![]() |
"NUCLEAR ARMAGEDDON"
-
Photo of Oppenheimer with Einstein writing the letter to Roosevelt
that led to the Manhatten project & photo of Edward Teller, known as
the inventor of the hydrogen bomb. "I'm not sure what weapons will be used
in World War III,but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."~Albert
Einstein

1956 test of a nuclear cannon with a 8 inch wide projectile capable
of traveling 11 miles with the force of the Hiroshima atomic bomb.A nuclear
cannon that could travel in the battlefield and 1956 test of Nuclear Weapon
in The Pacific Ocean.
-
The memory of the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident
which occurred on April 26,1986.Over 15 years later a ghost town near
the plant still remains standing, not fit for
human occupation . The First Hydrogen Bomb Being Tested at Eniwetok Atoll
in the Pacific,1952. A Nuclear Test of a Hydrogen Bomb in 1946 which yielded
a force of 21 kilotons. The bomb site was Bikini Atoll. Another test of
a Nuclear bomb in the area called Enewetak Atoll in 1951 which yielded
a force of 81 kilotons.
The man credited with these historic photographs
had Michael Light, author of the book 100 SUNS stating, "It exists. It
happened. It is happening. May no future nuclear detonation photographs
be made, ever." How soon we forget that history repeats itself and the
folly of mankind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pictured above is salvaged Russian Oscar Class II Submarine. The 118
man crew of The Kursk died in the August 2000 tragedy when The Kursk tragically
sank.
SSBN OHIO CLASS BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINE,
USA
-
The Ohio class submarine is equipped with the
Trident strategic ballistic missile from Lockheed Martin Missiles and Space.The
submarine has the capacity for 24 Trident missile tubes in two rows of
12, capable of carrying up to twelve MIRVs (multiple independent
re-entry vehicles), each with a yield of 100 kilotons. The Ohio class submarines
serve the United States Navy as the virtually undetectable undersea launch
platforms of intercontinental missiles.In 2001, The United States alone
had a estimated 60-80 Ohio Class Nuclear ICBM Submarines which carried
the nuclear capacity of 23,000 Hiroshima bombs.
2005 Estimated Nuclear ICBMs
United States 10,925
Russia
20,000
France
450
China
400
Britain
185
Israel
100
India
40
Pakistan
15
North Korea
2
July 16, 1945 1st atomic bomb detonated, Trinity Site, Alamogordo, New Mexico
Russia
First nuclear test: 1949
Most recent nuclear test: 1990
Total tests: 715 (496 underground)
United
Kingdom
First nuclear test: 1952
Most recent nuclear test: 1991
Total tests: 45 (24 underground)
France
First nuclear test: 1960
Most recent nuclear test: 1996
Total tests: 210 (160 underground)
China
First nuclear test: 1964
Most recent nuclear test: 1996
Total tests: 43 (22 underground)
India
First nuclear test: 1974
Most recent nuclear test: 1998
Total tests: 7
Pakistan
First nuclear test: 1998
Most recent nuclear test: 1998
Total tests: 6
Israel
No Nuclear Tests
150-350 estimated nuclear weapons
North
Korea
No Nuclear Tests
5-15 estimated nuclear weapons
-------
-------------------------------------US
President Harry S. Truman 1945-1953
1945 April 12 Harry S. Truman becomes president upon the death
of President Franklin D. Roosevelt
May 7 V-E (Victory in Europe) Day: German armed forces surrender to Allies
July 16 The Manhattan Project scientists secretly detonate the first atomic bomb at Trinity Site in New Mexico
Aug. 6 An American B-29 drops the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan
Aug. 8 An American B-29 drops the second atomic bomb, this time on Nagasaki
Aug. 14 Emperor Hirohito announces Japan’s surrender. Truman declares V-J (Victory over Japan) Day, ending theWar.
----------------------------------
-------------The
World's First Atomic Weapon Celebrated it's 60th Birthday on July 16, 2005
--------------------
History of The Cold War
Certainly, NATO's procedures for "going nuclear" were designed to reduce
the risk of unauthorized use. But this created a tension between theory,
which suggested that deterrence was served by the risk that a conflict
might get out of control, and practice, which exhibited a determination
not to lose control. The tension was reflected in discussions over how
to replace the first generation of tactical nuclear weapons as they became
obsolete in the 1970s. If the next generation were made smaller
and more precise, then this would imply a readiness to use them to
fight a nuclear war rather than simply deter. An apparent readiness to
wage nuclear war was at the heart of a controversy over the "neutron bomb"
(actually a thermonuclear missile warhead or artillery shell of enhanced
radiation and reduced blast), which was criticized for blurring the boundary
between conventional and nuclear weapons and thereby making it much easier
to go nuclear.Even greater controversy was generated
by NATO's decision in 1979 to replace the Pershing IA, a medium-range
ballistic missile, with two weapons that would constitute a more powerful
intermediate nuclear force (INF): the Pershing II intermediate-range ballistic
missile (IRBM) and the Tomahawk cruise missile. The origins of the program
to modernize the INF lay in two western European concerns over the U.S.
nuclear guarantee. The first concern resulted from the tendency of the
United States in the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks
to concentrate on achieving symmetry between the nuclear forces of
the two superpowers, while paying little attention to the superiority,
within the European theatre, of the Warsaw Pact in both nuclear and conventional
weapons. Particularly worrisome was the Soviet SS-20, an IRBM that was
first tested in 1974 and deployed in 1977. Although the SS-20 did not signal
any shift in Soviet policy (U.S. military bases in Europe and the British,
French, and Chinese nuclear forces had long been targeted),
it was the first new missile designed for this purpose to have appeared
in some time. In 1977 Chancellor Helmut Schmidt of West Germany argued
that NATO should not tolerate Soviet superiority in such weapons. This
suggested that the imbalance should be dealt with either through arms control
or by an equivalent Western effort to upgrade its own INF.The second concern
placed far less stress on the SS-20 and more on the requirements, within
NATO's strategy of flexible response, to be able to strike Soviet territory
with systems based in western Europe in the event of full-scale war on
the Continent.
This requirement existed irrespective of the new Soviet missiles, and
it was becoming problematic because of the age of NATO's medium bombers
and the lack of any U.S. intermediate-range land-based missile in Europe.
A modernized INF made more sense than systems designed for battlefield
use, because they posed a direct threat to the Soviet homeland and thus
challenged Soviet ideas of confining any nuclear exchanges to NATO and
Warsaw Pact countries, with superpower territory accorded sanctuary status.
However, large-scale protests sprang up in Europe and North America
after the decision to modernize. Voicing a concern that a new arms race
was getting under way in Europe, they took on special urgency following
the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (two weeks after NATO's decision on
the INF), with the decline of arms control, and with the election of Ronald
Reagan, who had a hawkish reputation, to the U.S. presidency. The strength
of the protests encouraged NATO to moderate its policy. The rationale for
modernizing the INF was switched from the requirements of flexible response
to the more politically marketable aim of matching the deployment of the
SS-20, and in November 1981, at the start of negotiations on this issue,
Reagan offered to eliminate NATO's INF if all SS-20s were removed. This
"zero option" was rejected by Leonid Brezhnev, and, despite warnings from
the Soviet Union that deployment of a modernized INF would mean the end
of negotiations,
the first Tomahawk and Pershing II missiles were delivered in late
1983. Yury Andropov promptly broke off the INF talks, hoping to force a
breach in the unanimity of the NATO allies, but, when the expected crisis
failed to arise, Konstantin Chernenko agreed to resume negotiations. Soon
afterward Gorbachev was in charge, and he decided that the zero option
was in the Soviet interest: eliminating the INF would remove a direct threat
to Soviet territory in return for removing a larger
number of Soviet missiles that could strike only the allies of the
United States. In December 1987, Gorbachev and Reagan signed the INF Treaty.
Although America's allies saw that the treaty had political benefits in
improving East-West relations, some strategists worried that it sounded
the death knell for nuclear deterrence. One response by NATO was to see
whether it would be possible to build up other nuclear systems by way of
compensation, but the difficulty here was that the improved
political climate undermined public support for such moves. In West
Germany the question of modernizing the short-range Lance missile was coloured
by the direct and almost unique threat this weapon posed to German territory.
There had always been the strongest official support for the traditional
concept of nuclear deterrence in that country, but, with the political
climate improving, West German politicians such as Chancellor Helmut Kohl
came to argue that yet another nuclear modernization program would send
the wrong signals to the East. They were also unhappy at the apparent readiness
of the United States and Britain to retain Germany as a battlefield for
short-range nuclear exchanges while securing the removal of intermediate-
and long-range systems that threatened their own territories. The Soviet
Union possessed large numbers of short-range missiles and had been modernizing
them for a decade with such systems as the SS-21, but Gorbachev indicated
a readiness to negotiate their complete elimination. British prime minister
Margaret Thatcher and U.S. president George Bush insisted that this would
be imprudent, and, following their lead, NATO agreed in 1989 to postpone
modernizing the Lance in the hope that negotiations on conventional force
reductions would reach a satisfactory conclusion and thus reduce the importance
of nuclear weapons as a means of compensating for the Warsaw Pact's conventional
superiority.
The Bush administration was more orthodox on nuclear matters than its predecessor, but Reagan's interest in a nuclear-free world--highlighted by SDI, the Reykjavík summit, and the INF Treaty--had already encouraged discussion among some Europeans of the possibility of a European defense community that would be less dependent upon the United States. In practice this would require the substitution of a French and British strategic nuclear guarantee for an American. Britain had always, officially at least, committed its strategic nuclear forces (which since the late 1960s had been SLBMs) to NATO. Britain's rationale for maintaining a national nuclear force involved a combination of the political influence that could be brought to bear on its allies, especially the United States, and a claim to be contributing to the overall deterrent posture. France, by contrast, had always had a much more nationalistic rationale, but after the 1970s, following the introduction of the Pluton short-range missile, which could only land on German territory, it was obliged to consider the role that its force de frappe might have in the defense of its allies. In any event, neither Britain nor France was eager to take over from the United States the broader deterrent role; nor were those who had previously sheltered under the U.S. umbrella interested in a European alternative.
This
page has many articles on nuclear weapons Bulletin
of the Atomic Scientists
Also see www.uscoldwar.com
Neutron bombs, also called enhanced radiation bombs (ER weapons), are small nuclear weapons in which the burst of neutrons generated by the fusion reaction is intentionally not absorbed inside the weapon, but allowed to escape. The X-ray mirrors and shell of the weapon are made of chromium or nickel so that the neutrons are permitted to escape. This intense burst of high-energy neutrons is the principal destructive mechanism. Neutrons are more penetrating than other types of radiation, and many shielding materials that work well against gamma rays do not work nearly as well against neutrons. The term "enhanced radiation" refers only to the burst of ionizing radiation released at the moment of detonation, not to any enhancement of residual radiation in fallout. Neutron bombs are obsolescent because of their cost: A neutron bomb requires considerable amounts of tritium, which has a relatively short half-life (12.32 years). In order to maintain a hundred neutron bombs, an expensive constant supply of tritium must be provided.THE NEUTRON BOMB

The first and most important line of defense against chemical warfare agents (also needed for protection against radioactive fallout) was the individual protection provided by masks and protective clothing, and the collective protection of combat vehicles and mobile or fixed shelters. Filters for masks and shelters contained specially treated activated charcoal to remove vapours, and paper membranes or other materials to remove particles. Such filters typically could reduce the concentration of chemical (and biological) warfare agents by a factor of at least 100,000. Masks could be donned in less than 10 seconds and could be worn for long periods, even in sleep. Modern protective overgarments were made of fabric containing activated charcoal or other adsorptive forms of carbon. A complete suit typically weighed about four pounds (two kilograms). The fabric could breathe and pass water-vapour perspiration. In warm weather, periods of heavy exertion in full protective gear would have to be limited in order to avoid heat stress, or else protection would have to be partly relaxed, as by partially opening the protective jacket. Under common European conditions, military units routinely exercised at or near full protection for several days continuously. (see also Index: gas mask, filtration) Other items for chemical defense were detectors and alarms sensitive to nerve and blister agents, prophylactic and antidote drugs that would provide partial protection against nerve agents, and equipment for decontaminating people and equipment. The effectiveness of chemical weapons against prepared forces would depend more on the interference with fighting performance imposed by wearing protective equipment and taking other precautions than on direct casualties. The extent of such interference, and hence the military value of chemicals in comparison with other weapons, was difficult to assess. Estimates, based on controlled field exercises, of the reduction in performance in military units under chemical attack ranged from near zero to more than 30 percent, depending on the mission and the conditions of the exercise.
Toxic smokes and other toxic substances were used occasionally in war from ancient times, but the earliest large-scale use of chemical warfare agents was in World War I. Preceded by both sides' sporadic use of various tear gases in artillery and other projectiles starting in 1914, it was the German attack with chlorine released from thousands of cylinders along a four-mile (six-kilometre) front at Ypres on April 22, 1915, that initiated the massive use of chemicals in that conflict. The wind-borne cloud totally broke the lines of the unprepared French Territorial and Algerian units in its path, but the attackers failed to exploit the opportunity. Although numerous chlorine gas-cloud attacks were subsequently carried out by both sides, they accomplished little, owing to the introduction of gas masks and other protective measures. (see also Index: Ypres, Battles of) As other gases and more effective delivery methods were introduced, so too were improved defenses. Notable among offensive improvements were respiratory agents more poisonous than chlorine, such as phosgene, and chemicals that blistered the skin and attacked the eyes, especially mustard gas. The defense kept pace, with the introduction of better gas masks, protective clothing, and battlefield tactics for minimizing exposure. More than 100,000 tons of various chemical warfare agents were used in World War I; but gas was an unimportant weapon in overall military terms, largely because of the effectiveness of defenses against it.
In World War II, chemical weapons were stockpiled by both sides, but they were not used and were not integrated into military planning. Records indicated various reasons for this: (1) military opinion that chemical weapons would be no more effective than conventional weapons and would complicate and delay operations, (2) fear of retaliation, especially against civilian centres, and (3) aversion to gas warfare by political and military leaders, reflecting the proscriptions of the Geneva Protocol. Chemical weapons were used in only a few of the more than 200 wars fought after World War I. In each case--as in Ethiopia (1935-36), China (1938-42), the Yemen (1966-67), and Iraq-Iran (1984-88)--chemicals were used against forces initially lacking gas masks.
