Covert Attempt to Bomb Iran with Nukes Foiled by Military Leak?
NY.Trans...@blythe.org
Hash: SHA1
Covert Attempt to Bomb Iran with Nukes Foiled by Military Leak?
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
ent by Mark Graffis (activ-l)
OpEd News - Sep 7, 2007
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_michael__070907_was_a_covert_attempt.htm
Was a Covert Attempt to Bomb Iran with Nuclear Weapons
Foiled by a Military Leak?
By Michael Salla
Introduction: The B-52 Incident
On August 30, a B-52 bomber armed with five nuclear-tipped Advanced
Cruise missiles traveled from Minot Air Force base, North Dakota, to
Barksdale Air Force base, Louisiana. Each missile had an adjustable
yield between five and 150 kilotons of TNT which is at the lower end of
the destructive capacities of U.S. nuclear weapons. For example, the
atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima had a yield of 13 kilotons, while the
Bravo Hydrogen bomb test of 1954 had a yield of 15,000 kilotons. The
B-52 story was first covered in the Army Times on September 5 after the
nuclear armed aircraft was discovered by Airmen (see:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/09/marine_nuclear_B52_070904w/ ).
What made this a very significant event was that it was a violation of
U.S. Air Force regulations concerning the transportation of nuclear
weapons by air. Nuclear weapons are normally transported by air in
specially constructed planes designed to prevent radioactive pollution
in case of a crash. Such transport planes are not equipped to launch
the nuclear weapons they routinely carry around the U.S. and the world
for servicing or positioning.
The discovery of the nuclear armed B-52 was, according to Hans
Kristensen, a nuclear weapons expert at the Federation of American
Scientists, the first time in 40 years that a nuclear armed plane had
been allowed to fly in the U.S (see:
http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2007_9_5.html#149D6ECF ).
Since 1968, after a SAC bomber crashed in Greenland, all nuclear armed
aircraft have been grounded but were kept on a constant state of alert.
After the end of the Cold War, President George H. Bush ordered in 1991
that nuclear weapons were to be removed from all aircraft and stored in
nearby facilities.
Recently, the Air Force began decommissioning its stockpile of Advanced
Cruise missiles. The five nuclear weapons on the B-52 were to be
decommissioned, and were to be taken to another Air Force base. An Air
Force press statement issued on September 6 claimed that there was an
error which occurred during a regularly scheduled transfer of weapons
between two bases. Furthermore, the statement declared: The Air Force
maintains the highest standards of safety and precision so any
deviation from these well established munitions procedures is
considered very serious. The issue concerning how a nuclear armed B-52
bomber was allowed to take off and fly in U.S. air space after an error
in a routine transfer process, is now subject to an official Air Force
inquiry which is due to be completed by September 14.
Three key questions emerge over the B-52 incident. First, why did Air
Force personnel at Minot AFB not spot the error earlier given the
elaborate security procedures in place to prevent such mistakes from
occurring? Many military analysts have commented on the stringent
security procedures in place to prevent this sort of mistake from
occurring. Multiple officers are routinely involved in the
transportation and loading of nuclear weapons to prevent the kind of
error that allegedly occurred in the B-52 incident. According to the
Air Force statement, the commanding officer in charge of military
munitions personnel and additional munitions airmen were relieved of
duties pending the completion of the investigation. According to
Kristensen, the error could not have come from confusing the Advanced
Cruise Missile with a conventional weapons since no conventional form
exists. So the munitions Airmen should have been easily able to spot
the mistake. Other routine procedures were violated which suggests a
rather obvious explanation for the error. The military munitions
personnel were acting under direct orders, though not through the
regular chain of military command. This takes me to the second question
Who was in Charge of the B-52 Incident?
Who ordered the loading of Advanced Cruise missiles on to a B-52 in
violation of Air Force regulations? The quick reaction of the Air Force
and the issuing of a public statement describing the seriousness of the
issue and the launch of an immediate investigation, suggests that
whatever occurred, was outside the regular chain of military command.
If the regular chain of command was violated, then we have to inquire
as to whether the B-52 incident was part of a covert project whose
classification level exceeded that held by officers in charge of
nuclear weapons at Minot AFB. The most obvious governmental entity that
may have ordered the nuclear arming of the B-52 outside the regular
chain of military command is the last remaining bastion of
neo-conservative activism in the Bush administration.
