The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 John V. Walsh Archive
Dismantling the Doomsday Machines
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

“From a technical point of view, he (Stanley Kubrick) anticipated many things. … Since that time, little has changed, honestly. The only difference is that modern weapons systems have become more sophisticated, more complex. But this idea of a retaliatory strike and the inability to manage these systems, yes, all of these things are relevant today. It (controlling the systems) will become even more difficult and more dangerous.” (Emphasis, jw)

Vladimir Putin commenting on the film, Dr. Strangelove: or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, in an interview with Oliver Stone, May 11, 2016. Putin had not seen the movie and did not know of it before Stone showed it to him.

ORDER IT NOW

The Doomsday Machine, the title of Daniel Ellsberg’s superb book is not simply an imaginary contraption from a movie masterpiece. A Doomsday Machine uncannily like the one described in Dr. Strangelove exists right now. In fact, there are two such machines, one in US hands and one in Russia’s. The US seeks to hide its version, but Ellsberg has revealed that it has existed since the 1950s. Russia has quietly admitted that it has one, named it formally, “Perimetr,” and also tagged it with a frighteningly apt nickname “Dead Hand.” Because the US and Russia are the only nations with Doomsday Machines to date we shall restrict this discussion to them.

The Doomsday Machine was published just a little more than a year ago, but its terrifying message has failed to provoke action. And Daniel Ellsberg is a man who knows whereof he speaks; the subtitle of the book is “Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner,” which is how Ellsberg spent the early part of his career. What follows on this first anniversary of the book’s publication is a brief restatement of the main argument of the book and then a summary of Ellsberg’s plan of action. (Not included are memoirs and personal experiences of this remarkable, very intelligent and moral man, which are found in the book and which I recommend to flesh out the line of thought presented herein.) Ellsberg’s plan is to be considered a stop gap measure to remove the nuclear sword of Damocles hanging over our heads and allow time to move to total abolition of nuclear weapons, a much more arduous task. Hopefully this essay will serve as a reminder of Ellsberg’s warnings and as a call to act on them.

How Do the Doomsday Machines Work? – Two components:

What is the essence of a “Doomsday Machine”? The first component is a mechanism of launching nuclear weapons that is on hair trigger alert and not always in the hands of the Presidents of Russia or the US. The fact well concealed from the US public is that the US President or those in the line of Constitutional succession are not the only ones with a finger on the nuclear button, and the same is true in Russia. The second component of a Doomsday Machine is a weapon of such destructive force that it can kill billions in the immediate aftermath of an attack and then the entire human race and perhaps all animal life on earth.

The Launch Mechanism – Command and Control

Russia and the US each have a First Strike capability, that is the ability to strike the other with great force, destroy the other’s cities and industrial and military base – and knock out the other’s nuclear deterrent. The essence of a First Strike capacity is this ability to wipe out the deterrent of the other side or weaken it sufficiently that the remaining force could be intercepted for the most part. How can a targeted nation prevent the use of a First Strike? It must convince the adversary that such a strike is futile and will not destroy the deterrent of the targeted nation. The attacker must understand that he will not escape retribution, because the nuclear force of the targeted nation, its nuclear deterrent, will survive.

Launch on Warning – Hair Trigger Alert. The first measure to prevent the loss of deterrence in the event of a First Strike is to put the nuclear force on Launch on Warning or Hair Trigger Alert status. Most of us have heard about this, but we ought to quake in our boots every time the thought of it crosses our minds. Since the time to respond to a First Strike is only tens of minutes for an ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile) attack, which takes about 30 minutes to travel between the US and Russia, and even less time for a short or intermediate range missile, a targeted country must have its nuclear force loaded onto delivery vehicles and capable of being launched on warning of a nuclear attack. The weapons must be ready to go and launched before the country is struck. This is called “Launch on Warning” and the weapons are sometimes said to be on “Hair Trigger Alert.” (There is some imprecision to the terminology surrounding nuclear weapons, partly due the obfuscation used by the US in negotiations. Steven Starr gives an account of this imprecision and a brief glossary here. I will use terms that are easily understood and common sensical. And I will define them when necessary.)

Nuclear warheads that are loaded onto delivery vehicles are said to be “deployed,” and there were roughly 1600 such warheads loaded onto long range delivery vehicles, each, in Russian and U.S. hands in 2018. They are ready to be launched in minutes. (There are several thousand more warheads in reserve on each side but not “deployed.”) It is easy to see the danger inherent in this situation. The decision to launch must be made in minutes to prevent destruction of the nuclear deterrent and it would be hard to decide with certainty whether the warning of an attack was genuine or due to a technical malfunction. In fact, the signal that an attack is coming is always likely to be ambiguous. Even if the attack is real, the attacker will seek to hide it and so even then the signal will be ambiguous. Thus, even an ambiguous warning caused due to a technical malfunction must always be treated with seriousness and a decision to respond made within minutes.

That a decision of such moment must be made so quickly, under the gun if you will, is a disaster waiting to happen. A mistake is bound to occur with the passage of sufficient time. And it nearly did during the Cuban Missile crisis and again in 1983 when the Soviets detected an attack coming from the United States. According to established protocol the warning was sufficient for the Soviet officer in charge to inform the leadership that a nuclear attack on the U.S. should be ordered. But that officer, Lieutenant Colonel Stefan Petrov, refused to follow protocol and instead interpreted the warning of an attack as a false alarm, which it was. So, a launch of Soviet weapons did not occur. In Russia, Stefan Petrov who died recently is hailed as “the man who saved the world.” This is the nuclear powder keg on which we all sit.

Decapitation and Delegation – Unknowns have their finger on “the button.” The second measure to prevent loss of deterrence is Delegation. This is not widely known or understood. One aspect of a First Strike would be an attempt to knock out known command centers so that a retaliatory strike could not be ordered. This is known as Decapitation. The antidote to Decapitation is Delegation, that is others besides the Presidents and their immediate successors are authorized to press “the button.” It works this way. These “others” are located in secret command centers far from Washington or the Strategic Air Command Base in Colorado, both of which will be targeted in a Decapitation strike. If these secret centers find themselves cut off from communication with Washington or Moscow, then the assumption is made that a decapitating nuclear strike has occurred. In that event these “others” removed from the centers of power are authorized to the press the nuclear button!! (One can see why the Russians call their system of delegation, Perimetr.) These others are not elected officials and in fact we do not know who they are! What Ellsberg discovered is that some of these “others,” military men, were concerned that they too could be hit in a decapitating strike. So they had delegated authority to still others!! In fact, no one, perhaps not even the President and his circle of advisors, knows who can send off the nuclear weapons. Is it possible that one of them might be like the fictional General Jack D. Ripper, the psychotic and delusional man who gives the launch order in Dr. Strangelove – or a similar individual lusting after the Rapture?

It does not take much imagination to see the multiple ways in which things could go wrong; a launch due to a false alarm of attack and a lack of time to make a thoughtful check and decision; a failure of communication that puts the perimeter out of touch with the center although no decapitation has in fact occurred; or a mad man or woman or a crazed ideologue who becomes one of the Delegated. A terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon on Moscow or Washington could also mimic a Decapitating attack and set in motion the fast Delegation to the delegatee. The appropriateness of the term “Dead Hand” for this arrangement is striking.

It is true that so far as we know the probability of a mistake or a rogue element gaining control of nuclear weapons is small. (But the fact is we do not know what the situation is – it is hidden from us and perhaps even from elected officials.) The weapons are protected from rogue use by safety locks called Permissive Action Links (PALs) but these are not perfect, and they must be capable of activation by someone in the “perimeter” in the event of Delegation. And they are no protection against a false alarm of an attack. Despite how low the probability of an error might be, the dice are thrown every moment of every day, and with the passage of time, inevitably something will go wrong.

In summary, First Strike Capability is the source of the problem. It leads to Launch on Warning and Delegation by a targeted nation. The U.S. pioneered and maintains a First Strike Capability and refuses to adopt a “No First Strike” policy. Another response to a first strike capability is that the targeted nation will build up the numbers in its nuclear force so that some will always survive an attack. That is precisely what happened in the first Cold War until it reached insane levels as shown graphically here.

The Nuclear Weapon. The First Strike Arsenal.

Obliteration of Russia and the U.S. The second component of a Doomsday Machine is the weapon itself. What is the destructive power of the ensemble of nuclear weapons as used in a First Strike? I know of no such quantitative estimates released by the Pentagon for the present day. They are badly needed. But in 1961 when Ellsberg was among those working on nuclear war fighting strategy for the Kennedy administration, he asked for an estimate from the Pentagon of the deaths due to a First Strike as the generals and their civilian war planners had mapped it out at the time. To his surprise the estimate came back at once – the Pentagon had made it and kept it hidden. Launching of the nuclear weapons planned for use in a First Strike by the U.S. would result in the deaths of 1.2 billion from explosions, radiation and fire. That number was the number of deaths and did not include injuries. And it was only the result of US weapons; it did not include deaths from a response from the Soviet side if they managed one. 1.2 billion people was the toll at a time when the population of the earth was about 3 billion! (Note that this toll does NOT include the effects of nuclear winter which was unknown at that time. More on that below.) And of course, such deaths would be concentrated in the targeted countries which in these times would be the US and Russia. Ellsberg was stunned to learn that the Pentagon would coolly make plans for such a gargantuan and immediate genocide. And so should we all be. What kind of mindset, what kind of ethics, what kind of morality has allowed for such a thing!

