Bush and His Cornered Team
Cornered
September 12, 2005
Source:
The Pentagon considers the possibility of deterrent nuclear strikes against terrorists
AP \
09.11.05 \
09:56
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A working document from the US Department of Defense considers that the United States could conduct preemptive nuclear strikes against terrorists to deter them from using weapons of mass destruction.
This evolution in US nuclear doctrine, the first in ten years, follows the will expressed in 2002 by George Bush.
According to the document revealed on Sunday by the "Washington Post," which is no longer available on the Pentagon website where it was hosted, "US forces must present a credible deterrent to potential adversaries who may have access to modern military technologies, including weapons of mass destruction."
Deterrence against an attack on the United States or its allies using weapons of mass destruction "requires that the leaders of potential adversaries believe that the United States has both the capability and the will to strike preemptively or to respond rapidly with credible and effective means," states this 69-page document dated March 15.
Facing non-governmental actors who "use or seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction," the new doctrine specifies that "deterrence can be exercised against the states that support them as well as against the terrorist organization itself."
"However, the continued proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them increases the probability that one day, deliberately or not, a state, a stateless nation, or a terrorist movement may use these weapons. In such cases, deterrence, even based on the threat of massive destruction, could fail, and the United States must be prepared to use nuclear weapons if necessary," the text adds.
A preemptive nuclear strike could thus take place in the case of an "imminent attack by an enemy biological weapon that only the effects of a nuclear weapon can safely destroy," the Pentagon anticipates. "The decision to employ nuclear weapons at any level requires explicit orders from the President," the document further confirms.
This text is not final and is still circulating among senior US defense officials and the office of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, a US military spokesman stated on Saturday.
A copy of the document can be consulted at www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/jp3ï12fc2.pdf
The Pentagon considers the possibility of deterrent nuclear strikes against terrorists
AP \
09.11.05 \
09:56
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A working document from the US Department of Defense considers that the United States could conduct preemptive nuclear strikes against terrorists to deter them from using weapons of mass destruction.
This evolution in US nuclear doctrine, the first in ten years, follows the will expressed in 2002 by George Bush.
According to the document revealed on Sunday by the "Washington Post," which is no longer available on the Pentagon website where it was hosted, "US forces must present a credible deterrent to potential adversaries who may have access to modern military technologies, including weapons of mass destruction."
Deterrence against an attack on the United States or its allies using weapons of mass destruction "requires that the leaders of potential adversaries believe that the United States has both the capability and the will to strike preemptively or to respond rapidly with credible and effective means," states this 69-page document dated March 15.
Facing non-governmental actors who "use or seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction," the new doctrine specifies that "deterrence can be exercised against the states that support them as well as against the terrorist organization itself."
"However, the continued proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them increases the probability that one day, deliberately or not, a state, a stateless nation, or a terrorist movement may use these weapons. In such cases, deterrence, even based on the threat of massive destruction, could fail, and the United States must be prepared to use nuclear weapons if necessary," the text adds.
A preemptive nuclear strike could thus take place in the case of an "imminent attack by an enemy biological weapon that only the effects of a nuclear weapon can safely destroy," the Pentagon anticipates. "The decision to employ nuclear weapons at any level requires explicit orders from the President," the document further confirms.
This text is not final and is still circulating among senior US defense officials and the office of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, a US military spokesman stated on Saturday.
A copy of the document can be consulted at www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/jp3ï12fc2.pdf
An excerpt from the original text
“The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.”
Translation
The Pentagon has revised the doctrine concerning the use of nuclear weapons. According to the new doctrine, military leaders will be able to use these weapons preemptively against a nation or a group of terrorists using weapons of mass destruction, following approval given by the President. The document also provides for the use of nuclear weapons against a nation possessing nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.
Basically, the United States is now giving itself the right to preemptively attack a nation with nuclear weapons if the other country has nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. The novelty is that the USA allows itself a nuclear attack rather than a nuclear retaliation.
This is the end of the doctrine of deterrence.
An excerpt from the original text
:
“The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.”
Translation
:
The Pentagon has revised the doctrine concerning the use of nuclear weapons. According to the new doctrine, military leaders will be able to use these weapons preemptively against a nation or a group of terrorists using weapons of mass destruction, following approval given by the President. The document also provides for the use of nuclear weapons against a nation possessing nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.
Basically, the United States is now giving itself the right to preemptively attack a nation with nuclear weapons if the other country has nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. The novelty is that the USA allows itself a nuclear attack rather than a nuclear retaliation.
This is the end of the doctrine of deterrence.
Yesterday, French media gave brief coverage of the commemorative ceremonies for the events of September 11, 2001, in the United States. The mention was more than discreet. We caught a glimpse of a rather limited gathering of people near "Ground Zero," the place where the twin towers collapsed. An interview with a victim's wife saying, "I hope we catch Osama bin Laden one day." A sentence that seems surreal. Who still talks about that scarecrow? Do Americans really want to get their hands on him? Nothing is less certain. Individuals like him and Saddam Hussein take precautions and have undoubtedly put many compromising documents, implicating the CIA and the US Government, in a safe place.