Chemical warfare agents are substances, whether gaseous, liquid, or solid, intended for use in warfare because of their direct toxic effects on people, animals, or plants. Worldwide revulsion toward chemical weapons is embodied in the Geneva Protocol of 1925, prohibiting "the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices." More than 140 states, including all major nations, are parties to the Protocol of 1925.
-----------------------Latest
News by Chronological
---------------------------------------------------------------------------Date
Below
-----------------------------------Is
This The End of Days?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------August
01, 2006
------------------
The current crisis in the Middle East may lead
to a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran. Although many feel
that Iran is 2-5 years away in producing nuclear
weapons, China & Russia are business allies of Iran in numerous
oil contracts. The nuclear reactor in Iran was
built using Russian technology and China's exploding economy relies
on Iranian oil. Both countries, as well as North
Korea could help Iran achieve their nuclear ambitions in a shorter
time frame by supplying Iran with more nuclear
technology. Both sides of the current Middle East crisis have
accused the other of accepting weapons from a
foreign power and both accusations are true. Iran is supplying
weapons to Syria while the United States is supplying
weapons to Israel. Once one side of this Middle East Conflict
begins using biological weapons against Israel,
Israel will no doubt launch it's nuclear arsenal against Iran which
could trigger a global thermonuclear war. In
the 1990 US Coalition war against Iraq, dictator Saddam Hussein
launched scud missiles against Israel in hope
that other Middle East countries would join him in
The Mother of All Battles.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
----------------------------------------------------------------------Ayatollah
Khomeini & Adolf Hitler
Muslim fanatics such as Osama bin Laden have twisted the muslim religion by interrupting the Koran to fit their terrorist and political agenda. This perverted interpretation of the Koran states that any non-muslims are infidels and sub-humans which calls for the killing of all humans whom are not of Islam. The last person who shared this ideology was Adolf Hitler who viewed the Jews, Communists, and other ethnic and political groups as sub-human and that they needed to be exterminated.
-------------------------------------------------------The
Arab-Israeli Conflict
The Arab-Israeli conflict dates back to the end
of the 19th century. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1917,
the conflict became a major international issue. Over time, the League
of Nations, Great Britain, the United Nations, the United States, and the
USSR, have all played major roles in the conflict, as does the Quartet
on the Middle East today. The conflict spans major wars including the 1948
Arab-Israeli War, 1956 Suez War, 1967 Six Day War, 1970 War of Attrition,
1973 Yom Kippur War, and 1982 Lebanon War as well as a number of lesser
conflicts. In the course of the conflict, many Arabs were displaced from
what is now Israel, and many Jews were displaced from what is now Algeria,
Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, the Palestinian
Territories, Syria, Tunisia, and Yemen (see Palestinian refugees and Jewish
exodus from Arab lands). The conflict has also been the source of two major
Palestinian intifadas (uprisings). Al-Qaeda, a largely Arab organization,
has cited the conflict among its justifications for attacks on targets
in the West.There are far more than two opposing viewpoints (Israeli/Jewish
and Palestinian/Arab) in regards to the reasons for the conflict between
these two groups, as opinions within groups and throughout the world differ
greatly.The Arab-Israeli conflict is the result of numerous factors. Reasons
cited for the conflict therefore vary from participant to participant and
observer to observer. A powerful example of this divide can be found in
opinion surveys of Palestinians and Israelis. In a March, 2005 poll 63%
of the Israelis blamed the failure of the Oslo Peace Process on Palestinian
violence, but only 5% of the Palestinians agreed. 54% of Palestinians put
the blame on continuing Israeli settlement activity, but only 20% of the
Israelis agreed [1]. It is therefore difficult to develop a single, objective
reason for the conflict, so this article will present some of the arguments
made by each side, in turn.
There is not a single "Israeli view"; there are many different Israeli views, which differ widely. But most are moderately peaceful; asking for a two state government with Jews and Muslims together.When Israel met Arab leaders who spoke the language of peace to their own people and were willing to take concrete steps for peace, such as President Sadat of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan, Israel made sacrifices for the sake of peace and reached peace agreements with them. Peacemaking requires concessions and confidence-building measures on both sides. Just as Israel is willing to address the rights and interests of other parties in the conflict, Israelis insist that their rights and interests must be addressed as well. In 2000, at Camp David, the Palestinians were offered a nominally independent state composed of discontiguous parts of most of Gaza and the West Bank, with Israeli control over its airspace, borders and trade. Led by Arafat, the Palestinians rejected this offer, claiming that this state would be a "Bantustan" (a state divided in many pieces) without sovereignty. The Israeli government attempted to reduce Palestinian authority into various parcels of land with varying degrees of autonomy. These would be surrounded by the Israeli army. This would effectively place the costs of maintaining the Palestinians on the PLO while leaving military power in the hands of the Israeli's. Therefore the Palestinian Arabs rejected the proposal. When President Clinton and the Israelis asked the Palestinians to offer a counter-proposal, Arafat declined and returned to the West Bank. Later, further negotiations did take place, but they were terminated by the Israeli side.
Many if not most Israelis believe that the conflict is largely a result of Arab attempts to destroy Israel, and that only Israeli military power stands between them and annihilation..They characterize the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the 1967 Six Day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War as attempts to destroy Israel. As evidence of this intent, pro-Israeli literature often places a heavy emphasis on statements made by Arab leaders during and preceding the wars. "If Israel embarks on an aggression against Syria or Egypt...The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel." (Gamal Abdel Nasser's speech to Arab Trade Unionists (May 26, 1967) On May 30, 1967, Nasser proclaimed: "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel...to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations." (Isi Leibler, The Case For Israel, 1972, p.60.) After Iraq joined the Arab military alliance in June 4, its president Abdur Rahman Aref announced: "The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear - to wipe Israel off the map."
Israel claims that it has demonstrated flexibility and understanding by bringing about the initiation of the peace process, agreeing to painful concessions, and partially implementing them. As opposed to this, many Israelis consider that the predominant Palestinian views of the peace process do not recognize Israel's right to exist, and believe that the only real long-term Arab goal is the complete destruction of the Jewish state. Some Palestinian and Arab leaders believe that Palestinians are justified in using violence against any Israeli, seeing all Israelis as illegal occupants, and arguing that Israel's universal conscription renders almost all Israelis potential combatants. They see these illegal occupants as the source of tens of thousands of deaths, and millions of refugees. Some claim that trusting the international community to help them to get their rights back is useless, suggesting that, in recent history, as long as Palestinians were peaceful no state made any serious efforts to solve their problem. In their opinion, only when other countries see Palestinian problems as causing problems to themselves do they help Palestine.Despite having underlying grievances in common, the relationships between the PLO and Hamas and other Palestinian factions is rife with philosophical and tactical differences, as well as frequent power struggles, all of which tend to work to Israel's advantage and weaken Palestinians' ability to influence the outcome of the conflict.Arab publications and others have compared Zionism to German Nazism and other historical examples of oppression and ethnic cleansing. Many Arabs, and others, believe Israel practices a form of "Apartheid" against the Palestinian people.
