Broken Arrows? Nuke false flag? 150K-ton Nuke Missing?

[truthseeker john]

Note: more links in another message below this one.
....

Begin forwarded message:

From: Tom
Date: September 12, 2007 1:21:16 PM PDT
To: (undisclosed list)
Subject: A nuclear "mistake" and possible "terrorist" attack

A profoundly disturbing event was brought to my attention, with even more profoundly disturbing implications. As of last night I was not going to send this out, but after several more hours of research and reflection, I feel called to do so. I hope at least some of you can help it develop in life-affirming directions.

On August 30, active nuclear cruise missiles many times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb were loaded in combat-ready positions under the wings of a B-52 bomber at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota and flown to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, against numerous military policies, treaty obligations, and long-standing practices, and despite incredibly tight nuclear security protocols.

Officials say it was a mistake and have ordered an investigation and a whole-system Air Force "stand down" on Sept 14, allegedly to review and train-in safety procedures. There is a lot of information and speculation about this unprecedented event in the following sites (among many others: Just Google Minot + Barksdale). One of the most worrisome is the idea that it is part of a planned nuclear attack on one or more American cities probably this month, a scenario that has a lot more explanatory power than I'd like. I offer further information and reflections below.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread302187/pg1
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070906/NEW S01/709060315
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/091007Lindorff.shtml
http://www.infowars.com/articles/military/nuke_warhead_mistakenly_flow n_on_b52_to_barksdale_ab.htm
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/09/airforce_nuclear_warhead_070905  (This page seems to have just been removed from the Army Times site. If it is still missing, you can view it in the Googe cache at http://tinyurl.com/2cyxqlhttp://tinyurl.com/2cyxql )

I've spent about eight hours investigating this and have yet to come to any solid conclusions that really satisfy me. Given that continued work on this by me will have little impact on what happens AND is distracting me from my long-term systems change work, I am turning back to my other work. However, it is obvious that this is a VERY IMPORTANT AND URGENT possibility. If any among you wish to pursue its investigation further or to spread the word, here are my notes as of now.

1. The likelihood that such an incident is a mistake appears, from many sites, to be extremely unlikely. A number of trustworthy sites describe the isolation of nuclear weapons and the incredible precautions involved in their handling. Some sites claim that only President Bush could have authorized such a transfer as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, an assertion about which there is not much agreement.

2. Minot and Barksdale are the two bases where B-52s are located. Barksdale is where the bombers used in the Middle East and the war on terrorism are based.

3. There is mixed evidence for one of the bombs being "missing." Some reports said that 6 bombs left Minot and five were discovered in Barksdale; also there are reports of a ten hour lag before they were discovered -- i.e., during which they were not secure.

4. This has stimulated critics proposing some very plausible (if not currently provable) scenarios that one or more of the bombs involved was/is intended for
a. use in Iran -- which would be the first use of nuclear weapons in war since 1945, or
b. use in a "false-flag" operation -- a nuclear attack on US territory which would be alleged to have been perpetrated by Iran or terrorists, to justify Bush's intended attack on Iran and/or martial law in the US (facilitating continuity of the currently unpopular regime in DC).

5. The whole-system stand-down operation Sept 14 is especially weird. http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/09/airforce_aircombatcommand_st anddown_070807 The fact that the "mistake" is so unlikely and so unprecedented, and the fact that (I believe) nuclear materials are NOT available on ALL Air Force Bases, makes me wonder: Why a TOTAL stand-down? Why not just have a stand-down on nuclear bases? Or, similarly, why not just stand down the bombers, rather than everything including the fighter jets that guard US air space -- or why not just stand down the two Air Force Bases in question?

Furthermore, this public announcement that our airspace may be more vulnerable than usual Sept 14 would seem to constitute a major danger to US security, especially at a time of officially elevated/high threat status when Bin Laden has released a new tape and government officials are announcing that al Qaeda is planning major new attacks (see http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/08/world/08hayden.html).

Yet I am unclear about what, exactly, "stand down" means. Various dictionaries define it as "a relaxation from a state of readiness or alert", "go off duty", or "withdrawal of military presence." How these definitions apply in this situation could be benign (still able to scramble and respond in a timely fashion) or horrific (general inability to respond to a crisis in a timely manner).

6. If 4a is true -- if the nukes were intended for Iran -- then this exposé by anonymous military whistleblowers could be an effort to PREVENT the use of nukes in any attack on Iran, through public revelation and outcry. One site suggests that such a shipment of nukes is not something the Pentagon would do, especially given the extent of military disagreement with attacking Iran, so that the shipment would have had to be arranged through a covert back door run by (for example) Cheney -- and its exposé would therefore be an effort to expose and get rid of Cheney.

However, a conservative site http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2007/09/debunking-latest-moonbat-consp iracy.html gives plausible reasons why 4a is not likely, while another http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread302187/pg1 suggests that the whole incident may be an intentional government leak to "send a message to Iran" about the seriousness of U.S. intentions. Possibilities swirl....

7. I have not found much corroboration for claims made on sites like http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=messageboard.viewThread& entryID=3304741&categoryID=15 and http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_carol_wo_070911_9_11_2007__wha t_s_go.htm that someone is betting billions of dollars on an overwhelming stock market meltdown before the end of September (specifically, before Sept 21), and that recently deceased Congressman Paul Gillmor (R-OH) was investigating that. If this were true, the parallels to mysterious stock market bets on airlines pre-9/11 would be chilling.

---------

In short, this whole topic is understandably rife with speculation, some of it far-fetched and some of it very reasonable. As with 9/11, there is definitely reason to question the official story and call for further investigation by Congress, by whistleblowers, by investigative reporters, etc. The seeming urgency of the situation is intensely frustrating, crippling those of us who are trying to be responsible, wishing both to issue timely warnings and to check out poorly substantiated claims. I offer what I have come to so far, for further exploration of those interested. We will obviously know more about this by the end of the month, for better and/or worse....