Apart from that, we saw Bush and that notorious war profiteer Dick Cheney come to pay their respects for a few minutes on the White House lawn, to the sound of a bugle.
Four years have passed. The honeymoon period, during which the entire American nation rallied behind its president, George W. Bush, having discovered a common enemy: terrorism, is over. The shiver of doubt is gradually spreading, especially in the United States. Brave people have conducted a counter-investigation, financially aided by the patron Jimmy Walter (suffering from a serious illness, who invested four and a half million dollars in this operation). When I am a little less tired, I will tackle this enormous file, not by conducting an investigation, but by presenting what Walter's team has been able to collect and by comparing it with the poverty of the arguments put forward by supporters of the official thesis.
Yes, the hypothesis that the events of September 11 were merely a monstrous manipulation is beginning to emerge. Enormous things are surfacing. They will need to be detailed point by point. Near the twin towers, for example, there was a "Building Number 7," a building half the height of the twin towers which, without having been hit by planes or debris, and after having been the subject of a very modest fire, affecting two floors located midway up the building, which could apparently have been controlled simply with the "sprinklers," the automatic sprinklers located on the ceiling, brutally collapsed on itself. It is technically impossible that such a modest fire, barely perceptible in the photos, could have caused the entire collapse of this building, constructed with steel beams 30 cm by 70 cm!
This is one detail among a hundred others (such as the fact that all evidence related to this event has methodically disappeared, stolen by people who took advantage of the enormous emotional shock linked to these dramatic events, thereby obscuring these cover-up operations).
Americans have done enormous work in compiling this file, which I urge you to view completely. When I have regained the necessary energy, I will analyze the whole. There are two key documents. These CDs that come to us from the United States and the astonishing program broadcast in April 2004 by the Arte channel, with the documentary "September 11 Did Not Happen." When you watch this film again, you say to yourself, "Either these people are incompetent, or they are sold out." It is... simply staggering. There is no on-the-ground investigation to speak of. It is anti-journalism. I would even say that this document disgraces the profession. I will analyze it in detail. It will serve as the antithesis to that proposed by Jimmy Walter's team. The reader, based on these two analyses, will be encouraged to form their own opinion.
The stakes are... simply monstrous. There is no half-measure. Either Jimmy Walter's team is completely fabricating, or what they say is true. And if that is the case, these events of September 11 would be the expression of a fantastic conspiracy. Already, in the United States, a majority of New Yorkers want the investigation to be reopened. If only because they were cynically lied to by being asked to return to their homes and offices in Manhattan, being told "that the air was breathable." They even asked rescue workers not to wear paper masks "so as not to panic people." Strange thing, the materials of the buildings were transformed into particles of very small diameter, on the order of a micron. You could witness this. Specialists say that only explosions could have transformed the concrete in this way. This is indeed what happens when a "controlled demolition" is carried out. In this dust were masses of toxic debris of all kinds. New Yorkers inhaled all of this, and many of them suffer from respiratory ailments.
In France, our press conceals all this as best it can. Is it out of duplicity or simple stupidity? We will eventually find out. All we can say is that all French journalists immediately and during the four years that followed, hammered home definitive conclusions, when none had bothered to conduct a serious investigation. That is called incompetence and stupidity.
The document compiled by Jimmy Walter's team is now sufficiently substantiated to spread over time, even if it only emerges four years after the events. George Bush's team knows this. The New Orleans disaster has further severely damaged its credibility. The Bush clan's policy goes along with a reduction in all "social budgets," including those directly linked to the safety of property and people, in favor of arms spending or simply private interests. Thus, by waging a distant crusade, in Iraq, supposedly to prevent "Rogue States" from acquiring "weapons of mass destruction," the government team, while dosing its police with non-lethal weapons, Tasers, for example (which this police force increasingly uses, systematically, for the slightest arrest), has evidently neglected to take measures that would have prevented the flooding of a territory as large as half of France (by reinforcing the levees). Yet such a catastrophe had already occurred in 1927. Specialists therefore knew what proportions the phenomenon was likely to take. If the number of victims may be lower than some had announced, the material damage is appalling. Sixty percent of completely destroyed homes had no insurance contract, being the property of very poor people. The way the crisis was managed reflects total negligence.
The team in power therefore feels threatened. If the facts alleged by Jimmy Walter's team were confirmed, many people would face very heavy sentences, up to life imprisonment, regardless of their hierarchical level. The first target could be the President himself. We would thus be facing cornered people whose only way out would be to push the escalation even further, plunging their country into a war extended to other countries, this time using nuclear weapons.
Yes, but which one? For half a century, this weapon has not been able to be used because its fallout was "too damaging for living beings, humans, and the environment." Even a nuclear weapon representing a TNT equivalent slightly less than a kiloton causes the lifting of pulverulent materials to very high altitudes, into the stratosphere, with the corollary of the dispersion of these radioactive materials over very vast areas. Historically, in the 1950s, the Americans were very surprised to find radioactive debris... at home, corresponding to tests carried out almost on the other side of the world, at the edges of the Pacific. These had been transported by jet streams, from one end of the earth to the other. It is therefore this possibility of dispersing highly toxic products, with long half-lives, that created this situation of deterrence and at the same time led the Americans, and then all other countries, to henceforth conduct underground tests. Below is a photo of the site where some 500 underground nuclear tests were conducted, in the Nevada desert, 20 km west of the famous "Area 51."