Vice President Cheney has taken a very prominent role in covert military
operations and training exercises designed for the seamless integration
of different national security and military authorities to possible
terrorist attacks. On May 8, 2001, President Bush placed Cheney in
charge of "[A]ll federal programs dealing with weapons of mass
destruction, consequence management within the Departments of Defense,
Health and Human Services, Justice, and Energy, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and other federal agencies" (see:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml) .
Cheney subsequently played a direct role in supervising training
exercises that simultaneously occurred during the 911 attacks.
According to former Los Angeles Police Officer Michael Ruppert, Cheney
had a parallel chain of command that he used to override Air Force
objections to stand down orders that grounded the USAF during the 911
attacks (see:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml ).
Ruppert learned that the Secret Service had the authority to directly
communicate presidential and vice presidential orders to fighter pilots
in the air thereby circumventing the normal chain of command. (Crossing
the Rubicon, pp. 428 429). Furthermore: It is the Secret Service who
has the legal mandate to take supreme command in case of a scheduled
major event - or an unplanned major emergency - on American soil; these
are designated "National Special Security Events".
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml .
Ruppert and others have subsequently claimed that 911 was an inside
job; and Cheney through the Secret Service, played a direct leadership
role in what occurred over 911. Consequently, it is very possible that
Cheney played a similar role in circumventing the regular chain of
military command in ordering the B-52 incident. It is likely that the
B-52 incident was part of a contrived "National Special Security Event"
directly controlled by Cheney by virtue of the authority granted to him
by President Bush, and through the Secret Service which has the
technological means to by pass the regular chain of military command. I
now move to my third key question.
Why was the nuclear armed B-52 sent to Barksdale AFB?
If initial reports that the weapons were being decommissioned, but were
mistakenly transported by a B-52 bomber, then the weapons should have
been taken to Kirtland Air Force Base. According to Kristensen, this is
where the warheads are separated from the rest of the weapon and
shipped to the Energy Departments Pantex dismantlement facility near
Amarillo, Texas (see:
http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2007_9_5.html#149D6ECF ).
However, it has been revealed that Barksdale AFB is used as a staging
base for operations in the Middle East (see:
http://tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/sep/05/staging_nuke_for_iran ).
This is circumstantial evidence that the weapons were being deployed
for possible use in the Middle East.
There has been recent speculation concerning a possible attack against
Iran given reports that the Pentagon has completed plans for a three
day bombing blitz of Iran according to a Sunday Times report (see:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece ).
The Report claims that 1200 targets have been selected and this will
destroy much of Irans military infrastructure. Such an attack will
devastate Irans economy, create greater political instability in the
region, and stop the oil supply. A disruption of the oil supply from
the Persian Gulf could trigger a global economic recession and lead to
the collapse of financial markets. In a synchronistic development,
there have been reports of billion dollar investments in high risk
stock options in both Europe and the U.S. that would only be profitable
if a dramatic collapse of the stock market were to occur before
September 21. Similar stock options were purchased weeks before the 911
attack in 2001, and investigated by the Securities and Exchange
Commission for possible insider trading. The combination of the Sunday
Times report and the Stock market option purchases is circumstantial
evidence that plans for a concerted military attack against Iran have
been secretly approved and covert operations have begun (see:
http://exopolitics.org/Exo-Comment-57.htm ).
Seymour Hersh in May 2006 reported the opposition of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff to the use of nuclear weapons against Iran.
In late April, the military leadership, headed by General Pace,
achieved a major victory when the White House dropped its insistence
that the plan for a bombing campaign include the possible use of a
nuclear device to destroy Iran's uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz,
nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. . "Bush and Cheney were dead
serious about the nuclear planning," the former senior intelligence
official told me. "And Pace stood up to them. Then the world came back:
'O.K., the nuclear option is politically unacceptable.'
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/10/060710fa_fact .
Given earlier opposition by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it is likely
that the present attack plans for Iraq drawn up by the Pentagon dont
involve the use of nuclear weapons. In order to circumvent the regular
chain of command, opposed to a nuclear attack, it is very likely that
Vice President Cheney contrived a National Special Security Event that
involved a nuclear armed B-52. This would have given him the legal
authority to place orders directly through the Secret Service to the
Air Force officers responsible for the B-52 incident.
