Nukes accidentally load on the B-52 meant for IRAN

[jingofever]

So, as I was saying, I kinda "channelled" this info, that back in the first gulf war, a B-52 had to abandon its nuclear payload in the sea, and that this payload had been picked up by the Iranians.

I have to say, this latest story is almost like a molehunt

But fortunately for me, I just channelled it.

Channeled it how? Through a Ouija board or a schizophrenic? But seriously, channeling isn't what I consider to be hard evidence.

[seemslikeadream]

http://www.deepjournal.com/p/7/a/en/955.html

War With Iran Looks More Likely
By Alan Bock
For months – perhaps even a couple of years – I have been downplaying the likelihood that Bush would be so foolish as to start a war with Iran, especially in light of how much more difficult such a war would be than the war on Iraq and how thinly the military is stretched. It's not that I don't think the neocons want such a war or that Bush isn't just irresponsible enough to do it. I have figured that the military would point out the logistical problems and simply let him know in no uncertain terms that it can't be done. And I still think that's a possibility, perhaps even likelihood.
Over the last few weeks, however, I have to admit I've become a bit less certain. The leaking of a tentative decision to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard, the country's 125,000-strong elite military branch, as a "specially designated global terrorist" group is an important indicator. It turns out that like China's army, the IRGC has business interests, some of them overseas, and so such a designation could have an impact on them. The step, if taken, would be the first time an official arm of a standing government has been labeled a terrorist group by the U.S., so it is purposely provocative.

Robert Baer, the former CIA operative, writes, "Officials I talk to in Washington vote for a hit on the IRGC, maybe within the next six months. And they think that as long as we have bombers and missiles in the air, we will hit Iran's nuclear facilities. An awe and shock campaign lite, if you will. But frankly, they're guessing; after Iraq, the White House trusts no one, especially the bureaucracy." Baer notes that "the military suspects but cannot prove that the IRGC is the main supplier of sophisticated improvised explosive devices killing our forces ion Iraq and Afghanistan." But the case is still circumstantial. However, the case that Iraq had WMD before the U.S. invaded was less than circumstantial.

Baer also thinks that various neocons in and out of the White House believe that the Revolutionary Guard is the only institution keeping the mullahs in power, and that if it is seriously weakened the regime will fall of its own weight. That is undoubtedly fantasy, but anyone who doubts the capacity of neocons and the president to convince themselves of what they prefer to believe may also be living in a fantasy world. After all, these people still seem to believe that the Iraq war is, if not a roaring success just yet, right on the verge of being one.

Then there's Arnaud de Borchgrave, former editor of the Washington Times, now editor at large for UPI and a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. I know he works part of the time for the Moonies, but I've met him, talked extensively with him on several occasions, and believe he's more independent than you might think. The fact that I like and respect him may skew my judgment, but I do know he has good contacts and sources around the world. So when he reports that French president Nicholas Sarkozy "came away [from the visit at Kennebunkport] convinced his U.S. counterpart is serious about bombing Iran's secret nuclear facilities. That's the reading as it filtered back to Europe's foreign ministries," I take it somewhat seriously.

If you want a really frightening scenario laid out and have the patience to read a fairly long and involved post, check this out at Arthur Silber's Once Upon a Time. He points out that "The Senate approved – by a vote of 97 to nothing – an amendment that accuses Iran of committing acts of war against the United States. Thus, if we were to attack Iran, we would purportedly only be acting defensively, and in response to what Iran has already done." Both the 2001 post-9/11 congressional authorization to go after terrorists and the 2002 authorization to attack Iraq could thus be stretched to cover an attack on Iran. Silber thinks that if Congress is serious about deterring a war on Iran it should rescind both resolutions. But that's unlikely to happen. Every Democrat in the Senate voted for the provocative Lieberman-led resolution, so "when the wider war begins, they will have no serious basis on which to object."

Silber complains:

"Democrats don't object and they completely fail to mount serious opposition to our inevitable course toward widening war and an attack on Iran, not because they are cowards, not because they're afraid of being portrayed as 'weak' in the fight against terrorism, and not because of any of the other excuses that are regularly offered by their defenders. They don't object because – they don't object. That is: they agree – they agree that the United States is the 'indispensable' nation, that we have the 'right' to tell every other country how it is 'permitted' to act, that we must pursuer a policy of aggressive interventionism [see Barack Obama on Pakistan]supported by an empire of military bases. They agree about all of it; moreover, in most critical respects, they devised these policies in the first instance, and they implemented and defended them more vigorously and more consistently than Republicans, with the exception of the criminal now residing in the White House."