Collapse basins linked to underground nuclear tests.
The charge creates a hyper-hot gas bubble which, compressing the sedimentary material, settles into a spheroidal cavity. As these gases cool, they "pull on the walls," causing a collapse that reverberates to the surface, giving this "lunar crater" effect (here about a hundred meters in diameter).
To this must be added, in the case of massive use, a nuclear winter effect (a phenomenon whose existence I learned about in the early 1980s and about which I vainly tried to draw the attention of the press at the time. My Russian friend, the meteorologist Vladimir Alessandrov, was assassinated in Madrid for revealing to the world these inevitable consequences of a nuclear war, worse than the immediate destructions themselves).
If Americans are considering the possibility of using nuclear weapons, regardless of the political context, it is because these problems "have been mastered." There are then two possibilities:
*- That the Americans have been able to develop bombs capable of penetrating deep enough into the ground before exploding, and that at the same time their charges have been sufficiently reduced. *
*- That these are bombs of a type other than those employing fission or fusion. *
The lowest-yield atomic bombs are fission bombs, using plutonium. They are the size of ping-pong balls (they can be housed in 88 mm shells for... decades). Having been successfully fired using cannons, they are capable of withstanding very violent accelerations linked to impacts.
Atomic cannon firing a 15-kiloton shell (Hiroshima: 12 kilotons) at 27 km. Nevada Desert.
Source: http://html2.free.fr/canons/atomic.htm
Schematically, these are spheres of high-purity, hollow plutonium. An explosive concentrates this plutonium at the geometric center, and critical mass is then reached. Until recent years, the power in TNT equivalent hovered around 1,000 tons of TNT (a "kiloton"). With "progress" having been made, these charges would have dropped to 300 tons of TNT. To achieve this, it was necessary to better control the explosive compression process of the hollow sphere. But for these "mini-nukes" to be employed, it would first be necessary to succeed in driving them into the ground to a depth sufficient so that the emissions do not break through to the surface. Otherwise, we would get this:
"Sedan" Crater (an explosion of 100,000 tons of TNT equivalent that breached the surface. Diameter: 400 meters. Depth: 100 m)
To prevent the gases from a one-kiloton nuclear explosion from breaking through, prior burial at a depth of at least one hundred meters is required. For conventional nuclear weapons to be simply usable, the charges, even if the TNT equivalents have been reduced, must be able to penetrate through several tens of meters of earth, rock, or concrete. It is hard to see how this would be possible given the simple kinetic energy of a charge, even falling at supersonic speed, of small diameter and equipped with a depleted uranium penetrator.
This leads us to consider the second possibility, already mentioned in one of my books, that the Americans already master the technology of antimatter weapons. This would then have two implications:
*- The possibility of creating low-yield weapons, not liable to generate the nuclear winter phenomenon. - The strong reduction, if not the total absence, of radioactivity. - Unlimited penetration capabilities. *
The "monster" is currently cornered. The truth could break out from one day to the next. Then, the only way out: refocus the attention of the American people on a new war, for example against Iran, following a second "odious attack," perhaps of a magnitude greater than that of September 11, 2001, perpetrated using (dirty) nuclear or bacteriological weapons.
Double or nothing, at the cost of billions of deaths.
This is where we are.
September 13, 2005. Colin Powell retracts his statements regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
| In an important interview granted to the ABC network, General Colin Powell publicly admitted that his speech delivered at the United Nations, denouncing the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, was regrettable and that it "would be a stain on his record." The former Secretary of State acknowledged that his presentation before the Security Council had no other purpose than to lend credibility to the administration's accusations and that the intelligence services had "not functioned well." |
|---|
He also added that he had never found any link between Iraq and the September 11 attacks, nor between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
"Despite myself, I am a warrior, and when the President decided that it was not tolerable for this regime to remain in violation of UN resolutions, I agreed with him on the use of force," he conceded.
These statements by General Powell are an elegant way of declaring himself unfit for the new desperate job that President George W. Bush wished to entrust to him: taking charge of the survivors of New Orleans and drying out a territory as vast as Great Britain invaded by the ocean.
| In an important interview granted to the ABC network, General Colin Powell publicly admitted that his speech delivered at the United Nations, denouncing the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, was regrettable and that it "would be a stain on his record." The former Secretary of State acknowledged that his presentation before the Security Council had no other purpose than to lend credibility to the administration's accusations and that the intelligence services had "not functioned well." |
|---|
| In an important interview granted to the ABC network, General Colin Powell publicly admitted that his speech delivered at the United Nations, denouncing the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, was regrettable and that it "would be a stain on his record." The former Secretary of State acknowledged that his presentation before the Security Council had no other purpose than to lend credibility to the administration's accusations and that the intelligence services had "not functioned well." |
|---|
Return to Guide Return to Home Page
Number of views since September 12, 2005:
