STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
The Pentagon Wants $1 Trillion to Upgrade Nukes, but Were Some Once Made From TNT?
By Daily Bell Staff - August 11, 2016

Air Force Seeks New Land-Based and Air-Launched Nukes … Advancing what could become a near-total rebuild of the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal, the Air Force … solicited industry proposals to build a new fleet of land-based nuclear missiles as well as replacements for its air-launched nuclear cruise missile force.  The two projects are part of a broader modernization of the nuclear arsenal expected to cost hundreds of billions of dollars over 30 years. –AP/ABC

At the same time as the Pentagon’s ability to audit its spending, HERE, is still in shambles, the US military-industrial complex seeks a cool trillion dollars to modernize virtually America’s  entire nuclear force.

This ABC article, above, calls the upgrade one that could cost “hundreds of billions.” But other estimates put the estimates far higher than that. A lot can happen in 30 years, after all.

The Pentagon may be purposefully downplaying costs, in our view. It’s probably under pressure from the larger military-industrial complex to get the funds moving.

Apparently, Congress is not going to stand in the way. And why should it? There’s plenty of cash to go around.

But somebody should ask some tough questions before the US commits to spending another trillion or two on $400,000 helmets, HERE, and complex, next-generation, nuclear weapons.

We’ve been running a series of articles questioning aspects of the Pentagon’s nuclear program and of nuclear weapons in general. We don’t want to deny that nuclear weapons exist or that man went to the moon (and, no, we have not) – at least in part because we would like to preserve some level of viability for the civil society we grew up with. But we’re not alone in voicing doubts about aspects of the narrative. A growing number of Youtube videos bear witness to a necessary, ongoing and growing skepticism.

We recently discovered videos HERE and HERE that described Operation Sailor Hat. This test was apparently comprised of  a series of three 500-ton conventional TNT explosions near Hawaii in mid-1965. It was designed to test the blast resistance of Navy ships in the advent of a tactical nuclear strike. This is similar to the Baker test off Bikini Atoll in 1946 that we wrote about yesterday, HERE.

Interestingly, if you use enough conventional explosives, you can create something that looks a lot like a mushroom cloud upon detonation.

Depending on how big the explosion is, you can get significant A-bomb shaped results. See some videos of large conventional TNT or dynamite explosions HERE and HERE.

Did some of the Pentagon’s nuclear tests involve massive amounts of conventional explosives rather than “atoms”? Sorry to admit we’re generally suspicious of the Pentagon’s nuclear test films. We’ve yet to find a single Youtube video that looks completely legit. HERE is a skeptical video about these tests, and HERE.

Apparently, a secret animation division housed in San Fernando’s Lookout Mountain, HERE, supervised the film production for the Pentagon’s nuke blasts. We recently interviewed a water technologist Anders Björkman, HERE, who believes that nukes are a sham from beginning to end and has a website HERE explaining why.

Nonetheless, the plans put forward by the US military-industrial complex are ambitious and wide-scale, indeed. To keep citizens safe, a comprehensive upgrade is demanded. The upgrade involves all three nuclear “legs” –  submarines, long-range bombers and land-based missiles

The Air Force has moved the most quickly, asking its contractors to present proposals to upgrade bombers and the Minuteman 3 intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs.

The idea is to replace all 450 deployed Minuteman 3 ICBMs, beginning in 2027 for an estimated cost is $62.3 billion. The Air Force also wants a new-generation nuclear cruise missile so it can remove its AGM-86B cruise missile deployed early in the 1980s.

The Navy wants brand-new nuclear-missile submarines at a cost that will probably match or exceed anything the Air Force desires.

Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, is quoted by the ABC article as saying the Pentagon’s requests are financially unsustainable.

“The Air Force could save billions by refurbishing and extending the life of the existing Minuteman 3 well beyond 2030 rather than building a completely new and more deadly missile … The Air Force does not need a costly new and more capable nuclear-armed cruise missile, especially if the new long-range penetrating bomber is truly penetrating. We are seeing a return to the days of nuclear excess and overkill.”

He’s probably right about that. Even a trillion will be far too low for such a massive rebuild.

But based about what we can tell regarding such programs, it’s about time top mainstream reporters asked some hard questions.

They can begin with Hiroshima and the missing squadron we’ve identified that might have been secretly guided to Hiroshima to bomb the city, HERE.

And then they can ask about Crawford Sams who ran the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission in Japan and claimed that the Pentagon drastically exaggerated the destruction to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (Transcript HERE.)

They should also ask about the Bikini Island tests and why some of the filming looks unconvincing (in our view). They should ask about other Pentagon nuke-tests films (see skeptics above) that seem to show elements of military fakery when it comes to A-bomb testing.