Then there's Sarkozy saying he's not quite for a military attack but France won't stand for Iran getting a bomb. De Borchgrave writes that "a ranking Swiss official, speaking privately, said 'Anyone with a modicum of experience in the Middle East knows that any bombing of Iran would touch off at the very least regional instability and what could be an unmitigated disaster for Western interests.'" But given the way they've cherry-picked the evidence on Iraq post-invasion, Bush and the neocons would undoubtedly interpret the worst imaginable disaster as a solid step toward freedom and democracy.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEa3BSc233U&eurl=

[slimmouse]

So, as I was saying, I kinda "channelled" this info, that back in the first gulf war, a B-52 had to abandon its nuclear payload in the sea, and that this payload had been picked up by the Iranians.

I don't think it would be possible for the Pentagon to let Iran scavenge one of their nukes.
They had a huge naval and air presence in the Gulf for that Desert Storm scam.

But rumoring this would be useful to keep us a-feared of them A-rabs.

well Hugh,

Its like this,

If there werent supposed to be any planes flying nukes in that region at that time, and one of them just did happen to fall off the radar, what is our beloved media supposed to report , when they dont even know ?



Anyways, the above "speculation" aside. I contend that Iran does have a nuke, and that its pointed right where the global elite dont want it pointin'

Hence Pres Ahminejhad "Godfelt" confidence that this US attack crap is just that

[Et in Arcadia ego]

Gahd damn, hugh..

I luv ya man, but do you have to eat the entire frigging board with the Godzilla-sized posts?

Hey! Scroll you, too, pal!

Somehow a link just doesn't convey the enormity of all those Broken Arrows...
...kind of like your list of Republican sex scandals.
Or are those Bent Spears?

Touche.



@ slimmouse:

Your logic is seriously flawed.

If a deployed nuke went belly up in the gulf, I think there would have been a concerted effort on the part of the Coalition to retrieve it. You know, that same Coalition that included Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States itself?

Your roots are showing on this one..



This is an unpleasant enough situation without bringing in unsubstantiated remote viewing divination crap-I mean-stuff...

[seemslikeadream]

I think there is a nuke missing

[11:11]

I think there is a nuke missing

One report was 5. Another was 6.

[Et in Arcadia ego]

Oh man..

[theeKultleeder]

Just remember it's scripted... it's all like a cool movie, with explosions and stuff.

I'm sorry, Hugh and Et, but there are studies out there that show thoughts can influence random number generators. John Lennon said, right after he made the "we're bigger than Jesus" remark, (I'm paraphrasing from memory) "What we imagine influences the future, and look at the movies they give us to watch, all the war and killing... what kind of future are we projecting?"

If David Icke is able to influence people to rise above the base motivations that trap the people of this planet - the slow ugly vibrations of sex and death and territory - than maybe he is doing something to help, even if the lizard bit is a only a prop to get people thinking in the right direction. And I'm sure you understand the power of symbolism and drama quite well.

So, really, "visualize world peace." Just be exact, and don't let the fantasies of sweetness and light blind you.

I might change my sig file to: "Visualize mass enlightenment during orgasm."

Try it.

[Banta]

Wait, does that image imply Icke's a lizard, too?! Now it all makes sense... he rants about the lizards so no one will suspect that he's one of them! Brilliant!

"What we imagine influences the future, and look at the movies they give us to watch, all the war and killing... what kind of future are we projecting?"

The whole projecting and visualizing stuff is great and I do tend to think there's something to it, but "mass enlightenment" ain't gonna happen because we're all thinking happy thoughts. I mean, influencing the random number generator is one thing... get back to me when we can CONTROL it completely with our thoughts. In the meantime, we gotta get out there and do something too. And it's not gonna happen overnight.

That's pretty much my biggest critique of this line of thought... the New Age doesn't happen because the calendar turns to a certain date. Well, at least, it would be best not to assume that it is.

[tal]

Couple the 9/14 standdown with the 9/15 financial armageddon and Harper's postponement of the Commons session and things aren't looking good...

Harpur Postpones Commons

11:11 said

What does THIS mean? He'll be in Oz with Bush and the Queen lizard, at the "River of Fire" ritual, in Sydney harbor, which the public is not allowed to attend. Just what are these creeps celebrating? Is this normal to delay the opening of the House of Commons? It sure wouldn't be for Congress.

antiaristo said

First off.
The prime minister cannot postpone parliament.
ONLY Queen Elizabeth can postpone parliament.
.
Second, listen to the silence.
The opposition parties say NOTHING about this.
INSTEAD they make a big fuss about what the prime minister will include in the "throne speach".
.
The sitting of parliament cannot be adjusted without the consent of parliament, which in practical terms means the opposition leaders.
.
The opposition, including the French opposition, have given their consent and are remaining silent.
.
What does it mean?
It means that from 17 September parliament is unable to exercise the restraint on the executive.