Nuclear Winter and the Destruction of Humanity. But the damage does not stop there. This is the surprise that the Pentagon did not understand at the time. The ash from the fires of burning cities would be cast up into the stratosphere so high that it would not be rained out. There it would remain for at least a decade, blocking enough sunlight that no crops would grow for ten years. That is sufficient to cause total starvation and wipe out the entire human race with only a handful at most able to survive. This is Nuclear Winter. It is eerily reminiscent of Kubrick’s Doomsday Machine which resulted in a cloud of radioactivity circling the earth and wiping out all life. Nuclear Winter was first understood in the 1980s, but at that time careful assessment of the existing computer models seemed to indicate that it was not likely and so many “stopped worrying.” Now with the interest in Global Warming, new and better computer models have been developed. When the results of a nuclear first strike are put into these models, Nuclear Winter again makes its appearance as Brian Toon, Alan Robock and others have shown. The TED talks of Toon and of Robock describing their findings are worth watching; they are brief and well-illustrated. We are confronted with a genocide of all or nearly all humanity, an “Omnicide.”

The launch of the 1600 “deployed” warheads of either the US or Russia is sufficient to give us nuclear winter. So we in the US have put in place a weapon system on hair trigger alert commanded by we know not whom which can kill virtually all Americans – along with most everyone else on the planet. We have on hair trigger alert a weapon which is in fact suicidal. Use the weapon and we lose our very existence. We should also be clear that even if we prescind from the effects of nuclear winter, the nuclear attacks would be concentrated on Russia and the US. So most of us would be consumed. Thus MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) is replaced with SAD (Self-Assured Destruction).

Disarming the Doomsday Machine

What is Ellsberg’s plan to disarm the Doomsday Machines? He does not suggest total abolition of nuclear weapons, a worthy and ultimate goal, as a first step. He suggests intermediate steps, which can be accomplished much more quickly and remove the present danger.

From what was said above, it is clear that the Doomsday Machine with its massive nuclear force, Launch On Warning and system of Delegation all grows out of a need to protect from a First Strike. The solution to the problem does not demand giving up all nukes or even a deterrent which many are loathe to do. And that is not hard to understand when we compare the fate of Kim Jong-un to that of Muammar Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein. Nor is it difficult to understand in the U.S. given the current intense Russophobia, or in Russia given the alarm caused by NATO’s drive to the East. This is one reason that total abolition of nuclear weapons or even abolition of a nuclear deterrent will be quite difficult. However, dismantling the Doomsday Machines, the immediate danger to humanity, does not demand giving up nuclear deterrence.

Abandoning First Strike Policy and Capacity. Dismantling the Doomsday Machine with its Hair Trigger Alert and Delegation does mean abandoning a First Strike policy and capacity. And right now, only two countries have such First Strike capacity and only one, the U.S., refuses to take the right to use it “off the table” even when not under attack. What does the elimination of First Strike Capacity mean in practice; how can it be achieved? This turns out to involve two basic steps for the US.

Dismantling the Minuteman III. First, the land-based ICBMs, the Minuteman III, must be entirely dismantled, not refurbished as is currently being undertaken at enormous cost. These missiles, the land-based part of the Strategic Triad, are highly accurate but fixed in place, “sitting ducks”; they are only good for a First Strike, for they will be destroyed in a successful First Strike by an adversary. Former Secretary of Defense William Perry and James E. Cartwright, formerly head of the Strategic Air Command and Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have both called for dismantling the Minuteman III. We would thereby also save a lot of money.

Reducing the SLBM Force. The second step in dismantling the First Strike capacity is to reduce the Trident Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM) force to the level where it cannot destroy the entire Russian land-based missile force. With these two measures in place the US would no longer have a First Strike Capability, and so Launch on Warning and Delegation upon apparent Decapitation would both be unnecessary. It is that simple.

Of course, the Russians would also need to take similar measures that take into account the specifics of its arsenal. And that is where negotiations, treaties and verification come in. That in turn cannot take place in the current atmosphere of Russiagate and Russophobia, which is why both are existential threats and must be surmounted. We must talk despite our differences, real or perceived.

However, were the US and Russia to abandon their First Strike capacity, a reasonable deterrent could be preserved. Such a deterrent should be far below the threshold for a nuclear winter. When Herbert York, one of the original nuclear war planners and strategists, was asked how many nuclear weapons it would take to guarantee deterrence, he suggested somewhere between one and one hundred, closer to one, perhaps ten. Of course, such a small number demands giving up on a missile defense system which has been a will-o’-the-wisp since the 1950s. But would a leader of any nation, even one equipped with an Anti-Ballistic Missile system, when confronted with 100 nuclear warheads facing him or her, be willing to risk ten getting through and demolishing 10 cities?

But there is a deep problem here. The US at least has not built its nuclear forces with the simple object of deterrence. It has had the policy of being able to strike first and destroy or sufficiently degrade the Russian force so that there would be no retaliation. Ellsberg establishes that definitively based on his own experience in his days as a nuclear war planner. But this is also a will-o’-the-wisp. With Launch on Warning and Delegation both sides would be destroyed. So, this path must be abandoned. However, it is a path that has been trod for a long time. It has acquired many adherents and become embedded in the thinking of our “strategic war planners.” It will be hard to abandon this way of thinking which is what will make the simple steps outlined above politically difficult although technically and logistically quite simple. Moreover, in the mind of the public there is no clear distinction between First Strike and simple deterrence. And many favor a nuclear deterrent. So the movement for total abolition of nuclear weapons has a long way to go to reach its destination.

An additional measure – Eliminating launch on warning, aka “hair trigger alert,” that is, “De-alerting.” An additional measure has also been proposed. All nuclear warheads should be removed from deployed status by Russia and the US. (The oft-used term for this is “De-alerting.”). That is, the warheads should be removed from their delivery vehicles and stored in a way that would take days or even weeks to deploy – that is to remount. This has been proposed by the Global Zero Commission on Nuclear Risk Reduction which says of itself:

As world leaders descended on the United Nations in New York for the 2015 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, the Global Zero Commission on Nuclear Risk Reduction — led by former U.S. Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General James E. Cartwright and comprised of international military experts — issued a bold call for ending the Cold War-era practice of keeping nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert.

The Commission’s extensive report calls for (1) an urgent agreement between the United States and Russia to immediately eliminate “launch-on-warning” from their operational strategy, and to initiate a phased stand down of their high-alert strategic forces….; and (2) a longer-term global agreement requiring all nuclear weapons countries to refrain from putting their nuclear weapons on high alert.

Urgent action is needed, according to the Commission, because of heightened tensions between the United States and Russia, ongoing geopolitical and territorial disputes involving other nuclear countries that could escalate, and an emerging global trend toward placing nuclear weapons on high alert.

The proposal, backed by more than 75 former senior political officials, national security experts and top military commanders, makes the case that a multinational de-alerting agreement could greatly mitigate the many risks of nuclear weapons use, including from computer error, cyber launch, accidental detonations, unauthorized “insider” launch, false warning of enemy attack, and rushed nuclear decision-making.

The full report is here.

Such an arrangement must be solidly negotiated and verifiable. It would seem that the US President could do this by executive order and at little cost. For submarines the nuclear warheads would be stored on shore in a way that makes it impossible to reload for the period of delay that is negotiated. This arrangement means that no decisions about nuclear warfare need be taken at a moment’s notice, no launch on warning is possible or even relevant any longer and the possibility of Decapitation and the consequent necessity of Delegation disappear. And when either nuclear state feels existentially threatened by conventional forces, its first response need not be to fire a nuclear weapon. Its first response could be to deploy its warheads (that is, reload the launch vehicles) while it negotiates over the threat. That along with Ellsberg’s suggestions would greatly stabilize the world and lessen to almost zero the probability of nuclear war based on misjudgment or accident. From there the work on ever greater levels of reduction leading eventually to total abolition of nuclear weapons could go forward.

The Work Ahead to Win Support for Dismantling the Doomsday Machines

To be able to get Congress or the Executive to move toward these changes, a number of things will be necessary. First is information. As a very basic example, Ellsberg learned in 1961 that a US First Strike at that time would produce 1.2 billion deaths as an immediate result of Nuclear War, excluding any effects of nuclear winter and excluding a Soviet response. We deserve to know what those numbers are now. Here, Ellsberg argues, both public pressure and the work of whistle blowers will be needed. As another example, we need to know from the Pentagon and the National Academy of Sciences whether the result of a US First Strike of the magnitude now on hair trigger alert would lead to nuclear winter – as it seems almost certain it would.

But far more than that would be needed. There must be some form of pressure to wake up the politicians and force them to dismantle the Doomsday Machines. But this is missing. In part with the end of the First Cold War, many thought that the danger had disappeared. Clearly it has not. A movement to abolish the Doomsday Machine is a threat to the Military Industrial Complex and so the MIC and its media acolytes would prefer silence or opposition to such efforts. It may be that the generations which lived through the first Cold War and went through its terrors, from “duck and cover” drills to mushroom cloud nightmares, to the Cuban Missile Crisis may have a special role to play. Their psyches have been most affected by nuclear horrors and they may be the best ones to convince succeeding generations of the dangers. But the strategy and tactics for such an effort have yet to be outlined. It is a task that lies before us.

The first step to sanity is to eliminate launch on warning and the second step would be to rid ourselves and the Russians of a First Strike policy and capacity and negotiate a stable deterrent, small enough that it does not threaten nuclear winter. That is something that the nuclear powers and the broad public can easily accept despite the opposition of a small number of nuclear war fighters. Here the idea of negotiations is not to make the other side more vulnerable but to give the “adversary” and oneself a small, stable nuclear deterrent. Such a win-win approach to negotiations is in fact necessary for survival while we take the more difficult road to total nuclear abolition.

Total abolition should be the ultimate goal because no human hand should be allowed to wield species-destroying power. But it seems that an intermediate goal is not only needed to give us the breathing space to get to zero nuclear weapons. An intermediate and readily achievable goal can call attention to the problem and motivate large numbers of people. The Nuclear Freeze movement of the 1980s is a very successful example of this sort of effort; it played a big role in making the Reagan-Gorbachev accords possible. The effort to kill the Doomsday Machines might well be called something like Step Away From Doomsday or simply Step Away. The time may be ripe for such an effort. Getting to zero will require a breakthrough in the way countries deal with one another, especially nuclear armed countries! Let us give ourselves the breathing space to accomplish that.