There has been surprisingly little Fourth Estate investigation into nuclear weapons. From the very beginning, the Pentagon set the rules for how its nuclear program should be covered and even who would write about it.

For years, it utilized a single reporter, William Laurence, HERE, to write up the “news” it wanted to present to the public. Eventually, Laurence was secretly put on the Pentagon’s payroll.

In some sense, the situation doesn’t seem much better today. The mainstream media simply seems to accept what the Pentagon tells them about nukes. This includes the way they work, their necessity and importantly, their cost.

There are “narrative” difficulties with nuclear weapons as the traditional, approved, history portrays them. Interestingly, the same difficulties seem to afflict the tale of some of NASA’s incredible achievements.

Call this the Pentagon’s NATO/NASA axis. This axis was created during the single most fertile 30-year period in the history of mankind. From 1940-1970, US fedgov unlocked the secrets of the atom and went to the moon not once but numerous times without a single serious disaster. Contrast this to the disastrous roll-out of the national Obamacare website and you can see how far America has fallen.

Our questions persist. The same strange games with film footage that afflicts nuclear portrayals seem to involve NASA footage as well. In some videos of the moon landings, astronauts supposedly walking on the moon might seem to be supported by wires.  Or they get up without moving their legs, HERE (at 2 minutes, 15 seconds).

Meanwhile, some space station activity seems to have been filmed in big pools that contain replicas of outer space technology. And it has been speculated that green screens are used as well, HERE.

We recently reported on the lunar rover itself, which looks suspiciously like a jeep, HERE, though it cost some $40 million to develop. The point is that the American public has probably not been told the entire truth about  the NATO/NASA axis.

Now the Pentagon and its military-industrial allies are seeking one trillion dollars over a thirty year period. That’s a hefty sum. As a result, it might be a good time to ask some pointed questions about nuclear weapons, their history and their positioning going forward. And NASA, too.

Conclusion: Once we made the same points regarding Occupy Wall Street, HERE, and even vaccines, HERE. Then we were astonished to find that both subjects were more complex and misleading than we initially imagined. Is it possible that America’s nuclear program has some of the same issues?

Updated.

 

Tagged with:
Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • Yeah that moon video… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE

    If you look closely, you can see the astronaut in front is giving the other astronaut a helping hand. it’s just partially hidden by his body. So, nice try, but no cigar.

    So, to sum up of late:

    The DB is anti-Intellectual Property,
    Skeptical of the moon landings,
    Skeptical of atomic bombs,
    Skeptical of vaccines,
    *Willing to stretch the truth and ignore reasoned rebuttals of all these positions*

    …And a big proponent of Marijuana companies!

    Not that there’s anything wrong with any or all of those, or that the last one has any special relation to the previous four… I’m just making clear where you stand.

    • georgesilver

      What are you on about? The Daily Bell in their statement “We don’t doubt that nuclear weapons exist or that men went to the moon” is pretty plain to me. Don’t you read their statements before shooting from the hip?

      • That statement included an element of sarcasm. (We adjusted it, See above.) Obviously we are skeptical as a professional stance.

    • “If you look closely, you can see the astronaut in front is giving the other astronaut a helping hand. it’s just partially hidden by his body. So, nice try, but no cigar.”

      You are wrong about this. Watch the video again. The other astronaut does not move his body in such a way as to lift the first one. The first is yanked aloft by an outside force. It’s obvious.

    • JohnnyZ

      dnarby, are you a troll or a gaslighter? Or are you just a sheeple that protests from getting awoken?. Looking at your duality-based avatar (Mickey Mouse – a product of a high ranking mason, involved in NASA by the way, and a fake fighter for the “common good”), I will go with the former.

  • georgesilver

    “We don’t doubt that nuclear weapons exist or that men went to the moon ”
    Sorry Daily Bell. Not a chance. Occam’s razor.
    You can sit on the fence for a while but eventually you must weigh the evidence against propaganda. You surprise me with you above statement as it shows you are off the fence and firmly on the side of the cartel’s narrative.

    • alex

      The Daily Bell does seem to “hedge bets” on sensitive topics.
      This is most likely due to fear… and/or the edit staff smoking too much weed (paranoia).

      • What significant alternative ‘Net websites have forthrightly stated that nuclear weapons don’t exist and NASA never went to the moon? Please direct us to them. Difficult to make definitive statements without definitive evidence.

        • alex

          “We don’t want to deny that nuclear weapons exist, (or that man went to the moon)…”

          That’s called “hedging your bets”.

          DB does so, because in their words: “we would like to preserve some level of viability…”

          Preserve “viability” for what? For whom??

          BTW: I tried posting links to other “websites” who’s content “forthrightly stated that nuclear weapons don’t exist and NASA never went to the moon”, and I was blocked by your site from doing so.