Conclusion: Exposing those Responsible for the B-52 Incident
Consequently, there is considerable circumstantial evidence to argue
that the nuclear armed B-52 was part of a covert operation, outside the
regular chain of military command. The most plausible authority
responsible for this was Vice President Cheney. He very likely used the
Secret Service to take charge of a contrived National Special Security
Event involving a nuclear armed B-52 that would be flown from Minot
AFB. The B-52 was directed to Barksdale Air Force base where it would
have conducted a covert mission to the Middle East involving the
detonation of one or more nuclear weapons most likely in or in the
vicinity of Iran. This could either have occurred during a conventional
military strike against Iran, or a False Flag operation in the Persian
Gulf region.
The leaking and discovery of the nuclear armed B-52 at Barksdale was
not part of the script. According to a confidential source of Larry
Johnson, a former counter-terrorism official from the State Department
and CIA, the discovery of the nuclear armed B-52 was leaked. Johnson
concludes: Did someone at Barksdale try to indirectly warn the American
people that the Bush Administration is staging nukes for Iran? I dont
know, but it is a question worth asking.
http://tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/sep/05/staging_nuke_for_iran
While the general public is likely to be given a watered down
declassified report by the Air Force over the B-52 incident on
September 14, the real investigation will reveal that it was part of a
covert operation that intended to bypass the regular chain of command
in using nuclear weapons in the Middle East. This will likely result in
a furious backlash by key figures in the regular military chain of
Command such as Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, and the Commander
of Central Command, Admiral William Fallon, who have direct
responsibility for the conduct of military operations in the Middle
East. The US. Air Force, the Secretary of Defense and Commander of
Central Command, is now aware of what was likely going to be the true
use of the B-52 and the responsibility of the Office of the Vice
President. It is very likely that the exposure of the B-52 incident
will lead to an indefinite hold on plans to attack Iran given
uncertainty whether other nuclear weapons have been covertly positioned
for use in the Middle East. Significantly, public officials briefed
about the true circumstances of the B-52 incident will almost certainly
place enormous pressure on Vice President Cheney to immediately resign
if it is found that he played the role identified above. It is
therefore anticipated that in a very short time, the public will learn
that Cheney has resigned for health reasons.
The forthcoming September 14 Air Force report will likely describe the
B-52 incident as an error and an isolated incident as foreshadowed in
the September 6 Press Statement. This will create some difficulty in
exposing the actual role played by Cheney and any other government
figures that supported him. There will be a need for continued public
awareness of the true events behind the B-52 incident in order to
expose the actual role of Cheney. Only in that way can Cheney be held
accountable for his actions, and other government figures that
supported his neo-conservative agenda be exposed. Regardless of whether
Cheneys role as the prime architect of the B-52 incident is exposed to
the public, the official backlash against his covert operation should
force his resignation. In either case, a very dangerous public official
would be removed from a powerful position of influence. More
importantly, the world has been spared a devastating nuclear war by
courageous American airmen who revealed the true contents of an
otherwise routine B-52 landing at Barksdale, AFB headed for a covert
nuclear mission to the Middle East.
*
=================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
New York Transfer News Collective http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
=================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFG4wh+iz2i76ou9wQRAtC8AKC0Fn04FTBqivNj+kzIkLw5H2RbjACfeDYV
aPtjWhyegyS47is1SkSgbuU=
=mOpW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
EFill4Zaggin
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Covert Attempt to Bomb Iran with Nukes Foiled by Military Leak?
I really don't think there's anything in this story. Bush will attack
Iran, and he may end up using nuclear weapons, but I don't think this
story has anything to do with what might happen within the next 6-12
months.
Frank Arthur
"EFill4Zaggin" <EFill4...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bs56e3hoiphbjonoj...@4ax.com...
Nothing like an unidentified source from "under construction"!
EFill4Zaggin
wrote:
So what's your opinion on the story then? You really think the plane
was on the way to dropping a nuclear weapon on Iran? I don't think we
need many facts and figures to come to the conclusion that the story
is very likely to be false.
rove
<NY.Trans...@blythe.org> wrote in message
news:1189283966.5467...@servebbs.org...
statements. Will keep watching this topic. Thanks