----------------------A
Nuclear Detonation in New York or Terhan?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------May
1, 2006
-----
-------------
-------------
-----------
------------------
--
-----
-------
----
--
---US President Bush--China
President Hu-UK Primeminister Blair---Ariel
Sharon---Iran President
Ahmadinejad
--------------------------------------
2006 MAY: The start of the new millenia is not even 7 years old, yet
the terror in this short time frame is staggerring. Both man made and natural
disasters have had devastating global effects on the population, economics,
and the earth's ecology as well. The political and relegious sects of the
current global community range from the fanatic to the terrorist realm
of idealology. The world had overcome what many felt was the doomsday scenerio
in the year 2000, where many felt that planes would fall from the sky,
economies would crash, and nuclear weapons systems would be affected by
launching ICBMs in error due to the perceived 2000 computer glitch in which
most computer systems might read the new millenia as 1000 A.D. instead
of 2000 A.D. As the dawn of the new millenia came, none of these catostrophic
events took place and the world heaved a sigh of relleif which would only
be short lived. Below is a date line which has a most disturbing trend
and where our world may be heading.
2001: Terrorists attack United States. Hijackers ram jetliners into twin towers of New York City's World Trade Center and the Pentagon. A fourth hijacked plane crashes 80 mi outside of Pittsburgh. Toll of dead is more than 3,000. Within days, Islamic militant Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda terrorist network are identified as the parties behind the attacks (Sept. 11). In response to Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, U.S. and British forces launch bombing campaign against Taliban government and al-Qaeda terrorist camps in Afghanistan. Bombings continue on a daily basis.Israel condemns the Palestinian Authority as a “terror-supporting entity” and severs ties with leader Yasir Arafat following mounting violence against Israelis. The Israeli Army begins bombing Palestinian areas (Dec. 4 et seq.). Israel condemns the Palestinian Authority as a “terror-supporting entity” and severs ties with leader Yasir Arafat following mounting violence against Israelis. The Israeli Army begins bombing Palestinian areas (Dec. 4 et seq.). Earthquake kills thousands in India (Jan. 26 et seq.).
2002: President Bush's first State of Union address labels Iran, Iraq, and North Korea “an axis of evil” (Jan. 29). The trial of Slobodan Milosevic on charges of crimes against humanity opens at The Hague (Feb. 12). U.S. and Afghan troops launch Operation Anaconda against remaining al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters in Afghanistan (March 2). Dirty bomb plot foiled with arrest of Jose Padilla (June 10). U.S. abandons 31-year-old Antiballistic Missile treaty (June 13).North Korea admits to developing nuclear arms in defiance of treaty (Oct. 16). Israeli tanks and warplanes attack West Bank towns of Nablus, Jenin, Bethlehem, and others in response to string of Palestinian suicide attacks. In the first three months of 2002, 14 suicide bombers killed dozens of Israeli civilians and wounded hundreds (March 29–April 21).The trial of Slobodan Milosevic on charges of crimes against humanity opens at The Hague (Feb. 12).Bush signs legislation creating cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security (Nov. 25).
2003: North Korea withdraws from treaty on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons (Jan. 10). U.S. Secretary of State Powell presents Iraq war rationale to UN, citing Iraqi weapons as imminent threat to world security (Feb. 5). Massive peace demonstrations take place around the world, protesting potential invasion of Iraq (Feb. 15). The United States and Britain launch war against Iraq (March 19). Baghdad falls to U.S. troops (April 9). European Union expands by ten nations (April 16). Terrorists strike in Saudi Arabia, killing 34 at Western compound; al-Qaeda suspected (May 12).International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) discovers Iran's concealed nuclear activities and calls for intensified inspections (June 18). Suicide bombing destroys UN headquarters in Baghdad, killing 24, including top envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello (Aug. 19). Palestinian suicide bombing in Jerusalem kills 20 Israelis, including 6 children (Aug. 19).After Israel retaliates for suicide bombing by killing top member of Hamas, militant Palestinian groups formally withdraw from cease-fire in effect since June 29 (Aug. 24). Palestinian prime minister Mahmoud Abbas resigns; “road map” to peace effectively collapses (Sept. 6).Dec. 26, 2003: Bam, Iran; magnitude 6.5; more than 26,000 killed.
2004: A. Q. Khan, founder of Pakistan's nuclear program, admits he sold nuclear-weapons designs to other countries, including North Korea, Iran, and Libya (Feb. 4). U.S. media release graphic photos of American soldiers abusing and sexually humiliating Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison. Images spark outrage around the world (April 30).UN Atomic Energy Agency tells Iran to stop enriching uranium; a nascent nuclear weapons program suspected (Sept. 18). Enormous tsunami devastates Asia; at least 225,000 killed (Dec. 26). Iraq weapons investigator David Kay resigns, says there’s no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, one of the Bush administration’s chief reasons for launching war in Iraq (Jan. 23). Spain is rocked by terrorist attacks, killing more than 200. Al Qaeda takes responsibility (March 11).Dec. 26, 2004: Sumatra, Indonesia; magnitude 9.0; more than 176,000 people killed in 11 countries from earthquake and subsequent tsunami.devastates Asia; at least 225,000 killed (Dec. 26).
2005: Former Teheran mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a hard-line conservative, wins Iran's presidential election with 62% of the vote. He defiantly pursues Iran's nuclear ambitions over the course of his first year (June 24). Hurricane Katrina wreaks catastrophic damage on the Gulf coast; more than 1,000 die and millions are left homeless. Americans are shaken not simply by the magnitude of the disaster but by how ill-prepared all levels of government were in its aftermath. (Aug. 25–30). The New York Times reports that in 2002, Bush signed a presidential order to allow the National Security Agency to spy on Americans suspected of being connected to terrorist activity without warrants (Dec. 15). Pakistan Rescuers searched frantically in the rubble of flattened towns and villages on Sunday for survivors of a devastating earthquake that killed more than 70,000 in northern Pakistan and India.
A ongoing threat of World War III may begin with the global community
seeking a two-nation proposal of Israel and Palestine.
The Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon suffered a stroke in January
2006 and the newly elected Hamas took over the Palestine government in
the elections of January 25, 2006. .The Hamas was formed in in 1987 and
has vowed the total annihilation of Israel, a similar 2006 statement which
was made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
It is no surprise that Hamas is the Hebrew word root for 'violent" or "violence".
While global leaders hope that a Two-State Solution of Israel and Palestine
would bring stability and peace in this region of the Middle East, is a
futile plan. The nations of Iran, Syria, Iraq, ,Libya, and other Muslim
nations seek a common goal. This goal is the destruction and the occupation
of Israel and the holy city of Jerusalem, where The Dome of The Rock is
located, Islam's holiest site. The Dome of The Rock was built over the
same area where Israel's Holiest site, The Temple once stood until it's
destruction in 70 A.D. by the Roman army.. One must remember that the leaders
of these nations who use Islam as an excuse to conquer the nation of Israel
are not true Muslims at all. It's an excuse to use religion as their diplomacy
for war and conquest just as the Christians had done in the middle ages
during the crusades. These crusades were not done in the same of God, these
crusades were used to occupy, plunder and steal the wealth of other nations.