          • “We don’t want to deny that nuclear weapons exist, (or that man went to the moon)…”

            You enjoy being lied to? We don’t.

            ————————————————

            That’s called “hedging your bets”.

            We don’t have to take an affirmative stance on every issue. Sometimes we can present the facts and let people can make up their own minds.

            ———————————————–

            DB does so, because in their words: “we would like to preserve some level of viability…” Preserve “viability” for what? For whom??

            Like many who grew up in the West, we would prefer a viable, straightforward system. You don’t? You prefer being lied to?

            ———————————————–

            BTW: I tried posting links to other “websites” who’s content “forthrightly stated that nuclear weapons don’t exist and NASA never went to the moon”, and I was blocked by your site from doing so.

            We cannot even begin to interpret what this means. We provide links. Use them as you wish. Viewers place links in feedback all the time, as well..

          • alex

            ‘We don’t have to take an affirmative stance on every issue.’

            Hedging bets!

            “Like many who grew up in the West, we would prefer a viable, straightforward system.”

            Code: Status Quo.

            “We cannot even begin to interpret what this means.”
            Let me try to explain it to you. I am trying to post links to “other” web sites in the body of this post… AND I CAN’T!
            The links “disappear”! Any thoughts on that?

          • Why visit us if you believe we are a “status quo” publication? We comment on the elite’s dominant social themes – their propaganda – and that’s not always “sexy.” Surely there are ‘Net-based publications that would be more attractive to you.

          • JohnnyZ

            alex,
            I think you are right – they are hedging their bets. Then they start diverging from the topic when you point it out to them. But reading between the lines you get what they really think. They want to “preserve viability” = not to be blocked / censored I guess. Their excuse is that there is no absolute truth.
            Another problem – I cannot post links to other websites either. It seems to be the way the forum is structured.

          • You can’t provide us with another website that has taken on this meme at this point and your statement that we diverged from the topic in answering Alex is not accurate either. This is not your site and we caution you to be careful about your accusations.

          • alex

            “This is not your site and we caution you to be careful about your accusations.”
            Ooh!… what are you gonna do? Call a cop??
            I have been banned hammered by you guys in the past for the crime of “trolling”, aka, speaking my mind!
            I get around your censorship by acquiring a new IP and tag.
            The “Internet Reformation” in action!

          • Speaking your mind is one thing. Lying by intimation is another.

          • You ask, “Any thoughts on that?”

            Yes, you’re probably a troll. We’re the only website we know of that is currently putting together a consistent series of articles with sources questioning the dominant nuclear meme. Your continued attacks lead us to believe your intentions are a good deal more complicated than you are pretending. We suggest strongly that you do not keep saying the same thing over and over after we have already responded. Similarly, we suggest you stop implying that the editorial elements of this website are somehow preventing you from posting something.

            Your friend, too, below, Johnny Z … Now we find him questionable as well. That’s how it’s done. One makes a nasty, unproven statement and the other confirms. It’s textbook.

        • JohnnyZ

          Look at Dave McGowan’s (RIP) lengthy series on e.g. moon landing (at least in the 1969-1972 they never went) or Boston marathon “bombing”. You should rely on your own judgement and wait for a confirmation by an insider or an official confirmation.

          • McGowan is dead and his website is stripped. So we’ll ask again, what significant alternative website has forthrightly stated that nuclear weapons don’t exist and NASA never went to the moon? Please direct us. Alex can try too if he wants. We won’t hold our breath.

            In any event, we will continue to raise questions about the nuclear “meme” as we have in more than a dozen articles now. These have received wide circulation because they are accurate as far so they go …

            We’re not going to state outright that the US never went to the moon or blew up atomic weapons unless we see definitive proof of that. And why would think after thousands and thousands of articles in the alternative media over a 15 year period that we don’t know who David McGowan is, especially since we’ve written about him a good deal and expressed sorrow over his untimely death?

    • That statement, updated, included an element of sarcasm. It seems there is less and less chance that reality corresponds to what we once believed. Our stance is one of considerable, ongoing, growing skepticism on a variety of fronts. In no way does that endorse a “cartel.”

  • georgesilver

    Sometimes facts stare people in the face but they never see them. Forget all of the dodgy films and photographs. There is one fact always overlooked. The retuning speed of the Apollo capsule at 39000 km/h. No braking rockets. Earth’s gravitational pull would tend to speed up the capsule. Only sparse molecules in the upper atmosphere to miraculously slow the craft down. Dense atmosphere close to Earth’s surface wouldn’t slow the capsule down. The comical conical shaped Apollo capsule was supposed to slice into the almost non-existant upper atmosphere. Logic would indicate that it would start tumbling out of control. The only way it could have slowed down was if there was a great Hand of God or Walt Disney. The capsule was most likely dropped out of a plane.
    PS If it wasn’t for loss of lucrative contracts you one day might get a satellite placing company to admit they can put satellites into space but they can’t bring them back without expensive powerful braking rockets.