John V. Walsh can be reached at [email protected] He writes about issues of war, peace and empire, and about health care, for Antiwar.com, Consortium News, DissidentVoice.org, Unz Review and other outlets. Now living in the East Bay, he was until recently Professor of Physiology and Cellular Neuroscience at a Massachusetts Medical School.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Nuclear War, Nuclear Weapons 
Hide 93 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. JLK says:

    All these weapons are sociopathic, just as the bioweapons are.

    There needs to be an international control regime for both with teeth. Every country agrees to give both types of weapons up, with regular inspections and a few ICBM launch sites left under international control in case a country cheats.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  2. Lin says:

    To ease international tension,I suggest to get rid of nukes & replace them with Rainbow bomb
    and promote the opponents’ diversity. Lots of people will say AMEN.
    (Dr.’Strangelove’ OR How I stopped worrying and learned to love the Gay Bomb)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb
    https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/archived/radiotonic/gaybomb/7025926

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  3. “Launch on Warning” is something of a misnomer. Warnings are not ambiguous per se in most cases, but are prone to many sources of false alarm, so a proper term would be “Launch Under Attack,” where warnings have been subjected to appropriate threat assessment. With land-based ICBMs, you don’t get “tens of minutes,” you get ten perhaps minutes to receive and properly assess a warning. With SLBMs, you get a few minutes: If you are sitting in DC, perhaps five to ten; the delegees, based away from the coasts, might get another five to ten minutes to make a studied assessment of the situation.

    You should be grateful for delegees, because machines would merely follow their coding; that was the point of the Dr. Strangelove “Doomsday Machine.”

  4. @Lin

    Fire control by GayDar?

    • Replies: @Lin
  5. peterAUS says:

    Stopped reading at:

    Russia and the US each have a First Strike capability, that is the ability to strike the other with great force, destroy the other’s cities and industrial and military base – and knock out the other’s nuclear deterrent. The essence of a First Strike capacity is this ability to wipe out the deterrent of the other side or weaken it sufficiently that the remaining force could be intercepted for the most part.

    My bold. Nonsense.

    Moving on.

  6. US & Russia are not the only first strike capable nations, just the biggest. Good luck stuffing the genie back in the bottle.

    The only time weapons are retired is when more powerful ones are invented.

    Chem/bio aren’t much used because of unpredictability, not because they scare people, and they are also still around.

    Book sounds interesting. Author of this essay is engaging in wishful thinking.

  7. JLK says:

    I can’t believe that we are still discussing war in 2019. Major wars have became unthinkable 85 years ago, but the defense companies still manage to pack in the profits.

    I was too young for Vietnam, but remember the fear of being drafted. The latest generation of kids would be shocked at the concept of an involuntary draft, and how their social media would be shut down at the first hint of a protest and polluted with government propaganda if that happened .

    I hope someone writes a positive article on Martin Luther King this week. I don’t know if I would have agreed with him about everything, but he spoke truth to power on the Vietnam issue. It takes courage to be the first one to speak truth to power on an issue. Even people who might agree with you will tend to have a moment of cognitive dissonance first and look at you funny before they get used to the idea.

    There’s a resonance in the holiday of his birthday for all of us.

  8. The crux of the piece is the insistence that in the event of a massive nuclear exchange a catastrophic nuclear winter would ensue — so catastrophic as to all but exterminate mankind.

    On the one hand, the quite exhaustive Wikipedia article on ‘nuclear winter’ strongly suggests such an outcome is improbable. On the other hand, this article offers no specific support for its assertion that the nuclear winter would be catastrophic, merely offering links to videos and pages of further links, and appealing vaguely to improved computer models.

    I’m unconvinced.

  9. @JLK

    ‘All these weapons are sociopathic, just as the bioweapons are.

    There needs to be an international control regime for both with teeth. Every country agrees to give both types of weapons up, with regular inspections and a few ICBM launch sites left under international control in case a country cheats.’

    This is tantamount to an appeal to God. You distrust the wisdom and restraint of those who currently possess these weapons, so you would place them in the hands of some third body — without explaining why this third body is any more to be trusted than the current ones.

    It’s the old problem; who will guard the guards?

    • Replies: @JLK
    , @Anon
  10. A, in my opinion, typical wishful thinking article, the kind of article one finds often on German sites.
    Good intentions by Gutmenschen, literally good people, alas completely disconnected from reality.
    Anyone with some common sense sees that N Korea still is independent because it has missiles and atomic bombs.
    If Iran already has nuclear weapons, I do not know, but is does not seem impossible to me.
    But even without atomic weapons the retaliatory capacity of Iran is such that Israel does not dare to attack it.
    The one and only country ever that abolished WMD’s, at the time, was Japan, it abolished the use of gun powder.
    If it had made much difference to have kept the use of gunpowder when USA admiral Perry appeared with his warships, speculation, maybe history would have been different.
    Whatever the case, in my opinion doomsday WMD’s until now prevented the next world war, at the cost of the possibility of ending all human life

    • Replies: @Rogue
  11. Heros says:

    This piece is just deliberate deflection propaganda.

    There is no mention of the “Samson” option. There is no mention of the third temple to Solomon or greater Israel. There is no mention that Israel even has over 200 nuclear weapons. There is no mention of biblical revelations about the end times.

    – We know that the Zionists and devout jews want the white European goyim to destroy themselves in the third world war that is so often propheseid.
    – We also know that jews have owned the US nuclear program ever since Einstein supposedly convinced Roosevelt to start two of them simultanseously.
    – We know that jewish spies were shipping US nuclear material, technology and machinery to other jews running the Soviet nuclear program throughout WWII.
    – We know that Nagasaki was nuked out of spite and in a kabbalist ritual with the bomb detonated directly over the main Catholic church for all of Japan
    – We know that jewish spies in every administration, like Pollard, have passed nuclear secrets off to Israel, who then promptly sold them to the highest bidder.
    – We know that Kennedy was assassinated because he wanted to stop the Israeli nuclear program.
    – We know that the Liberty attack was an attempt to get Johnson to do the jews dirty work and nuke Damascus so that they could bring on the third temple without spending a drop of jewish blood.

    So since jews own nuclear weapons technology from cradle to grave, how could we possibly believe a piece like this that never mentions it? It is possible that instead of doomsday devices that jews running nukes around the planet would set up empire-destruction devices and then cheer as the US and Russia destroy each other?

    • Replies: @Anon
  12. Franz says:

    Ellsberg may/may not have mentioned this, but in the 50s the fragility of “deterrence” was played out in a big way.

    Ike’s health was fragile and the nuclear codes went missing for approximately two weeks, during which time a frenetic Joint Chiefs of Staff wondered what TF to do,

    The specialty literature is full of this sort of thing; not just Ike but Kennedy also had an “episode” when his back pain meds rendered him non compos for a period of a few days… again, nukes up for grabs.

    My guess is the Population Bomb will take us out, not nukes. But it’s relevant to current readers to know nukes were *never* secure in any serious way.

    (In fact I’ll bet the stories on the Russian side are even funnier.)

    • Replies: @Arbee
  13. Sean says:

    In Dr Strangelove Major Kong at first refuses to believethey have been ordered to attack targets in the USSR, and he checks it himself. Then then tells the radioman to get a confirmation from base. Even for a comedy it just was not credible that such an order out of the blue would be obeyed without question.

    What would be the objective of an all out nuclear strike under current conditions? The only conceivable use of nukes would be as a specimen strike on the battlefield of conventional war that was going badly for the side using nukes. Nuke use would start with a single specimen strike to demonstrate resolve and thereafter it it would unfold into something that was not war, but rather esculating tit for thermonuclear tat, with neither side willing to stop. That prospect is why any decision for nuke first use is most improbable. An all out nuclear strike under current conditions simply could not be launched by anyone out of the blue. Maybe the officers of a nuclear ICBM submarine could if they all cooperated but the armed forces are not a disloyal death cult, whatever Professor Walsh thinks.

    Even if the US got a technological advantage that made it easy to first strike Russia without Russia being able to retaliate at all, America would not try and do it. After WW2 the US had a golden oppertunity for nuclear blackmail or a first strike capacity, yet it never seriously considered a nuclear Sunday punch although Russia did not have nuclear weapons then and it was predictable they would develop them soon. The logical anti-nuclear war thing for America to do would have been to use the threat of a nuking to demand Russia give up all its weapons research and crush it with nukes if it refused. Bertrand Russell and John Von Neunamm both advocated that course of action. In the light of what John V. Walsh says above about us being on the verge of total annihilation, America ought to have threatened to use it nuclear monopoly and and carried out its threat if necessary to destroy the Soviet Union for the greater good of humanity. When it comes to war, elites are playing a role in the movie inside their own heads rather than thinking rationally, but not in the way that Walsh thinks. No, rationality sometimes means the greatest use of armed violence even against millions of innocent people, and if the world is accidentally blown up by some inebriated Russian leader (a la Yeltsin during the Norwegian rocket incident) then failure to see what was necessary after WW2 will be to blame,

    Let us say for the sake of argument that nuclear weapons were totally abolished. The outcome would be that conventional war became more likely, and if military men are going to bull-headedly slaughter the world’s population with nuclear weapons, what is to stop them doing it with conventional weapons? There are already enough bullets to kill everyone in the world.

    One might point out that all countries maintain vastly expensive conventional military forces, even though nuclear weapons have supposedly made conventional ones obsolete. It is almost as if the world’s nuclear powers do not really take their own or each others’ threats of first launching nuclear war at the first hint of non nuclear trouble entirely seriously.