The Christian fanatics of that area are no different than the Muslim fanatics
who rule in the current Muslim World of today. Iran's desire to acquire
nuclear weapons feel it would show that they are a global power and hope
to revive Iran to a global power just as it was 2,000 years ago when
it was known as the nation of Persia.
While a threat of some small nuclear device being detonated in a western country is a horrible but plausible act, another nuclear device similar in size could be detonated in the Middle East in numerous populated places such as Tehran, Babylon, Afghanistan, Oman, and other nations whom have been labeled by Europe and The West as terrorist or fanatical states whose leaders are drunk on their perverted vision of the Islam religion. In closing, simply look at today's global map and one can see the Iranian desire for atomic weapons. Iran's neighboring nations to the east are China India and Pakistan, the latest nations who now possess nuclear weapons. Iran's northern neighbor is Russia with over 6,000 nuclear weapons, and western European nuclear powers France and The United Kingdom also pose a threat as well as Israel in the Middle East. Today's Iran is surrounded by weapons that could annihilate Iran and WIPE THEM OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH, the same rhetoric which was used by Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in the winter of 2006. A plausible scenario leading the world into a Third World War include the nations of The United States, China, Israel, United Kingdom, and Iran. As China's economic boom shows no signs of slowing, their consumption of oil makes them the world's second largest user of petroleum, second only to the US. This will no doubt lead to conflicts and the possible confrontation in controlling the vast oil fields of The Middle East. Israel will be put in a horrible situation as the Arab World and many Muslim Nations seek the total destruction of Israel. This mixture of economics, political and religious diplomacy is a recipe for global war on a thermonuclear scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------Iran
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
----------------------------------------------------------------Nuclear
Dirty Bombs
2006 MAY: Many theories have arisen concerning
a terrorist cell, backed by a Islamic nation would detonate a nuclear device
in a major US city. This nuclear device, known as a dirty bomb could be
concealed in an object the size of a suitcase. the principal type of dirty
bomb, or Radiological Dispersal Device (RDD), combines a conventional explosive,
such as dynamite, with radioactive material. In most instances, the conventional
explosive itself would have more immediate lethality than the radioactive
material. A second type of RDD might involve a powerful radioactive source
hidden in a public place, such as a trash receptacle in a busy train or
subway station, where people passing close to the source might get a significant
dose of radiation. A dirty bomb is in no way similar to a nuclear weapon.
The presumed purpose of its use would be therefore not as a Weapon of Mass
Destruction but rather as a Weapon of Mass Disruption. While the threat
of such a weapon being used on American soil is plausible, the threat of
some nation using a dirty bomb on Tehran and other cities in Iran is just
as plausible. In any event, retaliation would be swift and no mercy would
be the dominant foreign policy. Once such weapons are used, there would
be no stopping the escalation of thermonuclear war.
----------------------------------
-------------------------DISASTERS
INCREASE TEN FOLD FROM
-------------------------------------2000
THROGH THE SPRING OF 2004
The numerous natural disasters have increase ten fold in the years
2000-2004 compared to the decade 1990-1999. The bellow statistics show
the increase and the rising occurrences of natural disasters that
began in the new millennia year 2000 through the spring of 2004,
a span of only 4.1/2 years.
1990 to 1999 Major Hurricanes, Typhoons, Tornados
( 25 ) 2000 to the spring of 2004 ( 23 )
1990 to 1999 Floods, Tidal Waves ( 24 ) 2000 to the spring
of 2004 ( 35 )
1990 to 1999 Major Earthquakes ( 29 ) 2000
to the spring of 2004 (17 )
* The above time frame is 2000 through the spring of 2004 and does
include the disasters since the summer of 2004 that included the Indonesia
Tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, and the powerful earthquake that devastated
Iran
Other natural phenomena which threaten our world that is not listed above include global warming, depletion of the ozone layer, the melting of the polar ice cap, El~Nino' , volcanic eruptions, and the depletion of the rain forest and the wetlands, are all threats to the survival of mankind. Man is slowly killing the earth and it can not go on forever until nature unleashes it's fury on the human race.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------Iran & Nuclear Weapons
2006 APRIL: U.S. crude oil prices neared a record above $70 a
barrel on Monday, April 17 as Iran's pursuit of its nuclear program
heightened fears the United States might take military action against the
oil-producing nation. London's Brent crude on Monday rose 89 cents to $71.46
after touching a new record high of $71.62. Fear of possible disruption
of supplies from Iran, the world's fourth-largest oil exporter, has helped
drive the price of U.S. crude more than 20 percent higher since mid-February.
Another concern is the shut-in of more than 500,000 barrels per day in
OPEC producer Nigeria following militant unrest.
----------------------------
The city of Bandar Abbas sits at the gateway
to the Persian Gulf, astride the Straits of Hormuz where 40% of the world's
oil supply travels through that Strait. The Strait is 21 miles wide at
its narrowest point, and practically speaking even narrower than that:
there's a one-mile-wide channel in each direction, separated by a two-mile
"median." If anything happens to block that channel, the global community
would be thrown into economic chaos. In the "tanker wars" of 1984-1987,
Iran and Iraq had exhausted their forms of military artillery and
started going after oil tankers. Iraq attacked those ships bearing Iranian
oil exports, and Iran responded with Silkworm anti-ship missiles and mining
the Straits.
Former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said on Monday Iran would continue to pursue its nuclear program following its announcement last week it had enriched uranium for use in power stations. "The Islamic Republic of Iran does not intend to stop," he told reporters in Kuwait during a visit to the Gulf state. On April 11, 2006, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran had successfully enriched uranium. This came about when Ahmadinejad announced the news in a televised address from the northeastern city of Mashhad, saying "I am officially announcing that Iran joined the group of those countries which have nuclear technology." On April 13, 2006, After Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said (on Wednesday, April 12, 2006) the Security Council must consider "strong steps" to induce Tehran to change course in its nuclear ambition; Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed that Iran won't back away from uranium enrichment and said the world must treat Iran as a nuclear power. On April 14, 2006, The Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS [16]) published a series of analyzed satellite images of Iran's nuclear facilities at Natanz and Esfahan. Featured in these images is a new tunnel entrance near the Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) at Esfahan and continued construction at the Natanz uranium enrichment site.Iranians say there is currently no evidence that Iran is using its nuclear power capabilities to produce nuclear weapons, and the known facilities do not have the capability to produce weapons grade material. Any other use outside peaceful energy production would be a violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which Iran ratified in 1970.
The West suspects the nation is trying to build an atomic bomb and talk of a U.S. attack has topped the international news agenda since a report in The New Yorker magazine this month said Washington was considering using tactical nuclear weapons to knock out Iran's subterranean nuclear sites. A nuclear strike against Iran would no doubt signal a prelude to War World III. Iran has strong economic partnerships with China and Russia. In 1995, Iran signed a contract with Russia to resume work on the partially complete Bushehr plant, installing into the existing Bushehr I building a 915MWe VVER-1000 pressurized water reactor. In 1996, the U.S. tried, without success, to block China from selling to Tehran a conversion plant. China also provided Iran with gas needed in for the enriched uranium process.
