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.