    For now, the way to prevent war is for everyone (both sides) to confront each other, not to give an inch, and keep up the mutual pressure. An equal and opposite reaction will result in deadlock: overall stability. The fastest way to start a shooting war and then possible gradual escalation to WW3 would be for the US to become conciliatory to China, because it would create a fluid unpredictable situation and draw China into aggressive moves and winning a conventional war. Use of a battlefield nuke to halt a Chinese conventional victory followed by esculating tit for tat is the most likely route to a full nuclear exchange. So we need better conventional weapons.

  14. Mention ANY of this in public and out come the Russiaphobes of the Democrat Party. It’s unfuckinbelieveable that Democrats would turn these notions of disarmament down FLAT because of this phony, childish, nonsensical notion of Russian interference, yet Israel’s billions buying off our politicians is just swell with them.

    I defy anyone of prominence to go into Congress with any of this and take up the discussion with any Democrat or MIC-connected Republican. They would sooner we all die than have peace. And they will likely get their wish.

    Nice report, but not worth the paper it’s printed on because our country is small-minded, impossibly burdened with psycho-fems and the corrupted minions of MIC. And so, doomed.

  15. Great fiction, thought E was dead, though.

  16. Escher says:

    Very informative article.
    China, Britain, France, India, Israel and Pakistan need to be included in any treaty for it to be meaningful.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  17. Heros says:
    @Sean

    I recently discovered that Dr. Strangelove not only was directed by Stanley Kubrick, but that it was the scenes of the B52 bombers, faked completely without US Airforce cooperation, that were the reason that Kubrick was chosen to fake the moon landings in 1963.

    Knowing that already in the early 1960’s that the judeo-masonic ruling elites had already begun spinning massive mind control frauds on the US sheeple, one logically must ask if it was the moon landings that were the first fraud of this sort.

    Well we know that Ford and Coppola were sent to “document” the German labor camps in 1945, and I believe it was at Bergen Belsen that Hollywood set up the fake soap bars, human lamp shades and shrunken heads and began the massive holohoax reverse guilt projection mind control operation. Of course the German officers murdered for the faked German war crimes at Katyn could also be construed as mind control too.

    In any case, all this MAD-doomsday-first strike fear porn was born in this exact period. Dr Strangelove is clearly one component of this hysteria. It his highly probable that everything that we think we know about these weapons, their purpose, and their history is fake.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Mike P
    , @Mike P
    , @dkshaw
  18. @peterAUS

    More nonsense:

    Launching of the nuclear weapons planned for use in a First Strike by the U.S. would result in the deaths of 1.2 billion from explosions, radiation and fire. That number was the number of deaths and did not include injuries. And it was only the result of US weapons; it did not include deaths from a response from the Soviet side if they managed one. 1.2 billion people was the toll at a time when the population of the earth was about 3 billion!

    So somehow a US nuclear strike was expected to kill several multiples of the Warsaw Pact’s entire population.

    Serious literature assessed deaths from a total nuclear war scenario as being in the low tens of millions for both the US and the USSR. Obviously, estimated global deaths from nuclear winter is much more speculative, but it’s hard to see it exceeding 10% of the world total. Probably much less. Tambora in 1815 (megatonnage same order of magnitude as all the world’s nukes) produced famine but killed perhaps 1% of the world’s population – and that was when most of the world lived at subsistence levels.

  19. mike k says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    You rely on Wikipedia for your info on this?! Your comments have somehow made me more nervous, not less.

    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
  20. mike k says:

    The intention by the US to rule the world, which is an inevitable result of endgame capitalism, is what must be dismantled for any of the reasonable courses mentioned in the article to take effect.

  21. JLK says:
    @Colin Wright

    You make some excellent points. Any human system ultimately relies on the integrity of the participants.

    It’s the old problem; who will guard the guards?

    I’d nominate the Parsees, who seem to be revered by their neighbors despite their considerable intelligence and success.

    • Replies: @Anon
  22. Both Russia and the U.S. have what may be classified as doomsday machines, but the U.S. is under the control of Zionists who are bound and determined to eventually use them against Russia in the belief that they can survive in their DUMBs aka Deep Underground Military Bases that they have through0ut the U.S. and Europe.

    The Zionists are trying to provoke Russia in various places and various ways to bring on this nuclear and or particle beam weapons exchange to finish off Russia, but because Putin and Russia has avoided the provocateurs designs a war as so far been avoided, but this war is coming , as the insane Zionists are determined to establish a satanic NWO here on earth!

    The Zionists are Satanists so the lives of the people of Russia and the world do not matter and so the Zionists will destroy the world to get their Zionist NWO, and if anyone thinks this is extreme , google Israels SAMSON OPTION!

  23. I thought the concept of “nuclear winter” had been exposed as a KGB disinformation operation.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Herald
  24. Lin says:
    @The Alarmist

    ‘Fire control by GayDar?’

    PESA or AESA GayDar?

    OR replace the ‘E’ above by ‘A’ ?

  25. @mike k

    I think his use of “serious literature” may have been tongue-in-cheek.

  26. @Sean

    Sean, have you read Mearsheimer’s ‘The Great Delusion’ yet? Wondering what you think.

    • Replies: @Sean
  27. Agent76 says:

    Sep 30, 2016 Viewpoint – The Day After

    This was an amazing special that aired directly after the initial showing of The Day After in 1983.

    Sep 3, 2017 The nuclear powers have conducted more than 2,000 nuclear test explosions

    Since the first nuclear test explosion on July 16, 1945, at least eight nations have detonated 2,056 nuclear test explosions at dozens of test sites from Lop Nor in China, to the atolls of the Pacific, to Nevada, to Algeria where France conducted its first nuclear device.

    https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/nucleartesttally

  28. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Heros

    Excellent great post thanks so much for getting to the essence of Jewish and nuclear power.

  29. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Colin Wright

    I agree with you. The third power in charge would probably be some corrupt thieving dumb as rocks Africans and a few emasculated nerd dumb as rocks Scandinavians and Germans UN committee.

  30. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Johnny Rico

    It was and every liberal on the planet fell for it.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  31. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @JLK

    How about the Vatican? They could operate out of their observatory in Arizona. Israel atom weapons would be under the Vatican jurisdiction. Jew’s heads would explode.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  32. @Anon

    ‘How about the Vatican? They could operate out of their observatory in Arizona. Israel atom weapons would be under the Vatican jurisdiction. Jew’s heads would explode.’

    Oh, I’m sure Israel would turn out to be an exception. Everyone else would surrender their bombs — but she’d keep hers. In fact, I imagine there would be serious proposals that Israel be given all the bombs.

    …after all, if we can’t trust Israel, who can we trust? Or are you an anti-semite?

  33. Biff says:

    Some people consider doomsday like it’s a bad thing.
    Why is that?

  34. peterAUS says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Well….I was actually commenting on

    Russia and the US each have a First Strike capability, that is the ability … knock out the other’s nuclear deterrent.

    That’s nonsense.
    Any nuclear attack on USA/Russia would NOT knock out the deterrent. I am not going into technicality here as I would not go into proving that Earth orbits around Sun. The very essence of world peace, or not having a major war since 50’s (Soviet thermonuclear bomb) is precisely the INABILITY of USA/Soviet Union/Russia to do that. I even hate typing this; it’s as typing that 2 + 2 =4.

    As what would happen in full nuclear exchange between USA/Russia (and I am sure the rest of nuclear powers would participate as well in THAT scenario) I am not keen on speculating.

    I believe it will be the end of the life as we know. Would it mean the extinction of human race, even life on Earth I don’t know.
    Hehe…I don’t think that’s even the point of discussion. The point of any discussion should be, IMHO: do we want nuclear war? Or, better: what to do NOT to have it?

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  35. Rogue says:
    @jilles dykstra

    South Africa had about 6 gun-projectile enriched uranium nuclear bombs that were unilaterally dismantled by the White government before the Blacks came to power.

    SA received some assistance from both Israel and Pakistan – although not in any official capacity from the latter.

    So it’s the only country on Earth to rid itself completely of nuclear weapons.

    It also had a thermonuclear program but was deemed to be too expensive and so was shut down.

  36. Cratylus says:
    @Colin Wright

    That is not the essence of the argument in case you did not notice.
    Even barring nuclear winter, the US and Russia would each be wiped out by a nuclear exchange whether by intent or by mistake.
    There is absolutely no question about that.
    Still OK with that?

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  37. @Escher

    ‘…China, Britain, France, India, Israel and Pakistan need to be included in any treaty for it to be meaningful.’

    There’s an oxymoron. Israel’s signature on a treaty is not meaningful.

  38. Cratylus says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    You neglected to read that this was TOTAL deaths in US, Russia, China (also targeted in the plan then) and the surrounding countries affected by fallout in the first few days.
    This was the secret Pentagon estimate that Ellsberg turned up. It surprised the hell out of him – and it should give you pause.
    The scary thing is how many of the comments here pass off the dangers of nuclear war with nary a shrug. Mostly their preconceived views and ideologies – from naive cynicism to anti-zionism, a worthwhile sentiment in itself to Russophobia and Cold War anti-Communism that lives on past its expirty date- prevent them from taking a hard look at the truth.
    These views are largely American – never has so much power been place in such ignorant and ideology-bound and downright thoughtless hands.

  39. @Cratylus

    ‘…Even barring nuclear winter, the US and Russia would each be wiped out by a nuclear exchange whether by intent or by mistake.
    There is absolutely no question about that.
    Still OK with that?

    That’s still an entirely different matter from the extinction of the human race. Life goes on; it’s just that Australia is the new hegemon and the global population is back to what it was a hundred years ago.

    It’s not a question of being ‘OK with it.’ It’s a question of what are we risking versus what the costs would be to address the problem. One can’t make an intelligent choice unless one knows roughly what is being risked.

