Sunday, February 7, 2016

Sunday Globe Special: Super Bowl to Go Nuclear?

Every year it is suggested by some that the Big Game will be subject to some false flag due to the eyes glued to the searing event and the mass mind manipulation that can follow. I've even questioned and warned of such things in the past; however, I don't think it is happening. There are simply too many important people there. Too many celebrity icons that act as diversionary slop for the masses. Too much money at stake.

"Rearming for the apocalypse" by Stephen Kinzer   January 24, 2016

Americans are in near-panic over the danger posed by Islamic terrorists.

Speak for yourself. 

That danger, however, pales beside an emerging new one. President Obama has proposed a frighteningly wrongheaded plan to “modernize” our nuclear arsenal at the unfathomable cost of about $1 trillion over the next 30 years. Terror will never reach even 1 percent of our population. Nuclear “modernization” increases the prospect of true devastation.

Then it isn't really about "terror," is it?

The nuclear threat seems diffuse and faraway, while the prospect of a deranged fanatic shooting up a cinema is as vivid as today’s news. Perhaps we have been lulled into security by the fact that no nuclear weapon has been used since 1945.

And who used those (when they didn't even have to? The Japanese got to keep their emperor anyways!)?

Voices trying to alert us to the true threat are drowned out in a frenzy of over-the-top campaign speeches and TV rants about crazed Muslims.

The most sobering of these voices belongs to William Perry.

See: Times Square to Explode Tonight 

Now I am starting to wonder.

“And yet,” Perry laments, “while this catastrophe would result in a hundred times the casualties of 9/11, it is only dimly perceived by the public.”

Besides these grave dangers — global proliferation, accidental war, and nuclear terror — there is another: national bankruptcy. Obama’s project is ruinously expensive. Admiral Mike Mullen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, calls it “spending ourselves into oblivion.” He describes our skyrocketing national debt as “the most significant threat to our national security.”

Now is the time to stop this program. So far, enthusiasm for it is confined to the White House and Pentagon. Once it is launched, rich procurement contracts will be portioned out to the districts of influential members of Congress. That will produce a self-interested constituency and give the project unstoppable momentum.

Do you see why I'm so strident regarding all these things that are planned to be introduced, etc?

Nuclear weapons are useful for deterrence only. The United States has more than enough for that purpose. Investing huge sums in a new arsenal will not protect us from tomorrow’s threats. Most depressing, the proposal for this investment comes from a president who campaigned on a pledge to reduce and seek to eliminate nuclear weapons — and who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his apparent sincerity.... 

He should give back that prize after starting wars in Yemen, Libya, and Syria, and I'm not for the elimination of nuclear weapons either. If Israel can have them, anybody should be able to.

Besides, he is right. The U.S. never attacks those that can defend themselves with nuclear weapons. See Iraq.


Years ago I would have been elated at seeing Kinzer in the Globe. I knew him from Democracy Now; however, now I realize he is controlled-opposition and accepting of the underlying narrative. Half truths are getting us nowhere these days.

Of course, if I'm wrong we know on whom the false flag can be blamed. The game is, after all, on the West Coast.

".... Lest we think that nuclear fiascoes are a product of a bygone, Cold War past, consider the recent scandals that led to several soup-to-nuts reviews of the country’s doomsday forces. In 2007, six nuclear tipped missiles went missing for 36 hours when they were accidentally shipped across the country. Another scandal found 98 military missileers cheated on their qualification exams.

Yes, one of those six nukes is still missing and I'm sure I could find the links here regarding these scandals, but I'm pressed for time. May have to waterboard even.

Then there’s the unfortunate saga of Major General Michael Carey, who oversaw 450 nuclear-armed ICBMs for the Air Force. He traveled to Moscow for an official trip in 2013 and was drunk a significant portion of the time, according to the Air Force Inspector General’s report. He cavorted with a pair of foreign women, danced on tables, tried to get on stage and play guitar with a band, and “talked loudly about the importance of his position as commander of the only operational nuclear force in the world and that he saves the world from war every day.”

I couldn't let that go by, and he probably did!

Are we getting what we pay for? Good question. Especially since, despite all the arms reduction treaties, the United States now spends vastly more on its nuclear arsenal than it did during any point in the Cold War. Now that’s crazy.