    • Guest

      Or the space suits. Someone should try Neil Armstrong’s spacesuit on, pressurize it, if it will even hold pressure, and see if their fingers are nimble enough to take pictures.

  • Martin Matheny

    The USAF can’t even keep their people awake long enough to pull duty for eight hours. Several reports of airmen found asleep at the controls of missile units. Moreover, before another penny is manipulated, first let the pentagon find the $6.5T lost with no accountability by any service, including the AF. DISGUSTED!!!!

  • Kyle

    What a bunch of buffoons. This ridiculous conspiracy theory sure attracted the hard core nutters intent on yammering about their favorite conspiracy theory.

    Yes, wingnuts, there are really nuclear weapons and no, dumbasses, they didn’t fake nuclear weapons tests. And we f’n went to the f’n moon six f’n times. Grow the f up. I’ll bet you’re all so f’n oblivious to reality that you support Trump.

    • mary

      Such an intellectually dense argument, there obviously can be no answer. You’re right, we’re wrong. You certainly earned your government troll check today.

  • Ralph Sinamon

    Funny thing about our CONSUMER economy. It works really good when stuff is being consumed and even better when it is being consumed under a war footing. Look at WWII and what happened to the economy. EVERYBODY had cash-flow, not just in the weapons industry. We still have the cash-flow, but it goes to the weapons industry and they are the ones that build ALL of the war toys. In order for their companies to stay in the ‘red’ (pun intended), they need repeat business and that means to use them on something. It’s a little difficult to use the nukes without destroying the customer base.

  • nonplused

    This article is a complete disgrace, a real shame for the Daily Bell to have published it, it will do much to undermine the site’s credibility. You can fake a small nuclear detonation, and North Korea may indeed be doing just that, but many of the explosion tests conducted by the US, Russia, Britain, and France simply cannot be faked. And they left the radioactive fallout that would have been predicted, anyone can buy a cheap dosimeter on line and detect it for themselves. What is called “background radiation” is higher now than before all the testing. Next thing you know you are going to be arguing that Fukashima and Chernobyl didn’t happen either and nuclear power is not real and there is now nuclear waste to worry about. Look, if they can blow up a nuclear power station when they don’t mean to, they can get a nuclear bomb to blow up when they do.
    The fact that the US used conventional TNT to simulate a nuclear bomb to test the affects on their ships, and this is back before the H-bomb because there is now no need to test, survivability is no longer possible, is no proof that nuclear bombs don’t work. What should they have done used a real nuke and contaminate the whole area?

    • They were using massive quantities of TNT to MIMIC nuclear explosions. It was the Pentagon’s idea not ours. It is incredible how much credibility people ascribe to the Pentagon. The article has 20 links. You ought to look at some of them. But you didn’t really come here to read, did you? Just to make an ill-informed comment accusing us of claiming the Pentagon substituted TNT for its nuclear bombs. Apparently the word “some” means “all” so far as you’re concerned. That’s about as accurate as the rest of your commentary.

    • Marcus

      wow amazing we have a nuclear expert here:
      The expert that knows it all usually doesn’t. He is merely trying to convince himself and others that he does. As the saying goes “A legend in his own mind.”

    • Ephraiyim

      Just one question. How do you know that the “background radiation” is higher? Oh wait, the government said so!

  • wrusssr

    Stick to your guns DB. Facts are the grenades you toss into packs of lies. Facts are friendly for reasonable people. Facts are not friendly for perpetrators of lies. Their function and agenda depend upon humanity’s ignorance. This is why Oz sends shills and town criers and pitchmen to demonize sites like this with degenerative name calling and canned ‘settled-science opinions’. Nothing more. Their goal is to cheapen and denigrate the discussions for passers-by who might peruse what readers have to say about articles like this. Reading these shills’ blather, they move on. The posters know this. It’s their only defense. Flip the coin and you find BigPharma and Monsanto and the Gore’s using these same tactics on MSM propaganda outlets to demonize people like Andy Wakefield and others who attempt to speak truth about products and actions harming humanity. Look sometimes at the number of reader replies MSM outlets like The London Guardian has deleted for controversial articles on ‘pandemics, global warming, vaccine safety, alternate energy, ‘worthless’ ‘metals as investment, etc. Some MSM outlets have even closed this section because of readers calling them out with facts.

    So use the d-button when these clowns show up. You’re not going to reason with them. Because that’s not their purpose for being here. Referee good discussions and offer no explanation for not posting these trolls. Keep the one-of-a-kind discussions like you have here going. It’s your brand. It’s made a difference and liars uncomfortable somewhere. Otherwise the carnival barkers wouldn’t have shown up.

loading