We can hope that if a major "terrorist attack" happens in the next month or so, the demands for investigation of its source -- and resistance to any martial law efforts -- will be strengthened by our efforts to alert people to the above possibilities. And I personally hope if no attack occurs that (a) my efforts played a role in preventing immensely destructive events and/or (b) people will understand my motivations for going out on a limb with this message in this situation.

May the immediate future make space for us all to explore and co-create many more positive possibilities than this!

Coheartedly, Tom

--

Tom Atlee * The Co-Intelligence Institute * PO Box 493 * Eugene, OR 97440 http://www.co-intelligence.org * http://www.democracyinnovations.org
Read THE TAO OF DEMOCRACY * http://www.taoofdemocracy.com
Tom Atlee's blog http://www.evolvingcollectiveintelligence.org
Please support our work. * Your donations are fully tax-deductible.

________________________________


From: nathan...
To: anti_bush_database@yahoogroups.com ; getinspiredinternetclub@yahoogroups.com ; globalpeacecampaign@yahoogroups.com ; glory4you@yahoogroups.com ; godbody2@yahoogroups.com ; iraq_today@yahoogroups.com ; linksofloveandinspiration@yahoogroups.com ; mankindforpeace@yahoogroups.com ; think-aboutit@yahoogroups.com ; truthabout911@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:25 PM
Subject: Armageddoom Foiled! Is ONE 150 K-ton Nuke Still Missing?

Armageddoom Foiled! Is ONE 150 K-ton Nuke Still Missing?

Connecting the dots: What might have been planned for the attempted stolen Nukes incident?

1. Internet chatter has abounded that in September, another fake 9/11 “false flag” operation was planned.
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/091204hilton.htm

2. US Troops from Florida are moved to Washington, D.C. For what and why?

3.The sudden appearance of another fake Bin Laden tape.

4. 6 nuclear missiles mistakenly or clandestinely flown to LA and might have gone missing forever if not for a leak before they were put in place. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/05/loose.nukes/index.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070905/ap_on_re_us/bomber_warheads

5. IAF (Israeli Air Force) attack Syria without provocation.

6. British move troops from Basra redeploying them near the Iranian border.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/09/05/staging-nukes-for-iran

7. All USAF to be grounded 9-14. Israeli declares to do the same.
Question: Is the USAF using the disappearance of Steve Fossett as a cover to find the missing 6th 150 K-ton nuke?
http://rense.com/general78/missn.htm


If still the dots can’t be connected, then travel here to this page. Thereafter you might not have any more questions to ask!
http://zetatalk.com/index/zeta397.htm Top of page!

[Rowan Berkeley]

We discussed this on one of our US sister sites - first of all someone said that Above Top Secret was a proven shill site, and produced a discussion thread from Signs of the Times to prove it, then I said that Signs of the Times was run by people who hold that 6% of the world's population are incurable psychopaths, and produced a long quote from 'Ponerology' by Lobaczewski to prove THAT, then the thread got locked, but here it is anyway:
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2203

[Disco_Destroyer]

I dunno what to make of this but here goes:-
Myspace bulletin
2007
Author: The Pundit


Since the Minot story broke a week ago about the missing nukeclandestine operation from Minot, we have the following (for those who are paying attention):

1. All six people listed below are from Minot Airforce base
2. All were directly involved as loaders or as pilots
3. All are now dead
4. All within the last 7 days in 'accidents'

http://www.kfyrtv.com/News_Stories.asp?news=10465
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070915/BRE AKINGNEWS/70915012
http://www.kxmc.com/News/161562.asp
http://www.kxmc.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=140988
http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2007/07/20/news/state/136489.t xt
http://www.komotv.com/news/local/9679367.html


Silly me, seeing more than there is to this story. I guess this is just another coincidence.

But no doubt now that there will be more coincidences in the near future because as I have stated before, you need about fourteen signatures to get an armed nuke onto a B-52, and they may have told their wives and friends.

"The Pundit"

REPOST!!! REPOST!!! REPOST!!! REPOST!!! REPOST!!! REPOST!!! REPOST!!! REPOST!!! REPOST!!! REPOST!!! REPOST!!! REPOST!!! REPOST!!! REPOST!!! REPOST!!! REPOST!!! REPOST!!! REPOST!!! REPOST!!! REPOST!!!

[Disco_Destroyer]

Was a Covert Attempt to Bomb Iran with Nuclear Weapons foiled by a Military Leak?