The prime minister intends to rule by decree under royal prerogative.

Something important coming.

[theeKultleeder]

Wait, does that image imply Icke's a lizard, too?! Now it all makes sense... he rants about the lizards so no one will suspect that he's one of them! Brilliant!

"What we imagine influences the future, and look at the movies they give us to watch, all the war and killing... what kind of future are we projecting?"

The whole projecting and visualizing stuff is great and I do tend to think there's something to it, but "mass enlightenment" ain't gonna happen because we're all thinking happy thoughts. I mean, influencing the random number generator is one thing... get back to me when we can CONTROL it completely with our thoughts. In the meantime, we gotta get out there and do something too. And it's not gonna happen overnight.

That's pretty much my biggest critique of this line of thought... the New Age doesn't happen because the calendar turns to a certain date. Well, at least, it would be best not to assume that it is.

Changing your habitual thinking changes your behavior, that much you will agree with? If you think healthier, your body will be healthier, and so will your actions.

But I agree, let's not get stuck in the honey of sweetness and light, but when we go out there, let's do it right.

(Unintentional poem copyright me, 2007)

Oh, and it isn't new. It's really really old, like, older than Jesus.

[Banta]

Wait, does that image imply Icke's a lizard, too?! Now it all makes sense... he rants about the lizards so no one will suspect that he's one of them! Brilliant!

"What we imagine influences the future, and look at the movies they give us to watch, all the war and killing... what kind of future are we projecting?"

The whole projecting and visualizing stuff is great and I do tend to think there's something to it, but "mass enlightenment" ain't gonna happen because we're all thinking happy thoughts. I mean, influencing the random number generator is one thing... get back to me when we can CONTROL it completely with our thoughts. In the meantime, we gotta get out there and do something too. And it's not gonna happen overnight.

That's pretty much my biggest critique of this line of thought... the New Age doesn't happen because the calendar turns to a certain date. Well, at least, it would be best not to assume that it is.

Changing your habitual thinking changes your behavior, that much you will agree with? If you think healthier, your body will be healthier, and so will your actions.

But I agree, let's not get stuck in the honey of sweetness and light, but when we go out there, let's do it right.

(Unintentional poem copyright me, 2007)

Oh, and it isn't new. It's really really old, like, older than Jesus.

Yeah, totally, I'm down with all of that. And I think it's very necessary to think positively. Hell, I tell people that daily. The only thing that concerns me is that many stop with just that. If the thinking does not lead to action, then the thought is wasted, at least on a societal level. And that's what I'm focusing on. Mass change and whatnot. And that's a really longterm goal, methinks. But I'm ok with that. Well, most days...

[seemslikeadream]

http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/09/fly ... _bombs.php

Flying Nuclear Bombs

The Air Force is reported to have loaded and flown five nuclear-armed Advanced Cruise Missiles on a B-52H bomber - by mistake. This image shows a B-52H will a full load of 12 Advanced Cruise Missiles under the wings..


By Hans M. Kristensen
Michael Hoffman reports in Military Times that five nuclear-armed Advanced Cruise Missiles were mistakenly flown on a B-52H bomber from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana on August 30.

I disclosed in March that the Air Force had decided to retire the Advanced Cruise Missile (ACM), and the Minot incident apparently was part of the dismantlement process of the weapon system.

Managing Nuclear Weapons Custody

Beyond the safety issue of transporting nuclear weapons in the air, the most important implication of the Minot incident is the apparent break-down of nuclear command and control for the custody of the nuclear weapons. Pilots (or anyone else) are not supposed to just fly off with nuclear bombs, and base commanders are not supposed to tell them to do so unless so ordered by higher command. In the best of circumstances the system worked, and someone “upstairs” actually authorized the transport of nuclear cruise missiles on a B-52H bomber.

To keep track of the thousands of nuclear weapons in the U.S. nuclear stockpile, the Department of Defense and Department of Energy use several Automated Information Systems (AISs) to provide automated assistance in stockpile management, stockpile database support, in processing nuclear weapons reports and controlling weapons movements, and in coordinating materiel management for DOE spare parts:

* Defense Integration and Management of Nuclear Data Services (DIAMONDS). Automated tool that, together with the Nuclear Management Information System (NUMIS), enables users to maintain, report, track and highlight trends affecting the nuclear weapon stockpile activities ensuring continued sustainability and viability of the nuclear stockpile. Installation of DIAMONDS at Navy sites was completed in December 2006.