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated publically that Israel should be wiped off the global map and has been a vocal supporter of Iran's nuclear program. In 1975, The U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, had signed National Security Decision Memorandum 292, titled "U.S.-Iran Nuclear Cooperation," which laid out the details of the sale of nuclear energy equipment to Iran. President Gerald R. Ford even signed a directive in 1976 offering Tehran the chance to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. The deal was for a complete "nuclear fuel cycle", with all the dangerous consequences that would entail including the possibility of this plutonium being used sooner or later to make weapons. President Ford's team endorsed Iranian plans to build a massive nuclear energy industry, but also worked hard to complete a multibillion-dollar deal that would have given Tehran control of large quantities of plutonium and enriched uranium -- the two pathways to a nuclear bomb. The thought of a Iran nuclear weapon sends chills through out the world as the Iran leadership is filled with religious zealots and fanatics who would use a nuclear weapon against Israel, in which Israel would respond with the launching of it's nuclear arsenal against Iran. Once this nuclear exchange takes place, it will engulf the globe and trigger World War III.
-------------------------United
States & China Heading for Nuclear Armageddon?
------------------------------
-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------July
29, 2005
------------------------------
2005 JULY: The largest consumers of global oil are The United States
followed by China's industrial and economic growth. The Cold War
between the USSR & the US had ended in the 1990s, mainly due to Russia's
lack of economic growth. The fall of the Berlin Wall which some attribute
to many factors such as President Ronald Wilson Reagan 1980s foreign policy
may have some validity to it, but as in any nation, without economic stability,
no nation can sustain any type of nuclear deterrent or a strong military.
Both The US and China currently employ both necessities which may lead
to volatile cold war or a nuclear exchange to achieve global supremacy.
Why would any person make such a audacious claim? The latest developments
below seem to be heading in that direction. In a recent report, a high
ranking North Korean leader had defected to South Korea stating he had
personally seen a one-tonne nuclear weapon with 4kg of plutonium. The source,
who goes by the alias of Kim H-do, also stated that North Korea had approached
Taiwan to sell nuclear weapons. This sent shock waves through Beijing China,
which considers Taiwan a territorial province and was alarmed that Taiwan
was being presented with the option to acquire of nuclear missiles. Kim
H-do also was reported as saying that North Korea was in the process of
making smaller missiles with 500kg nuclear war heads for easier deployment
and launching capabilities. Other reports mention the build up of the North
Korean military and small submersible ships with stealth technology. The
North Korean economy continues to spiral downward and thought of selling
nuclear weapons to terrorists or to rouge nations is becoming financially
attractive to North Korea.. The only options open to the US to halt nuclear
programs by other nations are to offer economical help, supply light water
nuclear reactors and oil in hopes that these nations will freeze their
nuclear programs. In short, The US and other nations are open to nuclear
black mail and extortion. Iran and other nations with clandestine nuclear
programs are watching The US and how the US will handle the North Korea
nuclear problem. Will North North Korea be allowed to become a nuclear
power without reprisals.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese General Zhu Chenghu stated, " China is prepared to use nuclear
weapons against The United States if they get involved in a China-Taiwan
confrontation. If the Americans are determined to interfere, we will respond."
The Chinese government down played the General Zhu remarks, but it displayed
the aggressive attitude of the Chinese military leaders. In the past China
has vowed to retake Taiwan by force if necessary. The Zhu statement have
raised concerns at the Pentagon. China has already retargeted 75% of it's
nuclear missiles to hit American cities. Other factors in this report include
India and Pakistan, who have nuclear weapons and lie on the borders of
China. US President Bush has already agreed to let India buy civilian nuclear
technology from America which makes this a more volatile nuclear and political
agenda. President Bush made this commitment to India's prime minister Manmohan
Singh in a July 2005 meeting in Washington DC. This US-India nuclear pact
may have been made to thwart any military aggression by China. This
US-India nuclear alliance may very well have the opposite effect in which
India and China become allies against the US since they border each other,
plus India and China's combined population of 2.7 billion account for almost
50% of the world's total population. North Korean ruler Kim Jong II may
feel he has the upper hand in a dangerous nuclear game. If North Korea
were to enact any military aggression, it will trigger a United Nations
response just as it did in 1950. The superiority of American technologies
and it's space weapons program, as well as network-centric will reduce
North Korea to rubble as the world will not allow another Hiroshima to
descend on mankind.
------------------------
FROM THE NEUTRON BOMB TO THE ADS LASER WEAPON-------------------------------------
4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of
the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men
which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.
5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that
they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment
of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.
Thus weapon and future weapons will be deployed in space and numerous nations such as Russia and China have vowed to prevent this military use of space, even if they have to use military force. The frantic statements by both Russia and China were made with a total confirmation that any nation that uses space to deploy military weapons will be attacked, using what ever military means available. In retrospect, what would the United States policy be if Iran or North Korea were to deploy these weapons in space? The answer to that question is our present war in Iraq due to the rumors that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and the US invaded Iraq in what seems now a winless and costly war.. The more terrifying aspect of these new weapons is that the US government will use these new laser weapons on their own citizens in order to Protect National Security during any type of insurrection or civilians protesting certain acts which they feel unconstitutional or immoral committed by the government.
One of the earliest versions of the ADS System 1 was deployed at the Air Force Research Base at Kirkland N.M. in the fall of 2004. Engineers are working on other applicable uses of ADS such as laser beams to shoot down missiles and micro wave beams to disable electronics, such as the detonation of a nuclear weapon which achieves the same goal, known as EMP, Electronic Magnetic Pulse. In a nuclear explosion, a high altitude nuclear detonation produces an immediate flux of gamma rays from the nuclear reactions within the device. These photons in turn produce high energy free electrons by Compton scattering at altitudes between (roughly) 20 and 40 km. These electrons are then trapped in the Earths magnetic field, giving rise to an oscillating electric current. This current is asymmetric in general and gives rise to a rapidly rising radiated electromagnetic field called an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). Because the electrons are trapped essentially simultaneously, a very large electromagnetic source radiates coherently. The pulse can easily span continent sized areas, and this radiation can affect systems on land, sea, and air. The first recorded EMP incident accompanied a high altitude nuclear test over the South Pacific and resulted in power system failures as far away as Hawaii. A large device detonated at 400–500 km over Kansas would knock out all of the electronic devices and power grids.
-----------------------------------------------------THE NEUTRON BOMB
-------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------1949
Photo of Leo Szilard
-------------------------------------------------------------------THE
DOOMSDAY BOMB
The idea of the cobalt bomb originated with Leo Szilard who publicized
it in Feb.1950,not as a serious proposal for a weapon,but to point out
that it would soon be possible in principle to build a single weapon that
would kill everyone on earth.To design such a weapon a radioactive isotope
is needed that can be dispersed world wide before it decays.The design
would be reminiscent of a fission-fusion-fission weapon.A thick cobalt
metal blanket is used to capture the fusion neutrons to
maximize the fallout hazard.Instead of generating additional explosive
force from fast fission U-238 the cobalt is transmuted into Co-60 which
produces energetic & penetrating gamma rays. Leo Szilard had also considered
The Neutron Bomb and it's effects of this intense burst of high-energy
neutrons is the principal destructive mechanism. Neutron bombs could be
used as strategic anti-missile weapons or as tactical weapons intended
for use against armored forces. As an anti-missile weapon, ER weapons were
developed to protect United States Intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM)
silos from incoming Soviet warheads by damaging their electronic components
with the intense neutron flux. Tactical neutron bombs are primarily intended
to kill soldiers who are protected by armor. Armored vehicles are extremely
resistant to blast and heat produced by nuclear weapons, so the effective
range of a nuclear weapon against tanks is determined by the lethal range
of the radiation, although this is also reduced by the armor. By emitting
large amounts of lethal radiation of the most penetrating kind, ER warheads
maximize the lethal range of a given yield of nuclear warhead against armored
targets. One problem with using radiation as a tactical anti-personnel
weapon is that to bring about rapid incapacitation of the target, a radiation
dose that is many times the lethal level must be administered. A radiation
dose of 6 Gy is normally considered lethal. It will kill at least half
of those who are exposed to it, but no effect is noticeable for several
hours. Neutron bombs were intended to deliver a dose of 80 Gy to produce
immediate and permanent incapacitation. A 1 kt ER warhead can do this to
a T-72 tank crew at a range of 690 m, compared to 360 m for a pure fission
bomb. For a "mere" 6 Gy dose, the distances are 1100 m and 700 m respectively,
and for unprotected soldiers 6 Gy exposures occur at 1350 m and 900 m.