By Michael E. Salla, M.A., Ph.D.
09/13/07 "The Canadian" --- - Critically exploring whether or not there was a covert attempt to instigate a catastrophic nuclear war against Iran is illuminated through an introduction using the recent B-52 Incident. On August 30, a B-52 bomber armed with five nuclear-tipped Advanced Cruise missiles travelled from Minot Air Force base, North Dakota, to Barksdale Air Force base, Louisiana, in the United States. Each missile had an adjustable yield between five and 150 kilotons of TNT which is at the lower end of the destructive capacities of U.S. nuclear weapons. For example, the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima had a yield of 13 kilotons, while the Bravo Hydrogen bomb test of 1954 had a yield of 15,000 kilotons. The B-52 story was first covered in the Army Times on 5 September after the nuclear armed aircraft was discovered by Airmen. LINK
What made this a very significant event was that it was a violation of U.S. Air Force regulations concerning the transportation of nuclear weapons by air. Nuclear weapons are normally transported by air in specially constructed planes designed to prevent radioactive pollution in case of a crash. Such transport planes are not equipped to launch the nuclear weapons they routinely carry around the U.S. and the world for servicing or positioning.
The discovery of the nuclear armed B-52 was, according to Hans Kristensen, a nuclear weapons expert at the Federation of American Scientists, the first time in 40 years that a nuclear armed plane had been allowed to fly in the U.S. LINK. Since 1968, after a SAC bomber crashed in Greenland, all nuclear armed aircraft have been grounded but were kept on a constant state of alert. After the end of the Cold War, President George H. Bush ordered in 1991 that nuclear weapons were to be removed from all aircraft and stored in nearby facilities.
Recently, the Air Force began decommissioning its stockpile of Advanced Cruise missiles. The five nuclear weapons on the B-52 were to be decommissioned, and were to be taken to another Air Force base. An Air Force press statement issued on 6 September 2007, claimed that there "was an error which occurred during a regularly scheduled transfer of weapons between two bases."
Furthermore, the statement declared: "The Air Force maintains the highest standards of safety and precision so any deviation from these well established munitions procedures is considered very serious." The issue concerning how a nuclear armed B-52 bomber was allowed to take off and fly in U.S. air space after an 'error' in a routine transfer process, is now subject to an official Air Force inquiry which is due to be completed by September 14.
Three key questions emerge over the B-52 incident. First, did Air Force personnel at Minot AFB not spot the 'error' earlier given the elaborate security procedures in place to prevent such mistakes from occurring? Many military analysts have commented on the stringent security procedures in place to prevent this sort of mistake from occurring. Multiple officers are routinely involved in the transportation and loading of nuclear weapons to prevent the kind of 'error' that allegedly occurred in the B-52 incident.
According to the U.S. Air Force statement, the commanding officer in charge of military munitions personnel and additional munitions airmen were relieved of duties pending the completion of the investigation. According to Kristensen, the error could not have come from confusing the Advanced Cruise Missile with a conventional weapons since no conventional form exists. So the munitions Airmen should have been easily able to spot the mistake. Other routine procedures were violated which suggests a rather obvious explanation for the error. The military munitions personnel were acting under direct orders, though not through the regular chain of military command. This takes me to the second question
Who was in Charge of the B-52 Incident?
Who ordered the loading of Advanced Cruise missiles on to a B-52 in violation of Air Force regulations? The quick reaction of the Air Force and the issuing of a public statement describing the seriousness of the issue and the launch of an immediate investigation, suggests that whatever occurred, was outside the regular chain of military command. If the regular chain of command was violated, then we have to inquire as to whether the B-52 incident was part of a covert project whose classification level exceeded that held by officers in charge of nuclear weapons at Minot AFB.
The most obvious governmental entity that may have ordered the nuclear arming of the B-52 outside the regular chain of military command is the last remaining bastion of neo-conservative activism in the Bush administration.
Vice President Cheney has taken a very prominent role in covert military operations and training exercises designed for the "seamless integration" of different national security and military authorities to possible terrorist attacks. On May 8, 2001, President Bush placed Mr. Cheney in charge of "[A]ll federal programs dealing with weapons of mass destruction, consequence management within the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies". LINK. Mr. Cheney subsequently played a direct role in supervising training exercises that simultaneously occurred during the 911 attacks.
According to former Los Angeles Police Officer Michael Ruppert, Mr. Cheney had a parallel chain of command that he used to override Air Force objections to stand down orders that grounded the USAF during the 911 attacks, LINK.
Mr. Ruppert learned that the Secret Service had the authority to directly communicate presidential and vice presidential orders to fighter pilots in the air thereby circumventing the normal chain of command. (Crossing the Rubicon, pp. 428 - 429). Furthermore: "It is the Secret Service who has the legal mandate to take supreme command in case of a scheduled major event - or an unplanned major emergency - on American soil; these are designated "National Special Security Events".LINK.
Mr. Ruppert and others have subsequently claimed that 911 was an "inside job;" and alleges Mr. Cheney through the Secret Service, played a direct leadership role in what occurred over 911. Consequently, it is very possible that Mr. Cheney could have played a similar role in circumventing the regular chain of military command in ordering the B-52 incident. The B-52 incident could be part of a contrived "National Special Security Event" directly controlled by Cheney by virtue of the alleged authority granted to him by President Bush, and through the Secret Service which at least theoretically, has the technological means to by pass the regular chain of military command. I now move to my third key question.
Why was the nuclear armed B-52 sent to Barksdale AFB?
If initial reports that the weapons were being decommissioned, but were mistakenly transported by a B-52 bomber, then the weapons should have been taken to Kirtland Air Force Base. According to Kristensen, this is "where the warheads are separated from the rest of the weapon and shipped to the Energy Department's Pantex dismantlement facility near Amarillo, Texas". LINK.
However, it has been revealed that Barksdale AFB is used as a staging base for operations in the Middle East, LINK.
This is circumstantial evidence that the weapons were being deployed for possible use in the Middle East.
There has been recent speculation concerning a possible attack against Iran given reports that the Pentagon has completed plans for a three day bombing blitz of Iran according to a Sunday Times report, LINK. The Report claims that 1200 targets have been selected and this will destroy much of Iran's military infrastructure. Such an attack will devastate Iran's economy, create greater political instability in the region, and stop the oil supply. A disruption of the oil supply from the Persian Gulf could trigger a global economic recession and lead to the collapse of financial markets.
In a rather disturbing synchronistic development, there have been reports of billion dollar investments in high risk stock options in both Europe and the U.S. that would only be profitable if a dramatic collapse of the stock market were to occur before September 21. Similar stock options were purchased weeks before the 911 attack in 2001, and investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission for possible insider trading. The combination of the Sunday Times report and the Stock market option purchases is circumstantial evidence that plans for a concerted military attack against Iran have been secretly approved and covert operations have begun, LINK.
Seymour Hersh in May 2006 reported the opposition of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the use of nuclear weapons against Iran.
In late April, the military leadership, headed by General Pace, achieved a major victory when the White House dropped its insistence that the plan for a bombing campaign include the possible use of a nuclear device to destroy Iran's uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. .. "Bush and Cheney were dead serious about the nuclear planning," the former senior intelligence official told me. "And Pace stood up to them.
Then the world came back: 'O.K., the nuclear option is politically unacceptable.' LINK.
Given earlier opposition by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it is likely that the present attack plans for Iraq drawn up by the Pentagon don't involve the use of nuclear weapons. In order to circumvent the regular chain of command, opposed to a nuclear attack, it is very likely that Vice President Cheney contrived a "National Special Security Event" that involved a nuclear armed B-52. This would have given him the legal authority to place orders directly through the Secret Service to the Air Force officers responsible for the B-52 incident.
Conclusion: Exposing those Responsible for the B-52 Incident
Consequently, there is considerable circumstantial evidence to argue that the nuclear armed B-52 was part of an apparent covert operation, outside the regular chain of constitutional military command. The alleged authority responsible for this was Vice President Cheney. He very likely used the Secret Service to take charge of a contrived National Special Security Event involving a nuclear armed B-52 that would be flown from Minot AFB. The B-52 was directed to Barksdale Air Force base where it would have conducted a covert mission to the Middle East involving the detonation of one or more nuclear weapons most likely in or in the vicinity of Iran. This could either have occurred during a conventional military strike against Iran, or a False Flag operation in the Persian Gulf region.
Apparently, the leaking and discovery of the nuclear armed B-52 at Barksdale was not part of the script. According to a confidential source of Larry Johnson, a former counter-terrorism official from the State Department and CIA, the discovery of the nuclear armed B-52 was leaked. Johnson concludes: "Did someone at Barksdale try to indirectly warn the American people that the Bush Administration is staging nukes for Iran? I don't know, but it is a question worth asking." LINK.
While the general public is likely to be given a watered down declassified report by the Air Force over the B-52 incident on September 14, the real investigation will reveal that it was part of a covert operation that intended to bypass the regular chain of command in using nuclear weapons in the Middle East. This will likely result in a furious backlash by key figures in the regular military chain of Command such as Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, and the Commander of Central Command, Admiral William Fallon, who have direct responsibility for the conduct of military operations in the Middle East. The US. Air Force, the Secretary of Defense and Commander of Central Command, is now aware of what was likely going to be the true use of the B-52 and the responsibility of the Office of the Vice President.
It is very likely that the exposure of the B-52 incident will lead to an indefinite hold on plans to attack Iran given uncertainty whether other nuclear weapons have been covertly positioned for use in the Middle East. Significantly, public officials briefed about the true circumstances of the B-52 incident will almost certainly place enormous pressure on Vice President Cheney to immediately resign if it is found that he played the role identified above. It is therefore anticipated that in a very short time, the public will learn that Cheney has resigned for health resigns.
The forthcoming September 14 U.S. Air Force report will likely describe the B-52 incident as an "error" and an "isolated incident" as foreshadowed in the September 6 Press Statement. This will create some difficulty in exposing the actual role played by Cheney and any other government figures that supported him. There will be a need for continued public awareness of the true events behind the B-52 incident in order to expose the actual role of Mr. Cheney. Only in that way can Cheney be held accountable for his actions, and other government figures that supported his neo-conservative agenda be exposed. Regardless of whether Cheney's role as the prime architect of the B-52 incident is exposed to the public, the official backlash against his covert operation should force his resignation. In either case, a very dangerous public official would be removed from a powerful position of influence. More importantly, the world has been spared a devastating nuclear war by courageous American airmen who revealed the true contents of an otherwise routine B-52 landing at Barksdale, AFB headed for a covert nuclear mission to the Middle East.