    Nuclear weapons have had one huge upside. In all of previous human history no two powers have ever confronted each other as the USA and the USSR did without there being a major war.

    It was a real first; and you can thank the bomb. Okay; so precisely what are we risking on the downside? I want to know.

    • Replies: @Erebus
  40. Wally says:
    @Heros

    said:
    “Well we know that Ford and Coppola were sent to “document” the German labor camps in 1945, and I believe it was at Bergen Belsen that Hollywood set up the fake soap bars, human lamp shades and shrunken heads and began the massive holohoax reverse guilt projection mind control operation. Of course the German officers murdered for the faked German war crimes at Katyn could also be construed as mind control too.”

    Here are 2 damning works on the staging of the “holocaust” by Hollywood & The US Psychological Warfare Division:
    Nazi Shrunken Heads, A 24-minute free video about lies which justify war : https://codoh.com/library/document/1528/?lang=en
    and:
    Buchenwald—A Dumb Dumb Portrayal Of Evil: http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=1003

    See the staged human skin lampshades, shrunken heads, etc. with Billy Wilder and others caught in the act.
    http://www.codoh.com

  41. @Colin Wright

    Maybe you could test your faith in the falsity of the probabilities?.. just push the button.

    I have a suggestion..let’s beef up decapitation. Divide the world’s ~200,000,000 miles^2 into 500 mile^2 sectors, and place one copy of each nations doomsday weapons in the same cage at the center of the 500 mile square. Wire the weapon triggers to every nation state leader, world wide. Any nation state, no matter its status, would have a trigger wired directly to each of the 500 mile each doomsday cages, and each such leader would then be enabled by authority of his or her position within the nation state to simultaneously blow everyone’s nuclear weapons at once, so there will be no doubt that no one will survive. since arming the cages would require each nation state to provide its or a nuclear doomsday weapon manufactured somewhere else, at each of the 400,000 sectors, and assuming there are two hundred nation states the total global demand for nuclear doomsday weapons would be 80,000,000 doomsday weapons.. producing those doomsday weapons should keep the weapons factories and military industry complex happy and the people of the world working in earnest at full employment in order to kill each other for at least the next few generations.

    Once the 500 miles^2 divisions of the world are armed sufficiently and the nation state leaders given binary annihilation authority (that is either push the button or don’t). Peace will come to earth, and bankruptcy will come to the weapons industries. Its not important who has the biggest weapon, since if one weapon is triggered, each all of the weapons will all blow at once.

  42. Mike P says:
    @Heros

    In any case, all this MAD-doomsday-first strike fear porn was born in this exact period. Dr Strangelove is clearly one component of this hysteria. It his highly probable that everything that we think we know about these weapons, their purpose, and their history is fake.

    At least some of it is fake. In particular, it is certain and demonstrable that there never as a nuclear explosion in Hiroshima.

    Alexander de Seversky was a Russian-born American pilot and aeronautical engineer that was sent on an inspection tour of bombed-out cities in both Germany and Japan in the aftermath of WW2. Here are some excerpts from his report:

    I was keyed up for my first view of an atom-bombed city, prepared for the radically new sights suggested by the exciting descriptions I had read and heard. But to my utter astonishment, Hiroshima from the air looked exactly like all the other burned-out cities I had observed!

    For two days I examined Hiroshima. I drove to T Bridge, which had been the aiming point for the atomic bomb. In its environs I looked for the bald spot where everything presumably had been vaporized or boiled to dust in the twinkling of an eye. It wasn’t there or anywhere else in the city. I searched for other traces of phenomena that could reasonably be tagged “unusual.” I couldn’t find them.

    [From some captions to photographs accompanying his report]
    An intersection of two main streets close to “ground zero.” Electric trolley service was fully restored throughout Hiroshima within 48 hours.

    In these primitive hillside shelters, practically at “ground zero,” inhabitants of Nagasaki were unharmed by the atomic blast, heat, and radiation.

    The author at “ground zero” in Nagasaki. The surviving tree trunks in the background refute reports of “evaporation” and “dissolution” of matter.

    [From a subsequent chapter that describes his experiences after returning to the U.S.]

    The story sketched in the preceding chapter obviously was different from the one then being told virtually in unison by press, radio, and scientists. Against the prevailing hyperbole it must have sounded more incredible than I suspected. But it was the only story I could conscientiously tell when I was questioned by newspapermen in Tokyo and back home in America.

    I did not “underrate” the atom bomb or dispute its future potential. Certainly I did not dismiss lightly the infernal horror visited on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As an engineer, I limited myself to an analysis of the demolition accomplished by particular bombs exploded in a particular way. These one-man observations I embodied in a formal report to the Secretary of War, who released it to the
    public. In addition I wrote several articles on the subject.

    Whereupon all hell broke loose over my sinful head. My findings were pounced upon by all sorts of people in angry fury, on the air, in the press, at public forums; scientists who hadn’t been within five thousand miles of the atomized cities solemnly issued condemnations of my heretical views. Almost for the first time in my career I found myself in the position of a “conservative” under fire from “extremists.”

    These quotes are from chapters 9 and 10 of his 1950 book “Air power – key to survival.” (An extremely interesting strategic study BTW, showing that current American strategy was outdated already in 1950.) I posted both chapters here. Note that Seversky does not question the reality of the nuclear blast; he just faithfully reports that there is no specific evidence of it. IMO that makes his testimony even more compelling – he clearly does not have any intention to refute the story.

    Another line of evidence is that there is no 235U in the soil around Hiroshima (and very little in the way of fission products). The bomb is supposed to have consisted of about 50 kg of that uranium isotope, and only about 2 kg are said to have undergone fission. The rest should surely be somewhere? Well, it is not there, particularly not in samples of “black rain”, the fallout that came down a short while after the blast the same day. There is 238U and its natural decay product 234U, but negligible amounts of 235U.

    See for example this study. It claims that

    A 235U/238U atom ratio of 0.00887 was found, which is higher than the natural ratio, reflecting the fact that the atomic bomb “Little Boy” used enriched uranium as fuel.

    However, the ratio in the bomb was allegedly 4, not 0.00887 – the latter value exceeds the natural isotope ratio only by such a tiny amount that the authors have to assume that almost all of the uranium they detected was natural background. Either way, the fallout transported either a negligible quantity of 235U, or none at all. No 235U, no nuclear bomb.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  43. JLK says:

    I’m not a military expert, but the Pentagon is acting like Russia’s hypersonic missiles might change the status quo. That tells me that the present status quo is a bit different than described in previous comments.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  44. @Anatoly Karlin

    Good lateral thinking that Tambora reference but the subsistence level point omits the all important fact that we won’t know what to do when the power is out and everything in the deep freeze starts to go off…

  45. @peterAUS

    ‘As what would happen in full nuclear exchange between USA/Russia (and I am sure the rest of nuclear powers would participate as well in THAT scenario) I am not keen on speculating.’

    It all creates some interesting calculations. For example, if you’re either Russia or the US, you might want to hit China regardless; after all, do you want her still intact while you’re picking up the pieces?

    Realizing this, as China, what do you do? Try to make a deal with one of the two parties that you will join it in its attack in exchange for at least not getting nuked by your chosen partner? Do you whack Japan just so that she won’t be a position to exploit your disarray?

    Think of that Simpsons episode where they’re all giving each other electric shocks in the psychiatrist’s office.

    …and somebody should nuke India; a planet ruled by her could get annoying.

    Brazil? Black ops attacks; convince China that it was Russia that just nuked her — then finish off the winner.

  46. @Anon

    Did that matter? I ask as one who, no doubt because of some defect of character or imagination, never got stirred up by the nuclear threat. Dr Strangelove was fun and “On the Beach” brought Ava Gardner to my home town (where she allegedly said it was a good place to film the end of the world) but that leaves me unable to discern what difference it might have made to “liberals” if they believed that only a few tens of millions of First World people would be killed and about 50 years of rebuilding of cities required.

  47. @Mike P

    I was brought up without hearing a doubt about Hiroshima and Nagasaki both being atom bombed and have never previously heard anyone deny that both were. My visit to Hiroshima 15 years ago raised no doubt in my mind. What is your explanation for the devastation of Hiroshima and all those accounts and films of radiation damage to people? What about the explosive flash the Enola Gay’s crew reported?

    • Replies: @Mike P
  48. @peterAUS

    Haven’t you missed the point that the article points to the main danger being a response to what is thought to be a first strike and that being what causes the disaster?

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  49. Mike P says:
    @Heros

    In any case, all this MAD-doomsday-first strike fear porn was born in this exact period. Dr Strangelove is clearly one component of this hysteria. It his highly probable that everything that we think we know about these weapons, their purpose, and their history is fake.

    It is interesting to note that “Dr Strangelove” did not start out as a comedy – it was to be a serious movie, but Kubrick decided to turn it into one after he had already spent a good bit of time working on it. I suspect (but obviously cannot prove) that Kubrick changed his mind after finding out that nukes don’t in fact work. (And staying with it after that discovery would certainly have qualified him for the work on Apollo also.)

    The key difficulty in creating a nuclear explosion is containment – as soon as the energy from the building chain reaction causes the critical mass to expand, it ceases to be critical, and the reaction stops. The flimsy apparatus supposedly having contained “Little Boy”, and the laughable implosion contrivance that supposedly constrained “Fat Man” would never have been up to the job. The only way to do it is to use lots of solid rock – which is why atomic tests are being done underground, or above ground inside a big block of concrete as purportedly was the case with “Ivy Mike”, the first hydrogen bomb (but I don’t really trust those photographs that allegedly show the device, because those of the aftermath are clearly doctored). The need for lots of rock (or equivalent) creates a little problem if you want to mount a nuclear charge on a rocket; and the problem multiplies if you want to arm the rocket with multiple war heads. Yet, we are to believe that a single ICBM can comprise a million bazillion MIRVS, MARVS, and SMURFS.