* Nuclear Management Information System (NUMIS). NUMIS is the official AIS of record for maintaining the National Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Databases, and is used to maintain current data on the U.S. nuclear stockpile in the custody of DOD and DOE.

* Nuclear Weapons Contingency Operations Module (NWCOM). NWCOM is a database system that provides current summarized information on all nuclear weapons. NWCOM has the capability to operate independently from the NUMIS architecture, giving users a nuclear weapons tracking system capable of wartime operations. Once fully segmented and integrated into the Global Command and Control System-Top Secret (GCCS-T), NWCOM will begin its integration into the DOD (DISA/STRATCOM) Nuclear Planning and Execution System (NPES).

* Special Weapons Information Management (SWIM) system. SWIM is a PC-based system that provides worldwide nuclear custodial units the capability to automate weapons status reports and local stockpile management tasks.

Nuclear Weapons Air Transport


Twenty-four B61 nuclear bombs lined up in the cargo hull of a C-124 cargo aircraft of the 438th Airlift Wing. Since this Air Force picture was taken, the C-124 has been retired and its mission of nuclear weapons transporter taken over by the C-17.

A Brief History of Nukes in the Air

The last time the Air Force is known to have flown nuclear weapons on a bomber was during the so-called Chrome Dome missions in the 1960s when the Air Force maintained a dozen bombers loaded with nuclear weapons in the air at any time. The program, formally known as the Airborne Alert Program, lasted between July 1961 and January 1968. The program ended abruptly on January 21, 1968, when a B-52 carrying four B28 thermonuclear bombs crashed on the ice off Thule Air Base in Greenland during an emergency landing. The accident followed another crash in Spain in 1966 and several other nuclear incidents.

Between 1968 and 1991, Air Force bombers continued to be loaded with nuclear weapons and stand alert at the end of runways on bases across the country, but flying them was not allowed due to safety concerns. The ground alert ended in September 1991 when the bombers were taken off nuclear alert as part of the first Bush administration’s Presidential Nuclear Initiative.

Although nuclear weapons are not flown on combat aircraft under normal circumstances, they are routinely flown on selected C-17 and C-130 transport aircraft, which as the Primary Nuclear Airlift Force (PNAF) are used to airlift Air Force nuclear warheads between operational bases and central service and storage facilities in the United States and in Europe (see overview here).

Trimming the Cruise Missile Inventory

The ACM transport from Minot Air Force Base is part of the Air Force's transition to a slimmer nuclear cruise missile force. By 2012, the current inventory of 1,800 nuclear cruise missiles will be trimmed to 528. The transition will completely retire 400 ACMs and scrap about 870 Air Launch Cruise Missiles (ALCMs). Under the plan, the 2nd Bomb Wing at Barksdale Air Force Base will no longer have a nuclear cruise missile capability, and all of the remaining 528 ALCMs will be based at Minot Air Force Base.

Read also the comments section: "If the B-52 incident tells us that the military's command and control system cannot ensure with 100% certainty which weapons are nuclear and which ones are not, imagine the implications of the wrong weapon being used in a crisis or war. 'Sorry Mr. President, we thought it was conventional.'"

[Et in Arcadia ego]

I'm sorry, Hugh and Et, but there are studies out there that show thoughts can influence random number generators.

I wonder what kind of egregor the RI board could fashion..Maybe we should quit that positive thinking crap and fight evil with evil. There's this great Sci-Fi short story about a unified group of individuals who 'think' their selected targets to death by intensely concentrating on them one at a time..

[theeKultleeder]

Jello Biafra with NoMeansNo

Falling Space Junk

Nuclear satellites
Thrown up in space
Will all burn out some day
Guess where they'll crash

We've been lucky so far
Every toy up there
Is another Chernobyl
Waiting to happen

Why?

Space shuttle blew up again
People drop dead
News says "DON'T WORRY"
Then the truth comes out

Since 1988
Every shuttle in space
Has carried 46
Pounds of plutonium

Why?
I don't know
I'm scared to care

Enough plutonium
That if it blows
The fallout cancer
Could kill 5 billion people

So now it's over
It's really over
Space junk in the street
Irradiated atmosphere

Fallout covers the earth
Greenhouse so hot we fry
Six months, maybe years
We all know we'll die

So - what matters now?
NOTHING matters now
Imagine what would happen
If everyone on earth
Realized this at once

Gonna go loot stores!
Piss anywhere!
Break into peoples houses
Play with their underwear
Strew all my prizes in the street
You can't take it with you
Nothing left to do
But go home
And bolt the doors

Why?

Let's curl up real close
And tell each other
All the things we still don't know
About our lives

Why?

Falling space junk in the streets
Radiation in the air
Nothing left that's safe to eat
The sky is melting
And I want my mommy.