[Disco_Destroyer]

[TonyGosling]

Dick Cheney & Vigilant Shield: Will a Missing Nuke from the B-52 Incident be used in a Simulated Terrorist Attack?

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_michael__071012_dick_cheney__2 6_vigila.htm

by Michael Salla, Ph.D. Page 1 of 1 page(s)
October 13, 2007 at 12:38:16

From October 15 to 19, 2007, a set of military and civil exercises will be held in Oregon, Arizona and Guam. The exercises, TOPOFF 4 and Vigilant Shield 08, are designed to test official responses to the detonation of radiological dispersal devices on U.S. territory. The exercises will be overseen by Vice President Dick Cheney who will travel specifically to Portland to coordinate all Federal departments and agencies responses to the simulated attacks. This has led to a number of civilian groups expressing alarm that TOPOFF and Vigilant Shield might be used as a cover for False Flag operations that replicate what occurred during the 911 attacks . On September 11, 2001, Dick Cheney was overseeing a series of simulated terrorist attacks involving hijacked airplanes hitting buildings that was called “Vigilant Guardian”. Vigilant Guardian was run simultaneously with NORAD training exercises called Vigilant Warrior and Northern Vigilance that altogether involved as many as eleven hijacked airplanes. This created much confusion and led to stand down orders for the US Air Force that was unsure if the 911 attacks were part of the simulated exercises or real attacks. This confusion accounted for the long delays between initial reports of hijacked planes being used in ‘terrorist’ attacks, and Air Force intercept missions being launched using the few planes not involved in the Northern Vigilance exercise.

What makes TOPOFF 4 and Vigilant Shield especially concerning is that they follow upon an incident involving five (later revised up to six) nuclear cruise missiles found on a B-52 sitting on a tarmac at Barksdale Air Force Base on August 30. The Air Force has launched an official inquiry and so far has announced to the public that the B-52 incident was nothing more than an unusually high number of errors. A Washington Post article on September 23 summarized the main arguments for this explanation which has effectively put to an end any further investigations by mainstream media sources. In contrast, a number of researchers have argued that the B-52 incident could not have occurred without very senior officials giving orders, and others refusing to comply with such orders. According to Wayne Madsen a number of Air Force personnel refused to allow the nuclear armed B-52 to fly in a covert mission to Iran outside the normal chain of military command. Madsen describes the nature of the internal conflict over the B-52 incident: “Command and control breakdowns involving U.S. nuclear weapons are unprecedented, except for that fact that the U.S. military is now waging an internal war against neo-cons who are embedded in the U.S. government and military chain of command who are intent on using nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive war with Iran.”