    Kubrick may have hinted at the problem in his movie, by having Strangelove proclaim: “When you merely wish to bury bombs, there is no limit to the size.” Exactly – you can bury them, but you can’t get them to fly. Or can you? I’m not aware of any actual evidence (as opposed to just claims from the serial liars in Washington, DC), but if anyone can prove me wrong, I’d love to hear about it.

    Look at what North Korea did – set off a blast underground, launch a rocket, and then claim “now we only have to put that bomb on the rocket, piece of cake really.” What does Trump do? Nothing much; call Kim “little rocket man.” Pretends to be vairy keen on negotiating with him for a short while, but can’t really keep focused once Stormy Daniels enters the stage. Why isn’t he more worried? Why is China not worried, or Japan, or South Korea? Little rocket man got lots of love from his South Korean opposite number after threatening the world with annihilation.

    • Replies: @Erebus
    , @Heros
  50. @JLK

    Or, it is the next round of “missile gap” scare-mongering to further ratchet up the “defence” budget.

  51. @Sean

    What would be the objective of an all out nuclear strike under current conditions?

    The object is not the strike, in fact a strike would be bad for business, instead the objective is the nuclear industry economy the threat produces that keeps the threat alive and well? Especially now that the University of Australia has developed a way to store and transport enough solar and wind produced energy to supply the nearly free energy in sufficient quantities to supply the entire world on the power grid.

    Without the threat of a nuclear weapon, there is no demand (see 41 below). Without demand there is no money, without money there is no power, without power there are no Oligarchs, without Oligarchs there are no slaves… The entire deal is to extract from the pockets of the Goya more green bread .

    Economics is the driving force behind the nuclear threat. That is why the effort is to make the weapons smaller and smaller is happening, can’t blow up the world, and still have a business. Can’t force the world to buy manufactured weapons if there is no world left to buy them.

    Could be a Trump thing, Unless you buy from me my weapons, or my nuclear knee breaker will burst your bubble.

    • Replies: @Sean
  52. In my area the local power facility generating power from coal just sold out to a power utility that produces power on the grid from solar and wind generation. It took a while to figure out why?

    If a major part of your business were producing nuclear power plants, and you learned that the University of Australia has developed a highly cost effective, overwhelmingly inexpensive, CO2 free, non global warming technology, capable to produce, store and transport solar and wind produced energy in sufficient quantity to supply the entire world what would you do? Wind and Power generated energy can be produced locally and put on the gird and stored so everywhere it is now possible to supply the world with electricity. Hummm? Nuclear power generation is no longer feasible, who is in that business? Are they at the meeting?

    call up el presidente “hey man get us out of dat nuclear non proliferation agreement” we are going broke making nuclear generation plants, we needs a government contract to make some weapons!
    no body needs our dangerous nuclear reactors to produce their power any more. We needs one dem bailouts.

  53. Erebus says:
    @Colin Wright

    Nuclear weapons have had one huge upside. In all of previous human history no two powers have ever confronted each other as the USA and the USSR did without there being a major war.
    It was a real first; and you can thank the bomb. Okay; so precisely what are we risking on the downside?

    The risk lies in the fact that the upside’s downside is worse than its upside.

  54. Erebus says:
    @Mike P

    The only way to do it is to use lots of solid rock – which is why atomic tests are being done underground, or above ground inside a big block of concrete as purportedly was the case with “Ivy Mike”…

    So, the ~50 French atmospheric tests in the S. Pacific never happened, or were actually conventional? The NZ govt seemed convinced they were real when they sent 2 frigates to stop the tests. Were the New Zealanders bamboozled as well, or all just Kabuki theatre?

    How about Trinity itself? Never happened, or was it conventional as well?

    • Replies: @Mike P
  55. Art says:

    I believe that Reagan made a major mistake when he rejected Gorbachev’ offer of NO nukes.

    Hmm — think of where we could be today without nukes on our planet.

    p.s. I have the upmost respect for Ronald Reagan.

    • Replies: @Rogue
  56. Heros says:
    @Mike P

    I have read various articles about Hiroshima and Nagasaki being non-nuclear events. I certainly wouldn’t put it past the judeo-masonic brotherhood to have pulled this off. One explanation is that they had to fake the nukes in order to scare Stalin. But then they went ahead and shipped Stalin and his jews all their nuke technology (Major Jordans Diaries) anyway.

    I really don’t have enough knowledge or motivation to try to get to the bottom of it. It would be nice if we really had some definitive proof, like a building 7 or the carcass of a young boy in a well, all his blood extracted, with stab woulds all over his body in kabbalistic patterns.

    In terms of trying to frame these two events into my personal historic narrative, it makes more sense to me that they prolonged the war, which they clearly did with Hirohito practically begging to surrender, in order to get the two bombs ready so that they could use them. It is also possible that there was some special kabbalistic ritual for nuclear goyim destruction that gave them more magick than if the victims had merely been judaically holocausted.

    This reminds me of the debate raging in the revisionist world as to whether Hitler was a descendant of the Rothschilds and their puppet, a masonic puppet, or a Blavatsky puppet. I try not to let myself get too distracted by these controversies because in the end they really don’t change the underlying story of this saga that much.

    • Replies: @Mike P
  57. Art says:

    One should not count on those missiles sitting in silos for 50 Years. Electronic gear being powered up and down for 50 years is undependable. Gaskets and seals disintegrate and break down with time.

    Maybe we should junk all this stuff and build no more new ones.

    Trump — why not make Peace?

    • Replies: @Mike P
  58. APilgrim says:

    Every little red dot, is a Doomsday Machine.

    Each spent fuel pool, at each nuclear power station, is an ever-present ELE (Extinction Level Event). And they can be triggered easily, by conventional means.

  59. APilgrim says:

    The evidence suggests …

    The Caucasians of South Africa, and Ukraine unilaterally disarmed their nuclear weapons.

    And they have lost their nations.

    • Replies: @Rogue
  60. Sean says:
    @smellyoilmanafteryourwealth

    It is precisely the opposite of what you said. The selfish counties like Japan and Germany are exploiting America’s need for allies to fleece and deindustialise them. Eisenhower wanted to release American taxpayers from the necessity of defending European countries especially West Germany, so there was a plan to start giving them nukes.

    Nikita Khrushchev was terrified, because he knew the Germans were too good and their panzer divisions could be at the gates of Moscow in a few weeks if they had a nuclear umbrella to launch a conventional attack under. The USSR staged a succession of crises over Berlin and Cuba to get the USA to change its mind about giving West Germany nukes.

    At present America pays to defend Germany, while Germany is in the process of dismantling even its civil nuclear power stations. Trump has not been able to get the German to pay or contribute significantly more for America forces protecting Germany or get Germany to strengthen their own forces (the Germans said recently their taking of a million refugees should be accounted part of their defence contribution to Nato), and in terms of productive capacity Germany continues to pursue an effective mercantilist policy against the West, because Germany (and Japan) are selling capital goods to China , which is destroying the global environment in a heedless rush for growth. It is China that is the smokestack state that refuses to switch to non fossil fuels. The western elite are making their money though all this:

    https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2017/05/new-class-war/
    Labor arbitrage includes both relocation of industrial production from high-wage developed nations to low-wage developing countries, and large-scale immigration of both unskilled and skilled workers to the global North. Such labor arbitrage does not encourage, and may even retard, technological progress, which involves the substitution of new technologies or new techniques for expensive labor or natural resource inputs. There is no incentive to make production technology more efficient when profits can be increased merely by closing factories in high-wage areas and locating them in low-wage areas, be they poor, anti-union Southern states in the United States or foreign nations like Mexico and China.

    The real military threat is conventional, but possession of nuclear weapons is a deterrent to being attacked with nuclear weapons. Hence a conventional attack under a thermonuclear weapons Mexican standoff is an awful more more likely that use of thermonuclear weapons to fight a war. Trump tried to get a better deal, what he should have done is announce America would be withdrawing from Europe and Germany’s free ride is over, but that is not going to happen now. Having Russia as an enemy China as a trading partner and ordinary working people in the West pick up the tab is much too conducive to important peoples’ luxurious lifestyles.

  61. Sean says:
    @Johnny Rico

    No. Though the theory in his Tragedy (the way countries act has very little to do with their liberal democracy of lack of it) is a key insight, I like Micheal Lind’s stuff more and more.

    https://nationalinterest.org/feature/america-vs-russia-china-welcome-cold-war-ii-25382

    The Second Cold War is a rematch among the same teams.

    While the ostensible purpose of the SCO is to combat terrorism, Sino-Russian military cooperation is the center of the organization’s periodic military drills (the next will be held in Russia in September 2018). The core members of the SCO include the three nations treated by U.S. military planners as America’s major adversaries: China, Russia and Iran.

    https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2017/05/new-class-war/

    Neoliberalism—the hegemonic ideology of the transatlantic elite—pretends that class has disappeared in societies that are purely meritocratic, with the exception of barriers to individual upward mobility that still exist because of racism, misogyny, and homophobia. Unable to acknowledge the existence of social class, much less to candidly discuss class conflicts, neoliberals can only attribute populism to bigotry or irrationality.

    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
  62. Mike P says:
    @Heros

    it makes more sense to me that they prolonged the war, which they clearly did with Hirohito practically begging to surrender, in order to get the two bombs ready so that they could use them

    Seversky suggests that the atomic bombs (real or staged) actually gave the Japanese a face-saving way out; he says that he found that view confirmed in conversations with Japanese leaders, but does not elaborate.

    One explanation is that they had to fake the nukes in order to scare Stalin. But then they went ahead and shipped Stalin and his jews all their nuke technology (Major Jordans Diaries) anyway.