The lethal range for tactical neutron bombs exceeds the lethal range for
blast and heat even for unprotected troops.
The neutron flux can induce significant amounts of short-lived secondary radioactivity in the environment in the high flux region near the burst point. The alloy steels used in armor can develop radioactivity that is dangerous for 24-48 hours. If a tank exposed to a 1 kt neutron bomb at 690 m (the effective range for immediate crew incapacitation) is immediately occupied by a new crew, they will receive a lethal dose of radiation within 24 hours. Authorities say that the common perception of the neutron bomb as a "landlord bomb" that would kill people but leave buildings undamaged is greatly overstated. At the conventional effective combat range (690 m), the blast from a 1 kt neutron bomb will destroy or damage to the point of inutility almost any civilian building. Thus the use of neutron bombs to stop an enemy attack, which requires exploding large numbers of them to blanket the enemy forces, would also destroy all buildings in the area. Another view of the neutron bomb and its tactics exists. The inventor of the neutron bomb, Samuel Cohen, wrote a book in which he stated that the effective range of a pure neutron bomb exceeded 10 km of altitude. Cohen stated explicitly that "enhanced radiation" weapons deployed in Germany during the cold war were political compromises designed to have substantial blast, with radiation effects deliberately reduced to eliminate any possibility of surviving structures. He also quoted radiation releases of 1 kGy at the ground from pure neutron weapons exploded at 10 km. The neutron absorption spectra of air is disputed, and may depend in part on absorption by hydrogen from water vapor. It therefore might vary exponentially with humidity, making high-altitude neutron bombs immensely more deadly in desert climates than in humid ones. This effect also varies with altitude. According to Cohen, one possible tactic of using such "true" neutron bombs is therefore to launch them as defensive weapons against armored attacks. Civilians enter fallout shelters, and the bomb is exploded 10 km over the armored attack. Portable armor is said to be unable to shield tank and aircraft crews. In such an event, a city's trees and grass would have been killed by radiation, but buildings would remain undamaged for the emerging civilians (who would however have to wait several days for certain short-lived isotopes to decay). Such neutron bombs would be very potent anti-ship weapons. A major supporter of Cohen's research was the U.S. Navy. The neutron bomb was invented at the Lawrence Livermore national laboratory by Samuel Cohen and first included in the United States nuclear arsenal in 1974.
A recent report mentioned The Neutron Bomb Plan against Terrorist States, also known as the Lucom Plan, reportedly to save the United States from being destroyed as a great nation by worldwide terrorism. If this report is valid, and I do hope it's not, it is another step toward a global war. Some have suggested that President Bush and Congress must realize the very survival of the United States as a great nation is now at stake. The United States will not survive unless President Bush and Congress take action now before there is another terrorist strike. How could the terrorists accomplish this final tall order? They could strike Boulder Dam, causing a huge power shortage. Even more deadly would be poisoning the water supply of New York City with the lethal bacterium anthrax. It is not widely known that anthrax is a silent, deadly killer. One hundred million lethal doses per gram (a teaspoonful) is 100,000 times more deadly than the most deadly chemical warfare weapon. (Time Almanac, 2001) Instead of being "politically correct," Some Washington fanatics feel President Bush must be like the great Harry Truman, who was "politically incorrect" in having the courage to drop the atomic bomb on Japan, immediately ending World War II and saving thousands of American soldiers' lives. The insolence in even suggesting that President Bush must immediately drop the neutron bomb, ending the terrorist war immediately, is as fanatical as terrorism itself. These pinheads in Washington who feel that Bush must drop the neutron bomb instead of allowing the war to continue, which would keep his high approval ratings but let hundreds of thousands of American soldiers be killed unnecessarily. Psychologically, the threat of an action is almost as effective as the action itself. Some feel Bush should at least threaten to use the neutron bomb to isolate the nations that protect terrorism from the nations that support the United States. President Bush does not need the consent of the U.N. or any Arab nations in a coalition to defend the U.S. against terrorist attack. President Bush must defend the U.S. first before any more terrorist attacks can occur. This is why the Lucom Plan must be used according to these military and political fascist within the US military and political circle. The more Bush delays, attempting to build the tenuous coalition, the more time he gives the terrorists for more attacks on the U.S. The idea of the United States will drop the neutron bomb on all nations that harbor terrorists is the same ideology that Hitler harbored during the last days of WW II, by destroying all of Germany's factories and industries, stating, "If Germany is defeated, they will conquer a nation of rubble left in ashes.". This Neutron bomb Lucom Plan states it is far cheaper and will cost far fewer lives of American troops than a ground war. Not one American soldier would be killed. The harboring country would be bombed as Japan was bombed. If Iraq or another terrorist-supporting country was bombed, the other harboring countries would get the message and oust all terrorists, leaving them nowhere to go. They would be turned over to the U.S. for carrying out the death sentence or cease to operate. Even if not turned over, they would have no home base to gather and plan future attacks, so they would be out of business. The Lucom Plan is the most competent, efficient way to end terrorism in a short time, wherever it exists. This type of ideology of using a weapon to end terrorism is frightful and terrifying. Once any nation starts pressing the nuclear option buttons, other nations with similar weapons will respond with a full retaliatory strike on the United States.PRESIDENT BUSH & THE NEUTRON BOMB PLAN
--------------------------------------WEAPON DEPLOYMENT IN SPACE A REALITY
US weapon scientist, Richard Garwin had wrote that the US military has already spent billions of dollars in space weapons research. The Pentagon has developed space weapons which could be deployed by 2008 and stated it's reason was to protect US satellites from any form of attack. One weapon which has been funded is the common aero vehicle ( CAV ) .The basic idea of the CAV is using hypervelocity rods and radio frequency weapons. The hypervelocity rods are made of a tungsten metal alloy and these rods have the capability to strike any target on the planet. The Air Force stated the CAV has been canned but others feel it has just been renamed as a hypersonic technology vehicle ( HTV ). Some of these military weapons are financed through a military black budget so it's impossible to actually know what programs are being developed. The ex-secretary of the Air Force, James Roach stated that the US needs some form of deterrent that included kinetic weapons in order to protect US satellites.