Madsen is alluding here to the most plausible explanation for the source of orders leading to the B-52 incident. The orders emanated from the office of the Vice President, and in particular Dick Cheney himself. Cheney’s orders were opposed all the way up the Department of Defense hierarchy including Admiral William Fallon, Commander of Central Command, and Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates. This is supported by a recent report in the Telegraph newspaper that Gates has become the chief opponent to Dick Cheney’s plans to commit the U.S. to another war against Iran and is encouraging military officers to be more candid in their assessments of a new conflict.

What makes the B-52 incident even more disturbing is that six nuclear cruise missiles left Minot Air Force Base, and the initial Military Times report on September 5 reported that five nuclear warheads were discovered at Barksdale Air Force Base. This was subsequently revised by the Military Times to six in an updated story five days later on September 10. How could the Air Force mix up how many nuclear weapons were initially involved in the incident? The most plausible explanation is that there had been a discrepancy in the number of nuclear weapons that had left Minot and what had been later discovered at Barksdale? The nuclear armed B-52 had been sitting on the tarmac in an unsecured military environment for up to 10 hours before its nuclear payload was discovered. This offered plenty of time for the removal of one of the nuclear weapons. Such an event had to be covered up for national security purposes which is why the Military Times revised its initial report. The possibility of a missing nuclear weapon is augmented by an unprecedented official standown by the Air Force on September 14 where all planes were grounded allegedly to review Standard Operating Procedures. Was the Air Force really conducting an emergency inventory to locate any missing nuclear weapons?

This raises the disturbing possibility that not only was the B-52 ordered to participate in a covert mission to attack Iran outside the regular chain of military command, but that one of its nuclear weapons was secretly siphoned off for another covert mission. If Dick Cheney did give the order for the nuclear weapons to be loaded on to the B-52, it is highly likely that he is aware of the location and potential use of the missing nuclear missile. A number of serious questions therefore need to be asked about the appropriateness of Cheney being in charge of TOPOFF 4 and Vigilant Shield. This is even more urgent if there is a missing nuclear warhead that was taken from the B-52 for a yet undisclosed mission. Could this mission be related to the TOPOFF and Vigilant Shield exercises?

In a Presidential Statement released on May 21, 2001, President Bush gave Vice President Cheney the power to coordinate national efforts in response to terrorist attacks: “I have asked Vice President Cheney to oversee the development of a coordinated national effort so that we may do the very best possible job of protecting our people from catastrophic harm.” An “Office of National Preparedness” was created to implement the “national effort overseen by Vice President Cheney” and would “coordinate all Federal programs dealing with weapons of mass destruction consequence management within the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies.” Effectively, this means that during TOPOFF 4 and Vigilant Shield, VP Cheney will be responsible for all efforts to respond to weapons of mass destruction. He will have the power of override any Department of Defense objections to activities concerning “consequence management” of nuclear weapons. If there was a missing nuclear weapon from the B-52 incident, then TOPOFF and Vigilant Shield could provide the cover for its use.

The possible use of the B-52 missing nuclear weapon could trigger the martial law scenario found in National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 51 after the declaration of a “Catastrophic Emergency.” NSPD 51 defines a “Catastrophic Emergency” as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.” Once declaring such an emergency, President Bush or his successors according to Continuity of Government provisions, can take over all governmental functions at local, state and national levels, as well as private sector activities, to ensure the U.S. emerges from the emergency with an "enduring constitutional government."

So far, the Air Force inquiry is classified and information on a possible missing nuclear weapon has not been disclosed. It is unlikely that much information will be disclosed to the public for national security reasons. The only U.S. Congressman calling for an official public inquiry into the B-52 incident is Dennis Kucinich. As long as the role of Dick Cheney in the B-52 incident is not investigated and the missing nuclear weapon is not located, Cheney should be removed from any position of authority in coordinating civil and military responses to any simulated terrorist attack. Such exercises provide him the opportunity and authority to secretly approve the covert use of a nuclear device that can be used to trigger a declaration of a “Catastrophic Emergency.” U.S. National Security is not served by Dick Cheney having a prominent role in leading TOPOFF 4, Vigilant Shield and any future simulated terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass destruction.



www.exopolitics.org

Dr. Michael Salla is an internationally recognized scholar in international politics, conflict resolution, US foreign policy and the new field of 'exopolitics'. He is author/editor of five books; and held academic appointments in the School of International Service& the Center for Global Peace, American University, Washington DC (1996-2004); the Department of Political Science, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia (1994-96); and the Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University, Washington D.C., (2002). He has a Ph.D in Government from the University of Queensland, Australia, and an M.A. in Philosophy from the University of Melbourne, Australia. He has conducted research and fieldwork in the ethnic conflicts in East Timor, Kosovo, Macedonia, and Sri Lanka, and organized peacemaking initiatives involving mid to high level participants from these conflicts.

[TonyGosling]

Nuke handlers not ready for inspection

By Michael Hoffman - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Jan 7, 2008 6:27:55 EST

The new 5th Bomb Wing commander at Minot Air Force Base, N.D., isn’t mincing words. Col. Joel Westa described his wing’s looming nuclear surety inspection as “the most scrutinized inspection in the history of time.” He understands his airmen have something to prove to the rest of the Air Force and the nation.

So it’s not surprising that a recently announced delay of the inspection, which had been planned for Jan. 23, has many observers wondering what’s going on.

It’s been a little more than four months since airmen at Minot made the unprecedented mistake of unknowingly loading a B-52 with six nuclear warheads and flying them from North Dakota to Barksdale Air Force Base, La.