And all this is only a brief accounting of US-related nuclear hijinks. The Russian government has disclosed very little about its history with such fiascoes. On purpose, that is. In November, Russian state television broadcast a meeting with President Vladimir Putin and several generals. At one point, the camera zoomed in on an open binder and accidentally revealed the design of a secret drone submarine used to deliver nuclear weapons against coastlines. “We hope such a thing will never be repeated,” a chagrined Kremlin spokesman said....



"In the spring of 2014, as a team of experts was examining what ailed the U.S. nuclear force, the Air Force withheld from them the fact that it was simultaneously investigating damage to a nuclear-armed missile in its launch silo caused by three airmen. The Air Force on Friday gave The Associated Press the first substantive description of the accident after being questioned about it by the AP for more than a year." 

Do you believe them?

If so, see: U.S. Stirring Up South China Sea

I ask the same the question.

"Space warfare with Russia and China? Pentagon urged to prepare for it" by Dan Lamothe Washington Post  January 27, 2016

Who didn't see this coming, huh?

WASHINGTON — Picture this: A Chinese fighter jet accidentally crashes into a Navy P-8 Poseidon surveillance plane while attempting to buzz it over the South China Sea, killing all on board both aircraft. Fearing US retaliation, China goes a relatively unexpected route: It uses surface-to-air missiles to shoot numerous US satellites out of the heavens in quick succession.

Very quickly, the Navy is forced to navigate the Pacific with little use of GPS and degraded communications, causing chaos and uncertainty. The Chinese strikes also have knocked out some of the Pentagon’s ability to control its arsenal of precision-guided weapons.


None of this has happened. But the hypothetical scenario points out the reliance the Pentagon has on space and the military technology it keeps in it. Satellites have soared over the earth’s atmosphere for decades, providing the United States with a huge advantage militarily, even at a time when the conventional weapons US rivals have are formidable.

A new report released on Wednesday by the Center for a New American Security highlights the vulnerabilities the Pentagon has in space and calls for a shift in strategy to safeguard it and prepare for conflict there. It’s written by senior fellow Elbridge Colby, a former member of the presidential campaign staff of Governor W. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and argues that potential adversaries like China and Russia have noticed the degree to which the United States is reliant on its ‘‘space architecture,’’ and begun to seek ways to threaten it.

Gee, the Globe really makes one think sometimes. 

Must be why he wants the nuclear weapons upgrade (after he's long gone from the office, too!)

‘‘Indeed, many observers have noted that these potential opponents judge the US space architecture to be the Achilles’ heel of US military power, in light of the depth of American reliance on these systems and the vulnerability of the US military satellite architecture,’’ the report said. 

All the trillions and trillions for something so susceptible to attack. WTF?

Threats to satellites include not only missiles but also cyber and electronic attacks that could disable them.

Then we have a false flag, don't we?

In effect, Colby argues, ‘‘space is becoming a domain like any other — air, sea, land, and electromagnetic — in which the United States will have to compete and fight the ability to access and exploit the domain rather than assume safe and uncontested passage within and use of it.’’

Related: Spy Satellite Shit and Rods From God 

And that was ten years ago.

The Pentagon already has begun to prepare in response. Last year, for example, Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter directed the military to begin looking at reducing its reliance on GPS satellites, arguing in a podcast that the Defense Department probably won’t buy them within 20 years.

‘‘Here’s a sentiment and a prediction for you: I hate GPS,’’ Carter said in the podcast, produced by the investment firm Andreessen Horowitz. ‘‘The idea that we are all hooked to a satellite — formerly bought by me to my great resentment — in a semisynchronous orbit that doesn’t work in certain circumstances, does not work indoors or in valleys in Afghanistan, is ridiculous.’’

Colby argued that regardless what steps the military takes, it is unlikely that the United States will ever have unchallenged dominance in space again. Therefore, the United States needs to consider adjusting what it will do if a satellite is attacked. During the Cold War, Colby notes, there was the threat that the United States would respond to any attack in space with devastating force. He suggests adopting new norms, including that attacks in space can result in retaliation outside space, like airstrikes on ground targets.

Why am I seeing mushroom clouds?

‘‘This is crucial to the United States’ particular interests, given the greater current US reliance on space and the consequent preference of its potential adversaries to confine legitimate retaliation in the face of such strikes to space itself,’’ he wrote. ‘‘Yet such a candidate principle stands a strong chance of being more widely accepted as a wide gamut of countries have come to rely on space and appreciate its value and connectivity to the fullest range of civil and military applications.’’

And their control of this planet.


It's no longer a movie, huh? 

Enjoy the game, readers.