world, devised an IBM computer programme called QUICK COUNT that allowed war planners to identify "desired ground zeros" in Soviet cities so as to maximise the number of civilians killed in a nuclear strike. In 1961, the Pentagon instigated a war plan that would be unstoppable once the nuclear button was pushed, killing 220 million people in the Soviet Union and China within the first three days.

"The nuclear command and control system was so huge and complex it was almost impossible for one man to fully comprehend. Henry Kissinger's career was founded on his knowledge of nuclear weapons, yet, when he got into the White House and saw the war plan for the first time, he was astounded. That happens again and again: we're brilliant at devising solutions to very immediate problems, but awful at seeing the consequences of those actions."

The strength of Schlosser's writing derives from his ability to carry a wealth of startling detail (did you know that security at Titan II missile bases was so lapse you could break into one with just a credit card?) on a confident narrative path. He admits that the demands he places on himself as a writer can drive him nuts at times. He sits for long hours in his study at home on the central Californian coast, grappling with enormous quantities of information. "I don't have any researchers, I don't have an assistant, not even a secretary. I just amass an insane amount of material and wade through it. In some ways my method is as crazy as the subjects I write about."

Do you factory farm yourself, I ask, forcefully chaining yourself to the desk? "No," he replies. "But a wonderful writer, a very-well known writer who I personally deeply respect, does tie himself to his chair. And not in a bondage creepy way, but literally to tie himself to his work."(If you're wondering who, forget it. Schlosser won't say.)

The other aspect of his approach to writing that stands out, apart from its masochistic attention to detail, is how unreconstructed it is. He is a beneficiary of the digital age, of course, able now, for instance, to search the Congressional Record in seconds when for Fast Food Nation he spent hours ploughing through paper volumes in the Library of Congress.

But he's also totally averse to social media, saying at one point, rather quaintly, "I do not Twitter". "I'm not seeking followers, I don't have a website. I'm not writing diatribes that have a 10-point political programme. I suppose it's an old-fashioned investigative goal of trying to expose."

To some extent, the subject of nuclear oblivion is itself retro. Hollywood no longer makes films like Dr Strangelove, American and British homeowners no longer build concrete bunkers in their gardens to withstand nuclear fallout, and since the end of the cold war, the issue has receded into its own silo. Iran and North Korea raise anxieties, of course, but the threat they pose seems distant rather than imminent and personal.

That, though, is one of the things that drove him on to write Command and Control, Schlosser says. He sees the decline of interest in the nuclear issue as a matter of high urgency.

"This is the scary thing for me," he says. "The people for whom this is still a threat, the people who are most anti-nuclear, the people who are most afraid about this, are the ones who know most about it."

And yet, the pool of knowledge posessed by that elite group of weapons designers and scientists is fast drying up. "It's very disturbing that the number of people who have seen a nuclear weapon detonate is dwindling. Half the American population was not yet born or were young children when the Soviet Union disappeared. The most anti-nuclear people in the US today are 75, 80 years old."

Without their expertise to keep us alert, Schlosser fears, the world will be allowed to slide into a form of collective madness founded on denial, a death wish that sees nuclear weapons as no longer a problem. Though both the US and Soviet Union have reduced their stockpiles dramatically, the US today still has 4,650 nuclear weapons, Russia about 3,500, China and France about 400 each and the UK 150. Should just one of those warheads go off, through an accident, or through systems infiltration by a hacker, the consequences would be unthinkable.

Despite that gloomy thought, Schlosser insists he is Pollyannaish about this, as about the subjects of all his books. Fast food still prevails in America, certainly, but there is a food movement now and Michelle Obama grows organic lettuces in the White House garden. The drug war persists, but Colorado and Washington state last November legalised marijuana.

"Social movements take a long time to have an effect," he says. "Change doesn't just happen. People have to make it happen, and the first thing they need before they can do anything is to be aware.

"I've spent six years in the most crazy nuclear shit imaginable, that at times made me question mankind. But I really do believe things can be done. I wouldn't have written this book if I thought we were doomed."

One of the best investigative journalists out there. I've read both Fast Food Nation and Reefer Madness. FFN is a modern day "The Jungle" exposé which ended up (somewhat) revolutionizing the fast food industry. Reefer Madness was a trilogy of expanded articles originally written for The Atlantic, adapted into book form to examine three aspects of the American black market: drugs, porn, and immigration.