On May 24, 2005 Vladimir Yermakov, The Russian Embassy counselor stated if the Americans put a combat weapon into space that Russia would have to react. "Our policy is not to create situations that would lead to a confrontation with the United States government. But, if we find ourselves in a situation were we need to react, we will.."
---The
Department of Defense Electronics Spending Will Exceed 60
--------------------------------------------------------------------Billion
Dollars by 2006
-
-
-
------------------
--
The US Department of Defense is proposing a 7.8% increase in spending in the research and development of technologies which include optoelelectronics, avionics, vetronis and missile guidance systems, and intelligence gathering technology. The US Air Force is asking for 838 million dollars for The Transformational Satellite Communications ( TSAT ) and the military satellite program, a part of the DOD's global GPS monitoring and surveillance satellites. The Military Network Centric approach to military scenarios are not the same as in past wars. The modern day military is in a transitional phase to develop various technologies in the war fare spectrum. The commitment to NETWORK CENTRIC has been criticized and praised by numerous individuals on both sides of the spectrum. Below are examples of technology advancements.
---------------THE
PHRASELATOR ---------- WAFER
SENSORS--------------------------------PHOTONIC
----
-
-
Today's modern military must learn to adapt. Such devices as the PHRASELATOR,
a hand held robot which can translate languages quickly in the field are
proving to be useful to our military servicemen in the field. Opto
Diode in New York City, that specializing in the manufacture of LED’s,
IR LED’s, silicon photodiodes, gallium aluminum arsenide photodiodes and
opto-electronic assemblies. Examples include line sources, point sources,
custom geometry photodiodes, custom packages and high power LED and IRLED
arrays. Another product is High Power GaAlAs IR Emitter Chip. Phontonic
Products located in Broad Oak England has a broad range of products
that include optoelectronic components, plastic lenses, laser line generators,
laser diode collimators and modules. Potential applications of this technology
include image sensor formatting.. The Aspherical glass lenses are a key
device of optical electronics, with high product reliability and stability
achieved by a wide range of glass material and a variety of designs. Panasonic's
unique manufacturing process, "One Shot" precision molding, as well as
their excellent aspherical designs enable devices using these lenses to
be smaller and lighter with higher performance.
-
-
--Improved
Sensor Technology & The Orbiting Sensorlite Maxwell SCS750
The military's infra-red sensor scope technology, used in night time imaging has been using the upgraded 2.5 generation of scopes. These 2.5 generation scopes are lighter, smaller, and have better power than their predecessors.. In March of 2005, designers at Chatenay-Malabry in France displayed their new infra-red sensors which are based on an alloy called MCT for mercury cadmium telluride which increases the sensors range of wave length from .08 microns to to 15 microns. Sensors Unlimited, a company located in Princeton, NJ. are using indium gallium arsenide based short ranged infrared sensor imaging for the military's night vision and laser program known as DARPA's MANTIS and LADAR. The MANTIS sensors are imbedded in the soldier's battle field helmet, and the information is processed through military satellites. The MAXWELL SCS750, known as the Sensor-Lite is the major military satellite which processes sensor data on a global scale. Sensors Unlimited has provided the military an all solid state sensor, 640 by 512 pixel prototype camera capable of transmitting analog video images that can detect a camouflaged human target at 100 meters under star light conditions. The $6 billion NPOESS weather satellite will replace existing civilian and military weather satellites with one national one national system to monitor short and long term global weather patterns, the world's oceans, and the earth's space environment. The first of six satellites is set to launch in 2009.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The European Market is also upgrading it's technologies with Frost
& Sullivan's Aerospace & Defense. In Europe, Frost & Sullivan's
Aerospace & Defense company, is an innovative and interactive information
source for the global Aerospace & Defense industry. Frost & Sullivan
are the providers for information technologies in Britain, Germany, France,
and Italy. Applications include warning and detection systems as well as
jamming communications. Officials at the European Space Agency has selected
AONIX
for it's satellite launcher, which can launch satellites weighing one ton
or less. The satellites will be used for numerous functions in the fields
of military intelligence and global observation. The European AONIX
project expects at least four launches a year of these orbiting satellites.
Other technologies are not so advanced, such as the growing use of torture
on captured prisoners or suspected terrorists. The use of torture to extract
information can generate fountains of misinformation, as those who are
being tortured will give any answer to their captors just so they will
hear what they want to hear or expect to hear.
-----------------------You Shall Be Assimilated. Resistance is Futile~The Borg
------------------------------------------
The use of technology and torture in warfare
is nothing new, just as man has manipulated the world to find new ways
to destroy it. The use of genetic engineered species of nature will now
be used in war fare. During the cold war, scientists used the common honeybee
to gather radioactive pollen after atomic tests, Today, honeybees are being
trained to detect bombs and chemical weapons as well as being used as military
scouts in the battlefield. Bees have played a role in war as well. At Antietam
in 1862 a farmer's beehives got overturned, and the liberated insects mercilessly
harassed the Union soldiers. A similar incident in 1864 caused both sides
to suspend a battle at Okolona, Arkansas. In World War II beeswax had 350
military uses, from waterproofing and lubrication to sunscreens and camouflage
paint. From the honey producers of ancient times to today's military scouts,
bees have always been at the center of history. The manipulation of engineered
genetic insects as well as new applications of nanotechnology will be another
terror added to the global population.
The DODs Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, is in the midst of a three year study to determine whether honeybees, equipped with tiny radio frequency tags, can help detect land mines. But as Alan Rudolph quickly pointed out, the current research with honeybees is part of a larger research study of possible military related uses for crustaceans, insects and reptiles. Under a $3 million program funded by DARPA, scientists and engineers at various research and development centers across the United States have been working with honeybees and developing technologies to turn the insects into information collectors wearing tracking devices that may help pinpoint mines within a designated area. Later this year, engineers from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the University of Montana will fit 50 bees with the radio tags and release them into a minefield to see if the combination of insect and technology works. The tags, no larger than half a grain of rice, will be attached to the backs of the bees. Scientists will track the bees using complex electronics, software and computers, some located in an engineered bee hive. Each time a bee leaves the hive, scientists will know its direction of flight, points where the bees landed and flight time. Inside the hive, special sensors will scan for chemicals brought back on the bees' bodies. Scientists believe the tracking information, combined with the chemical analysis, will help pinpoint the locations of mines. While the honeybees' mine detection training has received most of the news media's attention recently, Rudolph pointed out that's but one application being studied. Similar research is under way to determine if bees might be useful in detecting chemical and biological agents. Testing is also ongoing to determine whether parasitic wasps can be trained to associate food with byproducts released by chemical or biological agents and to swarm where they might be stored. Similarly, giant sphinx moths are being studied to see if they, like wasps, can be trained to detect low levels of chemical compounds.
OCTOBER 2004: The recent developments in the Middle East are growing into a volatile scenario which could erupt into a global war within the next three years. The recent completion of Iran's Russian Designed Nuclear Plant has raised the level of more conflicts in the Middle East. The first Arab Nation with a nuclear plant has also raised global concerns, especially in Israel. In 1981 Israel launched an air attack against Iraq's nuclear reactor and destroyed it before Suddam HusseinThe Threat of A Israel & Iran Nuclear War
-------------------------October 19, 2004
-------------------------