After a six-week investigation into the incident, Maj. Gen. Richard “Dick” Newton, deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and requirements, said an “erosion of adherence to weapons-handling standards” led to five major procedural errors at Minot. Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne called it an “unacceptable mistake.” The “Bent Spear” incident resulted in the firing of Westa’s predecessor, Col. Bruce Emig. Two group commanders and a squadron commander also got sacked, and 65 airmen were decertified from working with nuclear weapons, basically unable to do their jobs until they were recertified.

Still, with all that pressure and all that time, the 5th Bomb Wing isn’t ready to get back to work. When Air Combat Command inspectors visited Minot on Dec. 16 for its initial nuclear surety inspection — held before the NSI can start — they decided to push back the scheduled Jan. 23 inspection, consequently delaying the process to recertify the wing to handle nuclear weapons.

Since the ACC commander decertified the 5th Bomb Wing from its wartime mission — maintaining part of the nation’s nuclear stockpile — shortly after the incident, the Air Force has relied on airmen from Barksdale’s 2nd Bomb Wing to continue operations at Minot.

Meanwhile, the 5th Bomb Wing’s airmen are sitting on the sideline, training until the wing is recertified. To do that, it must pass its NSI, Westa said.

It took two months before Westa was given authority by ACC to train and recertify the airmen who had lost their certification under the Personnel Reliability Program, which the U.S. uses to monitor those who handle nuclear weapons.To date, he said about 95 percent of those who lost their certification to handle nukes are now recertified under the commander’s guidance. Westa recertified most of the airmen not involved in the incident, but he said there are still some who will never get it back.

Westa pointed to the lack of senior enlisted leadership and the short amount of time he and other Minot officials had to train the airmen on new procedures as the cause of the delay of the inspection.

“The key piece that is driving all this is the flow of information was slow to come after the investigation and caused us some time that we were unable to train, and there were some key billets that weren’t changed,” he said.

Along with the high-ranking officers, four senior NCOs with the 5th Munitions Squadron were fired, pushing back the squadron’s ability to train the recertified airmen, Westa said.

“We lost four really critical SNCOs, and then there were some other unfilled positions,” he said. “It took awhile to get [their replacements] identified.”

Westa said he expects to bring aboard the necessary senior enlisted leaders this month and, once they get settled, to get back on track toward restarting the inspection process following about a 60-day training period.

“There was about a two-month period until we could go back to just training, and it’s a significant skill set,” he said. “It’s something that requires constant honing. The weapons we are talking about have extremely tight tolerances.”

He did confirm that the disciplinary actions over the incident have ceased, and the ACC investigation led by Lt. Gen. Norman Seip, which looked into potential criminal charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, is closed without anyone being charged.

The 5th Bomb Wing commander could not go into detail over how his wing has amended its procedures to prevent a Bent Spear incident from occurring again, but he said he could “guarantee beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is not a weapon moved that [he] does not absolutely know about.”

The changes to procedure he could describe dealt with the lengths to which airmen go to verify they are moving the correct weapon. Every move is backed up by five or six personal checks and five or six database checks, Westa said.

Every time a nuclear weapon is moved, it can’t occur without Westa’s voice approval. This is not new, but Westa said only one or two checks used to be made. Now, he is intimately involved with each and every movement from storage to its final destination.

Also, the status of each nuclear weapon is now briefed to Westa, much like the status of each aircraft owned by the wing.

Although Westa said he was initially disappointed over the delayed NSI, he said this was an inspection that the wing needed to be 100 percent sure it would pass.

The last time the 5th Bomb Wing was inspected, in 2006, it received the highest rating — satisfactory.

“No one wants to see us fail,” he said. “It’s not one of those things where you can just scrape through an NSI.”

So far, the date of the next inspection has not been set.

[blackcat]

Tony - your posts are sometimes very difficult to read because images you post are too big. Do you need to be taught how to crop? Do you know about imagecave or other free hosting sites for images??

[TonyGosling]

sorry but that's the only pic I could find with the actual cruise missiles on the bird
it comes out okay on my machine but does fill the screen

[rodin]

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

The clever way they phrase it... makes it sound like they weren't doing anything wrong!

[blackcat]

[TonyGosling]

Of Bent Spears and Broken Arrows

John Travolta and Christian Slater in “Broken Arrow.”

“I don’t know what’s scarier—losing a nuclear weapon, or that it happens so often there’s actually a term for it.”—the character Giles Prentice in the film “Broken Arrow.”

A recent lapse in Air Force nuclear security brought some peculiar terms into the public consciousness. When six nuclear-tipped AGM-129 cruise missiles were accidentally loaded aboard a B-52H and flown across the country last summer, what USAF had on its hands was a “bent spear.”


Correctly sized image of a cruise armed B52

This was very bad, but it wasn’t the worst thing that could happen. You would rather have to grapple with a bent spear than a “broken arrow” or a “faded giant.” And certainly nobody ever wants to have anything to do with an “empty quiver.”

What do these terms mean? They designate categories of nuclear-weapon incidents, accidents, and even disasters. They are all itemized in DOD Directive 5230.16, “Nuclear Accident and Incident Public Affairs Guidance.”

A bent spear, in Pentagon parlance, identifies a “significant incident” involving a nuclear weapon, warhead, or component, or a vehicle loaded with nuclear materials. A prime example of such an event was that mistaken B-52 transport of the six nukes from Minot AFB, N.D., to Barksdale AFB, La., where they sat undetected on the ramp for nine hours.

Even worse is a broken arrow, an actual accident involving a nuclear weapon, warhead, or component. It comprises unauthorized launch, nuclear detonation, or jettisoning of a nuclear weapon. There have been quite a few broken arrows over the years, often involving the crash of an aircraft carrying nuclear components. Some of these events are infamous:

On Feb. 5, 1958, a B-47 carrying a nuclear weapon (but not the weapon’s trigger—its nuclear capsule, or “pit”) collided with an F-86 near Savannah, Ga. The damaged B-47 was unable to land with the weapon aboard. “The decision was made to jettison the weapon,” states a recap in “Department of Defense Narrative Summaries of Accidents Involving US Nuclear Weapons 1950-1980.” The weapon was dumped into Wassaw Sound and the crew landed safely. Without a nuclear capsule, it could not possibly have exploded. The bomb remains somewhere just under the sea bed.