    There is (was) a fascinating gentleman named Galen Winsor – an early insider of the government-run nuclear industry; you can find him on YT – who claims that enriched plutonium was shipped to the SU also.

    I really don’t have enough knowledge or motivation to try to get to the bottom of it.

    For those who do have such a motivation, I suggest the website of Anders Björkman. He is a Swedish engineer with some interesting connections and insights. Another writer who has taken a good look at the photographic evidence is Miles Mathis. He has written on a lot of things, and my impression is you have to take the rough with the smooth. Another interesting source is the book “Death object – exploding the nuclear weapons hoax” by a Japanese scientist apparently using a pseudonym; you can find it on Amazon.

    It is true that the real facts about the entire nuclear weapons story are hard to get at. IMO there is plenty of evidence that the early events were faked; and such evidence includes numerous articles in the “peer-reviewed litchurchur, so there.” On the other hand, my own conclusion (which disagrees with at least some of the gents mentioned above) is that underground nuclear explosions work. I strongly suspect there aren’t any working missile war heads or otherwise transportable bombs, which would explain why none have ever been used; however, I’m open to being proven wrong on this point.

  63. Mike P says:
    @Art

    One should not count on those missiles sitting in silos for 50 Years. Electronic gear being powered up and down for 50 years is undependable. Gaskets and seals disintegrate and break down with time.

    Exactly. Now why is it that conventional weapons systems need to be tested and upgraded all the time, while nobody bothers to dust off and test any of them old nukes? Could it be because those in charge know they won’t work anyway?

  64. Mike P says:
    @Erebus

    So, the ~50 French atmospheric tests in the S. Pacific never happened, or were actually conventional?

    What is an “atmospheric” test? Is it one that starts underground but then erupts into the atmosphere, or is it launched from a rocket or plane? If the latter, why would you go the the South Pacific, or any other specific place, to do that?

    The NZ govt seemed convinced they were real when they sent 2 frigates to stop the tests.

    I don’t trust the NZ government any more than any other.

    How about Trinity itself? Never happened, or was it conventional as well?

    Yes, conventional. I suspect that the name “Trinity” is a play on TNT; an inside joke. Also, one can’t help noticing the large number of Jewish “genius physicists” involved in the entire scam, who might enjoy the religious connotations.

    • Replies: @Erebus
  65. Mike P says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    What is your explanation for the devastation of Hiroshima

    Conventional fire-bombing.

    and all those accounts and films of radiation damage to people?

    Possibly a dirty bomb – reactor waste mixed with conventional explosives.

    What about the explosive flash the Enola Gay’s crew reported?

    Whatever. Considering the proven extent of their mendacity, I don’t feel compelled to “explain” any tales the U.S. goobermint chooses to tell us.

    • Replies: @APilgrim
  66. Rogue says:
    @APilgrim

    Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, which was basically the Russian empire, albeit under communist rule.

    It would have been a completely bonkers arrangement for all the ex Soviet republics to hang onto “their” share of nuclear weapons, seeing as they were essentially all vassal states of Russia during the USSR period.

    As it is, do you think that Ukraine would have threatened Russia with nukes, if they had them, over the Crimea business?

    I seriously doubt it.

    South Africa is the only country that made a completely sovereign choice to dismantle it’s nukes.

    Handing these weapons to Black Marxists was, sensibly, not going to happen.

    • Replies: @APilgrim
  67. aandrews says:

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?437687-2/the-doomsday-machine

    C-SPAN BOOKTV
    December 7, 2017
    The Doomsday Machine
    “Daniel Ellsberg talked about his experiences as a nuclear war planner in the early 1960s.”
    The nuclear secret documents he also photocopied will never see the light of day.

    Unrelated to the book, but interesting nonetheless: https://www.c-span.org/video/?320601-2/interview-daniel-ellsberg-pentagon-papers
    At least listen to the first 6 minutes.

  68. Rogue says:
    @Art

    Zero nukes is a nice idea, but not realistic. What has been invented can’t be uninvented.

    Apart from which, would certain countries actually give them up? And just how trustworthy would their assurances be that all weapons are accounted for?

    Substantial reductions in numbers is, however, more feasible. And desirable.

  69. Rapture! Why the Christian terminology? What are its equivalents in say, Jewish, Chinese, Indian and Muslim (Pakistan has a small nuclear arsenal that is considered the Islamic inheritance) lexicon? Are there no fanatics in those creeds? Always blaming it on the White men!

  70. APilgrim says:
    @Rogue

    The USSR was more like the Georgian Empire than the Russian, for much of its existence.

    Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin was a Soviet revolutionary and politician of Georgian ethnicity. He ruled the Soviet Union from the mid–1920s until his death in 1953.

    Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria was a Soviet politician, Marshal of the Soviet Union and state security administrator, chief of the Soviet security and secret police apparatus (NKVD) under Joseph Stalin during World War II, and promoted to deputy premier under Stalin from 1941. He later officially joined the Politburo in 1946. Beria was the longest-lived and most influential of Stalin’s secret police chiefs, wielding his most substantial influence during and after World War II. After Stalin’s death in March 1953, Lavrentiy Beria became First Deputy Premier of the Soviet Union and head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

    • Replies: @Rogue
  71. APilgrim says:
    @Mike P

    I don’t know if this Mike P is deluded fool, or a liar.

    I worked on several underground nuclear tests. So I know from ‘first-hand’ experiences that ‘YUGE’ explosions can be produced by small packages.

    High explosives are children’s play-toys, by comparison to nuclear bombs.

    • Replies: @Mike P
  72. Mike P says:
    @APilgrim

    I explicitly stated that I consider underground nuclear explosions possible, so your claim does not contradict mine.

    However, I don’t really believe that you ever personally participated in any event like that – you are just another hasbara troll, and that is all you will ever accomplish.

    • Replies: @APilgrim
  73. Rogue says:
    @APilgrim

    No, nonsense.

    The USSR was a communist Russian empire.

    Kruschev was Ukrainian – doesn’t alter the fact that the seat of power was always in Russia. Stalin, before him, became a RUSSIAN nationalist, despite being a Georgian.

    Just like Napolean became a French nationalist, despite being a Corsican, and Hitler a German nationalist despite being an Austrian (though obviously closer ties in the latter case).

  74. peterAUS says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    There is NO such thing as that…”First Strike” as:

    Russia and the US each have a First Strike capability, that is the ability to …. knock out the other’s nuclear deterrent

    Doesn’t exist in this Universe.

    It is impossible to “knock out the other’s nuclear deterrent”.I…m….p….o…s..s…i…b….l….e.

    Whatever USA/Russia tries to seriously do the the other side M.I.R.V.s shall be coming.

    Now, granted, there are people who believe that what shall come won’t be a big deal. People believe i a lot of things.

    The PROBLEM is the level of…ahm…leadership….in West. The level of schizophrenia, detachment from reality, wishful thinking and much more. Such….mph..leadership and nukes could prove a terrible combination.

    For example, imagine that cackling bitch in position to make the decision to “deploy” or not. Or most of US politicians/power brokers we see in public.
    If that isn’t scary I don’t know what it is.’

  75. Herald says:
    @Johnny Rico

    Who was it then who exposed the KGB in this regard? Of course the reality of a nuclear winter will matter little to those billions, who are killed from blast or who die miserably from radiation poisoning.

    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
  76. @Sean

    That you, and I certainly allow you your contra opinion, which definitely fits within current establishment produced fake news and privately orchestrated humpty dumpty might fall off the wall propaganda, but America has sufficient nuclear weapons as do Russia there is no reason to make more.. none noda.. .. it will cost the taxpayers billions, trillions and all that will come of it is more weapons in moth balls. We need the money to build the wall. or to make homes for the homeless, or to paint the white house red or to through the MSM out. but not to make nuclear weapons.

    • Replies: @Sean
  77. Krollchem says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    You are only considering explosive force which is a false comparison, in other words a Red Herring.

    In an nuclear war there are massive quantities of sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, soot, and dust+radiation entering the upper atmosphere as well as dramatic increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Furthermore, Nuclear Winter models underestimate death tolls as they do not include sulfur dioxide from the atomization of buildings

    Previous Nuclear Winter studies have failed to recognize that modern homes and buildings contain large quantities of sulfur in the form of gypsum (CaSO4-2H2O) which would become sulfur dioxide upon being atomized in a nuclear explosion.

    The average home size in America is almost 1900 sq ft and contains 1.6 pounds of gypsum/ sq ft, for a total of almost 260 Kg of sulfur per house. To inject 5 Tg of sulfur into the atmosphere in a nuclear exchange would involve the vaporization at high temperature (>1500°C) of 10 million US homes in the nuclear fireballs. If worldwide an equivalent of 100 million homes are incinerated the sulfur dioxide contribution to a nuclear winter event would approximately equal the Tambora eruption of 1815.

    The Mount Tambora eruption in 1815 “threw 55 million tons of sulfur-dioxide gas (50 Tg of SO2) more than twenty miles into the air, into the stratosphere.”
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/1816-the-year-without-summer-excerpt/

    By comparison, the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption generated some 20 million tons of SO2, yielding a global temperature reduction of 0.5 degrees C.:
    http://history.aip.org/history/climate/aerosol.htm

    Thus the Mount Tambora eruption would have been expected to cause a 1-1.5 degree C drop in global temperatures due to sulfur dioxide.

  78. APilgrim says:
    @Mike P

    Nobody cares what trolls SAY they believe.

    Lots of people worked on the underground nuclear blast programs and the WIPP, including me. Further, I designed some of the electrical components presently used in various defense programs, including the current nuclear warhead models. I did not personally work in the PANTEX project dismantling the excess nuclear warheads of the USA & USSR. I was however offered a job in that project. It just was not convenient at the time to relocate to Amarillo, Texas.

    Mike P, do GFY.