Lots of fascinating facts in both books. I imagine this one will be the same. My only "beef" (pun intended) with Schlosser is that he can't help waxing opinionated eventually, and his take is always that "better" or more streamlined government regulation will solve all of our problems. Bullshit.
Title: - 'The people who are most anti-nuclear are the ones who know most about it'
Post by: Rudi Jan on September 26, 2013, 02:54:29 PM
Eric Schlosser: 'The people who are most anti-nuclear are the ones who know most about it'
Without their expertise to keep us alert, Schlosser fears, the world will be allowed to slide into a form of collective madness founded on denial, a death wish that sees nuclear weapons as no longer a problem. Though both the US and Soviet Union have reduced their stockpiles dramatically, the US today still has 4,650 nuclear weapons, Russia about 3,500, China and France about 400 each and the UK 150. Should just one of those warheads go off, through an accident, or through systems infiltration by a hacker, the consequences would be unthinkable.

Hmmm... he seems to have missed mentioning the arsenal equal or greater to that of France or China in the hands of the most peaceful nation on earth, the home of the psychopaths.
Title: - 'The people who are most anti-nuclear are the ones who know most about it'
Post by: dominique on September 28, 2013, 09:43:40 AM
Hmmm... he seems to have missed mentioning the arsenal equal or greater to that of France or China in the hands of the most peaceful nation on earth, the home of the psychopaths.

That he doesn't mention Israel in that blurb is true, but then again, he doesn't mention unstable-Pakistan, North Korea, or India, either. Guess we'll have to wait and read the whole book before we know if Israel's arsenal ever comes up. (Just out of curiousity, do you have figures showing Israel to have "greater than that of France or China"? I've read everything from 80 to 400, but it's pretty clear at this point that they've got at least some, despite their "policy of nuclear ambiguity." Just wondered if you'd actually found an exact count.)

But although Schlosser's a jew, he had NO problem "naming the jew" in his section on the porn industry in his book Reefer Madness, where he lays blame for the entire creation and takeoff of the porn industry in America at the feet of porn-king and crime-boss Reuben Sturman.
Title: Rohani Tells UN No Nation Should Have Nuclear Weapons, Challenges Israel On NPT
Post by: dominique on September 28, 2013, 09:54:31 AM
I think Roubani's got it exactly right to be more diplomatic and less bombastic than Ahmadinejad, and start pointing the finger (even though he was voted down in the UN). We're starting to reach critical mass what with Putin, Roubani, and even Assad all continuing to call attention to Israel's nukes.

Rohani Tells UN No Nation Should Have Nuclear Weapons, Challenges Israel On NPT

Last updated (GMT/UTC): 26.09.2013 16:42

Iranian President Hassan Rohani has told a UN meeting on nuclear disarmament that no country should have nuclear weapons and called on Israel to join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Rohani, whose country is suspected by the West of seeking the capability to produce atomic bombs, urged Israel, which has never officially acknowledged its presumed possession of nuclear weapons, to put its nuclear arms under international control.

"No nation should possess nuclear weapons, since there are no right hands for these wrong weapons," Rohani told the UN General Assembly meeting on nuclear disarmament on September 26. "Israel, the only non-party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty in this region, should join thereto without any further delay."

Iran denies it is seeking an atomic bomb under cover of its nuclear program, but the UN's atomic watchdog has criticized Tehran for a lack of disclosure and suggested that Iran's nuclear program at some point had a military component.

Rohani's remarks came ahead of a high-level meeting on Tehran's nuclear program at United Nations headquarters in New York later on September 26.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif will meet with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, as well as diplomats from Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany -- the so-called P5+1 group of world powers.

It will be one of the highest-level meetings between the United States and Iran since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, after which formal diplomatic ties were severed.

Rohani also has said he believes a deal could be made on his country's nuclear drive within three to six months.

He told the "Washington Post" he has the full backing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the ultimate word on political and religious affairs under Iran's clerically dominated system, to broker a deal.

The meeting between the P5+1 group of world powers and Iran will be hosted by EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.

Kerry said he looks forward to a "good meeting" but did not elaborate.

Zarif said on his Twitter account, "We have a historic opportunity to resolve the nuclear issue" if world powers adjust to the "new Iranian approach."

Based on reporting by AFP, Reuters, BBC, and RFE/RL
Title: - I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Post by: dominique on August 06, 2015, 10:26:51 AM