On Jan. 13, 1964, a B-52D encountered violent turbulence in a blizzard while ferrying two nuclear bombs. Part of the tail broke off, and the jet aircraft crashed in a mountainous area near Cumberland, Md. Only two of the five crew members survived. The nukes, covered by 14 inches of snow, were recovered.

On Jan. 17, 1966, a B-52 bomber flying near Palomares, Spain, collided with a KC-135. Both aircraft crashed, seven airmen died, and four nukes were scattered. High-explosive materials in two bombs exploded on impact, releasing radioactive materials. Some 2.8 million pounds of “slightly contaminated soil and vegetation” were scraped up and sent to the US. Searchers recovered one intact bomb on land, the other, after a three-month search, in the Mediterranean Sea.

A faded giant is DOD’s term for either an accident affecting a nuclear reactor or some other type of radiological accident. Such events are rare. The most recent known example was the disaster aboard the Russian attack submarine Kursk, which in 2000 sank to the bottom of the frigid Barents Sea with all hands and with a pair of nuclear reactors.

Of all the nuclear scenarios, the most worrisome is the empty quiver—that is, seizure or theft of a functioning nuclear weapon. Hollywood offered its take on this nightmare in a 1996 thriller featuring John Travolta and Christian Slater, who played rival USAF officers battling over two stolen nukes. The movie was titled “Broken Arrow,” presumably because “Empty Quiver” just didn’t have much sex appeal.

The empty-quiver specter haunts US officials. “It is very clear that the al Qaedas of the world are interested in, and would be willing to use, nuclear terrorism,” said Linton F. Brooks, a former head of the National Nuclear Security Administration. Even so, Brooks said, “they are not willing to die gratuitously for a failure.” In other words, the US needs good nuclear security, and, more important, it must be seen to have good security.

In the period 1950-80, most bent spears and broken arrows took place during tactical ferry flights or in Strategic Air Command’s “Chrome Dome” airborne alerts. Flight safety has improved enormously, and these events have become relatively rare.

US policy forbids discussion of nukes at any location. The Air Force made a one-time exception a few months ago so that it could present initial findings of its probe into the Minot-Barksdale fiasco. Lt. Gen. Richard Y. Newton III, who presented the findings, called the event “an unacceptable error” stemming from complacency and an “unprecedented stream of procedural failures.” The Air Force’s initial probe revalidated security procedures, but it found airmen had become complacent and lackadaisical.

Given the hysteria that sometimes attends the whole subject of nuclear arms, it should be noted that there has never been “even a partial inadvertent US nuclear detonation,” according to DOD, “despite the very severe stresses imposed upon the weapons involved in these accidents.” That may be the result of procedures, designs, or luck. Probably it is some of everything. Whatever the reason, may it continue.
More information: http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/ncb

[TonyGosling]

Strangelove finale that packs the punch - here is Collateral news.

Link


http://www.youtube.com/user/collateralnews

[TonyGosling]

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Is lost Cold War bomb resting on the Arctic Ocean floor? Canadian Navy to investigate 'nuclear device' spotted during diving trip close to site of 1950 US bomber crash
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3908056/Canadian-Navy-investig ate-lost-nuclear-bomb-spotted-diving-trip-close-site-1950-bomber-crash .html?0p19G=c

By Rebecca Taylor For Mailonline
12:49, 05 Nov 2016, updated 12:18, 07 Nov 2016

Sean Smyrichinsky found a mystery object when he was diving in Canada
He asked around and found out he'd been close to the site of the lost nuke
A Mark IV bomb was lost in February 1950 after a plane crash in Pacific
He claims what he spotted matches pictures of the bomb and the Canadian Royal Navy will send investigators to the site in a matter of weeks



Sean Smyrichinsky found the object while diving and initially thought he'd spotted some kind of UFO
The Royal Canadian Navy is to send investigators to examine a 'mystery object' found by a diver which could be a nuclear bomb lost in the early days of the Cold War.

Sean Smyrichinsky found the object while diving near Banks Island, a site close to the location of the US bomber crash of 1950, after which the Mark IV bomb was lost.

The bomb was lost on February 14 when a Convair B-36 crashed in northern British Colombia on its way to Texas from Alaska.

Mr Smyrichinsky told CBC news: 'I got a little far from my boat and I found something that I'd never ever seen before.

'It resembled, like, a bagel cut in half, and then around the bagel these bolts molded into it.

'I came out from the dive and I came up and I started telling my crew, "My god, I found a UFO. I found the strangest thing I'd ever seen!"'

Scroll down for video

Sean Smyrichinsky found a mystery object while diving in northern Canada and believes it could be the missing Mark IV bomber, one of which is pictured above
Sean Smyrichinsky found a mystery object while diving in northern Canada and believes it could be the missing Mark IV bomber, one of which is pictured above

Mr Smyrichinsky said he asked around and was told the story of the lost bomb, and when he looked at pictures of the Mark IV, he realised it was very similar to the object he had seen.

The plane crashed after three of its six engines began shooting flames and the other three were unable to power the plane with its heavy load.

The pilot flew over Princess Royal Island so the crew would not have to bail out over the North Pacific, and set the plane on a path towards the ocean.

The Canadian Royal Navy will send investigators down in the next few weeks to look at the object. Above, Mr Smyrichinsky who found the object
The Canadian Royal Navy will send investigators down in the next few weeks to look at the object. Above, Mr Smyrichinsky who found the object
He was diving near to the area where the plane's crew were forced to bail out and send the plane to crash in February 1950. The bomb had not been found since
He was diving near to the area where the plane's crew were forced to bail out and send the plane to crash in February 1950. The bomb had not been found since
In a book published this year, Dirk Septer tells the story of the lost bomb.