    • Troll: Mike P
    • Replies: @peterAUS
  79. Sean says:
    @smellyoilmanafteryourwealth

    Iran, Russia and China already have something like an alliance against the West, but at least they are honest. Ostensibly a peace loving, alternative energy sources, and loyal Nato member country, Germany has defied the US to get big contracts in Iran, and Germany is also building the huge Nord Stream gas pipeline from Russia. Germany has a big sir plus in manufactured goods especially with America and all the while American taxpayers have to foot the bill for defending Germany from Russia!

  80. peterAUS says:
    @APilgrim

    Mike P, do GFY

    Disagree.

    We need such posts around. They show….something….some, say, interesting, trait of certain type of people around us. Maybe our neighbor, coworker….same club member.

    The major quality of free speech place is learning (or confirming) some hard facts about people.
    Only minor is getting some information, or some idea/insight every now and then.

    Hehe….probably why we have, still, sites like this around.
    Just saying…..

    • Replies: @APilgrim
  81. APilgrim says:
    @peterAUS

    Suit yourself, but I will probably eventually block the Luddite POS.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  82. peterAUS says:
    @APilgrim

    I hear you.

    Well, in my defense…hehe…. I stop reading such posts after first sentence, a paragraph tops, and skip over the rest.
    That’s quite sufficient for a “hit”. I call it “lunacy refresher” drill. Granted, I don’t have, apparently your background in the stuff, but mine isn’t that far away.
    I spent quite some time, once upon a time, practicing personal/unit drills re tactical nukes etc. Haha..thinking about that, imagine the lunatic IS right. All that effort and money for a fake. Could make a good movie I guess.
    Unfortunately, we aren’t in a sci-fiction movie. The threat can’t get more real than it is.

  83. Erebus says:
    @Mike P

    What is an “atmospheric” test?

    The French tested high in the atmosphere, apparently.

    …why would you go the the South Pacific, or any other specific place, to do that?

    Parisians, just like New Yorkers and Londoners lose their sense of humour when atom bombs, real or otherwise are going off above their heads. Also, the radiation produced would maximally disperse and dilute before approaching areas populated by people that may complain.

    I suspect that the name “Trinity” is a play on TNT

    It may well have been, but not the way you seem to think.

    Anyways, do you have a serious technical argument to make about nuclear weapons, or just more of the same?

    • Replies: @Mike P
  84. Mike P says:
    @Erebus

    What is an “atmospheric” test?

    The French tested high in the atmosphere, apparently.

    Yes, I know that this is what is claimed. I should have phrased the question as, how would we know the difference between an atmospheric test and terrestric one? The plumes of the terrestric tests rise pretty high up as well.

    …why would you go the the South Pacific, or any other specific place, to do that?

    Parisians, just like New Yorkers and Londoners lose their sense of humour when atom bombs, real or otherwise are going off above their heads…

    You are right on this one. When I wrote this, I was thinking they might as well have launched their atmospheric tests from a ship or submarine, far away not only from Paris (obviously) but also NZ; however, maybe all they had were land-based rockets at the time.

    I suspect that the name “Trinity” is a play on TNT

    It may well have been, but not the way you seem to think.

    Well, enlighten me.

    To be perfectly clear, the only case I claim to have made conclusively is that Hiroshima was not a nuclear explosion. All else I have said I regard at best as plausible.

    Anyways, do you have a serious technical argument to make about nuclear weapons, or just more of the same?

    I don’t think my posts were repetitive. If you feel you have good, specific counterarguments – in particular, any specific observational evidence to indicate that nuclear explosions have ever been triggered above ground – I’d love to hear them.

  85. @Sean

    Thanks for the articles. I’ve always liked Lind since Vietnam: The Necessary War: A Reinterpretation of America’s Most Disastrous Military Conflict. You may not agree with the arguments, but it makes you think.

  86. @Herald

    Pretty sure it was this guy, but I borrowed Comrade J from the library and don’t own a copy, so I can’t verify. If it was this book, there was a very lengthy treatment of the topic.

    Comrade J: The Untold Secrets of Russia’s Master Spy in America After the End of the Cold War by Pete Early

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Tretyakov_(intelligence_officer)

  87. anarchyst says:

    If a nuclear device is “lit off” in an American or European city, it will have Israel’s fingerprints all over it. Israel is desperate to keep the American money spigot running, as well as sabotaging the Palestinian “peace process” that the world wants it to take seriously.

    In fact, if a nuclear device is “lit off” anywhere in the world, it will have come from Israel’s secret nuclear “stockpile”.

    The “power outage” in Atlanta was a convenient excuse for Israel to perform a logistical “sleight of hand”, as an Israeli plane was allowed to land and take off during the “power outage” without receiving customs clearance or inspection. This is one of many Israeli companies that possesses a “special exemption” granted by the U S government that frees it from customs inspections. Just maybe another one of Israel’s nukes was just being pre-positioned or nuclear triggers (tritium) were being renewed, getting ready for “the big one”. As most Americans are tired of all of the foreign wars being fought for Israel’s benefit, another “incident” on American soil would be enough to galvanize the American public, once again, (just like WTC 9-11) to support another war for Israel’s benefit. Israel’s “samson option” is a real threat to “light one off” in a European or American city, if Israel’s interests are not taken seriously.

    Israel refuses to abide by IAEA guidelines concerning its nukes as they are already distributed around the world. Israel would not be able to produce all of them as most of them are not in Israel, proper. No delivery systems are needed as Israel’s nukes are already in place. Look for another false flag operation with the blame being put on Iran or Syria. You can bet that some Iranian or Syrian passports will be found in the rubble.

    Israel also threatens to detonate nuclear devices in several US cities. Talk about total INSANITY; the so-called Samson Option is it.

    As an aside, American foreign aid is prohibited from being given to any country that has not signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (the Symington Amendment)or refuses to abide by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) guidelines regarding its nuclear devices. Guess what?? Israel does not abide by EITHER and still gets the majority of American foreign aid. This prohibition also applies to countries that do not register their agents of a foreign government with the U S State Department. Guess what?? Israel (again) with its American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) still gets “foreign aid” in contravention of American law..

    There are forty or so congressmen, senators and thousands of high-level policy wonks. infecting the U S government who hold dual citizenship with Israel. Such dual citizenship must be strictly prohibited. Those holding dual citizenship must be required to renounce said foreign citizenship. Refusal to do so should result in immediate deportation with loss of American citizenship. Present and former holders of dual citizenship should never be allowed to serve in any American governmental capacity.

    In addition, any American citizen who serves in a foreign military (Israel Defense Forces) should automatically lose their American citizenship.

    When Netanyahu addressed both houses of congress, it was sickening to see our politicians slobber all over themselves to PROVE that they were unconditional supporters of Israel. It was a scene out of the Soviet Politburo where every jewish or Israel supporter tried to out the others with the applause. Just who the hell do they work for? Certainly not for the interests of the American people and the United States,they should renounce their United States citizenship and be deported to Israel.

  88. JLK says:

    Israel also threatens to detonate nuclear devices in several US cities. Talk about total INSANITY; the so-called Samson Option is it.

    The Samson option has to be taken seriously, and who know what bio-engineered weapons they might have. Public reports about DNA security for high-level officials dating back to the early ’00s tell you all you need to know about how such weapons could be used to cull individuals, families and various genotypes/phenotypes, and Israel never signed the treaty.

    The world would have been better off if we had encouraged them to develop their own Samsungs and Hyundais and do business like other high-potential developing countries. They probably would have been good at it. Instead, we have created a Golem of spyware, binary option schemes and recycled military technology, like their crappy Iron Dome system we are probably twisting other countries arms to buy instead of our own products.


  89. After the Dark Night Comes the Dawn

    The time in which we are living is of tremendous importance.

    As things are moving today, the logical conclusion is a global suicide.

    We are coming closer to a third world war.

    It is sad to recognize the fact, but it is good to recognize it, because then there is the possibility of taking a different turn.

    A single politician, to show his power, can destroy the whole of civilization.

    Moscow, New York, London, Beijing, any place can be vaporized within seconds.

    The whole point of a war is to win, but in a nuclear war nobody wins.

    So war has lost its basic foundation.

    If a nuclear war happens it will be the destruction of all.

    People are completely asleep!

    Yet this is a great moment in the history of mankind,

    If the whole world can be destroyed together within minutes the alternative can only be that the whole world should be together.

    Nuclear weapons need to be outlawed outright globally!

    Why should such unconscious people have access to so much destructiveness, that a single nation could destroy the whole earth?

    Just a few bad people have been ruling the whole of humanity, and millions of good people, seeing destructiveness, seeing violence, seeing criminality, just remain silent.

    They don’t want to get involved in any trouble.

    What are you doing to prevent the calamity that is coming closer every day?

    Thousands of scientists of immense intelligence, talent and genius have become just slaves of a political mechanism which exploits their intelligence in the service of war and death.

    In their sleep they are making nuclear weapons, not knowing what they are doing…

    https://whenwardisappears.wordpress.com/

  90. dkshaw says:
    @Heros

    “Well we know that Ford and Coppola were sent to “document” the German labor camps in 1945, ”

    Francis Ford Coppola was 6 years old in 1945.

    • Replies: @Heros
  91. Arbee says:
    @Franz

    Yes in today’s times it is the population bomb that would seem to be the biggest threat to (our kind of) existence but it’s hardly talked about enough. Perhaps a targeted cull to help stabilize numbers using nukes doesn’t look so unattractive after all. Just how to survive it though?

  92. Heros says:
    @dkshaw

    “The Hollywood Directors Who Filmed the Liberation of Nazi Concentration Camps

    George Stevens, John Ford, and Samuel Fuller, best known for their work in Hollywood, all documented the Allied liberation at the end of the war.”

    https://hyperallergic.com/426644/lamoth-filming-the-camps-the-holocaust/

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
The evidence is clear — but often ignored