He wrote: 'Just before midnight on February 13, 1950, three engines of a US Air Force B-36 intercontinental bomber caught fire over Canada’s northwest coast.

'The crew jumped, and the plane ditched somewhere in the Pacific Ocean.

'Almost four years later, the wreck of the bomber was found accidentally in a remote location in the coastal mountains of British Columbia, three hours’ flying time in the opposite direction of where it was supposed to have crashed.

'After years of silence, the United States finally admitted to losing its very first nuclear bomb; the incident was its first Broken Arrow, the code name for accidents involving nuclear weapons.'

Five crew members died but 12 were rescued after they bailed out.

Major Steve Neta confirmed to CBC News that the site corresponds with the crash site and the Navy would be investigating.

A Royal Navy ship will be deployed in the next few weeks.

[TonyGosling]

Anyone hear ths prime time saturday morning radio 4 show - explaining that Putin has mini suitcase nukes he can use anywhere in the world he wants?
Nuclear false flag attack predictive programming anyoone

Lost Nukes
Punt PI, Series 10
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b092hscp

Steve Punt returns as Radio 4's very own private detective.

In this tenth anniversary edition, Steve's called in to investigate the unlikely disappearance of American and Russian nuclear weapons - with assistance from best-selling thriller writer Frederick Forsyth.

At first, Steve's sceptical - surely no nuclear power could actually lose possession of weapons capable of causing Armageddon. But as his investigation gathers pace, the story starts to becomes rather disturbing.

From an H-bomb lost over Savannah, Georgia to a cache of so-called 'suitcase nukes' which rumours suggest could still be stashed in modern day Moldova, Punt weighs up the evidence - with a little detour via Dorking...

Producer: Laurence Grissell.

One for @Jay_D007 & @21wire#PredictiveProgramming
Putin's mini nukes he can use anywhere #NuclearFalseFlag anyone?https://t.co/TI7iKzYx5M

— Tony Gosling ✈ (@TonyGosling) September 2, 2017

[TonyGosling]

Zimbabwean arms dealer sues Foreign Office for freezing assets
Mogul accused of selling weapons to Iran and Iraq was blacklisted over support for Mugabe

Tom Harper @TomJHarper Friday 21 June 2013 18:11 BST
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/zimbabwean-arms-dealer-sues -foreign-office-for-freezing-assets-8669188.html

The Government is at the centre of an extraordinary legal battle with a Zimbabwean arms dealer who claims the Foreign Office unlawfully caused his assets to be frozen based on “unsubstantiated” comments made to an ambassador.

John Bredenkamp, a controversial businessman accused of breaking sanctions in Rhodesia in the 1970s and supplying arms to both sides during the Iran-Iraq war, is suing the Foreign Secretary, William Hague, after he discovered the British Government was behind a decision to blacklist him for supporting Robert Mugabe.

The 72-year-old tycoon claims the European Union measure in 2009 was “devastating for his personal and professional reputation” and was based on “exceptionally generalised” evidence.

In documents filed at the High Court, Mr Bredenkamp’s lawyers said the Foreign Office’s evidence was “based on entirely unsubstantiated, undocumented and unparticularised comments made orally to the former ambassador of the United Kingdom to Zimbabwe, Dr Andrew Pocock”.

“Remarkably, and despite the entirely predictable and disastrous consequences which would flow from listing the claimant, it appears the ambassador failed to seek, let alone obtain, any detail at all as to the comments made to him, and that he did not even make contemporaneous records of those comments he particularly relied upon.”

Mr Bredenkamp’s lawyers are challenging the lawfulness of the Government’s decision to freeze his assets and impose a travel ban to Europe between 2009 and 2012.

According to High Court documents, the Foreign Office privately informed the European Union that the businessman had “strong ties” to the Mugabe government and “provided, through his companies, financial and other support to the regime”.

His lawyers argue the Government produced no evidence to substantiate the allegations and say Mr Bredenkamp has always “vigorously rejected” claims that he supported Mr Mugabe. Timothy Otty QC told the court the tycoon had only met the dictator once in 1982, was imprisoned on false charges and stripped of his citizenship in 2006.

At the High Court today, it emerged that Mr Bredenkamp sought disclosure of nine emails from Foreign Office officials that outlined why ministers decided he should be blacklisted. However, lawyers acting for the Government claimed they were too sensitive to release during the proceedings and tried to withhold them on “public-interest immunity” grounds as it could affect the UK’s “international relations” with other countries.

The Independent and Mr Bredenkamp’s lawyers were then forced to leave the court while the Foreign Office and Mr Justice Collins decided whether they could be released to the businessman’s legal team. In the claim against Mr Hague, Mr Bredenkamp’s lawyers said: “The effect of [Mr Bredenkamp’s] listing was, quite predictably devastating for his personal and professional reputation, for his business interests, and for the many hundreds of individuals dependent upon him, as well as for their families. It has also seriously impacted upon his physical health.

“He wishes to obtain a declaration as to the unlawfulness of the United Kingdom’s conduct at the outset, both by way of vindicatory relief, and in order to clear the path for a claim for damages in respect of the very substantial losses he has suffered. As a result of the sanctions he has faced he has gone from a position of very substantial wealth to one involving very substantial losses.”

Mr Otty, a leading human rights barrister, told the court that the action by the UK Government means his client is unable to bank anywhere in the world “save for a single, personal account in Zimbabwe which is of very limited use because of exchange controls”.

Mr Bredenkamp, who made his money in tobacco farming, was named in a 2002 UN report as a key arms trader who made millions of pounds from illegally exploiting natural resources in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

A representative of Mr Bredenkamp’s who attended court but refused to give his name told The Independent that “everything that has ever been written about him is fictitious and based on no evidence”. He added: “If you Google Mr Bredenkamp he is supposed to have stolen nuclear bombs. It is ridiculous.”