nuclear weapons

How Israel’s nuclear arsenal endangers us all

Posted on

by Jeff Gates

On September 24th, U.S. President Barack Obama will preside over a U.N. Security Council session on nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. In March 2010, Moscow will host a Global Nuclear Summit that the U.S. has agreed to attend.

The next six months could prove hopeful or harmful—depending on the impact on Israel’s nuclear arsenal. With U.S. backing, Tel Aviv has thus far avoided compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty—joining North Korea, India and Pakistan.

President John F. Kennedy tried to stop Israel from starting a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. In a June 1963 letter to Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, he insisted on proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Israel was not developing nuclear weapons at its Dimona reactor facility. Though his letter was cabled to the U.S. embassy, Ben-Gurion resigned (citing undisclosed personal reasons) before the message could be physically delivered.

With Israel’s nuclear ambitions under attack by its key ally, that strategically well-timed resignation duped an inexperienced young president and denied him a diplomatic victory that might well have precluded the wars now being waged in the Middle East.

With Ben-Gurion’s resignation, JFK was left without an Israeli government with which he could negotiate. By the time a new government was formed, the Kennedy threat had been eliminated and Tel Aviv could start haggling from scratch with successor Lyndon Johnson who was far more sympathetic to the goals of the Zionist state.

That strategy resurfaced in the recent resignation of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert just as the Road Map gained traction and the threat of peace loomed on the horizon. Olmert’s successor, Benjamin Netanyahu, then used the terms of the Road Map as a bargaining chip to start haggling—with an inexperienced young president—over sanctions against Iran.

Democrat Lyndon Johnson proved himself a reliably pliant pro-Israeli president as did his successor, Republican Richard Nixon. Described by Prime Minister Golda Meir as “the best friend Israel ever had,” Nixon agreed in 1969 to endorse “constructive ambiguity” as a means for Tel Aviv to obscure its nuclear arsenal. Meanwhile Colonial Zionists brandished the threat of that arsenal to seize land they sought for Greater Israel.

Israeli incursions provoked the reactions one would expect, enabling Tel Aviv to portray itself as a hapless victim in need of U.S. support in a hostile and anti-Semitic neighborhood. Four years after Kennedy wrote to Ben-Gurion, Israel mounted a massive six-day assault on neighboring nations, occupying lands that remain at the heart of the hostilities against which Tel Aviv insists it needs nuclear weapons to defend itself.

With the war in Iraq poised to expand to Iran, the next six months offer a rare opportunity to revisit not only Israel’s nuclear arsenal but also—in light of the consistency of its behavior over six decades—the legitimacy of the Zionist enterprise.

Managing the Threat to Zionism: JFK, RFK and Fulbright

In 1962, Senator William Fulbright of Arkansas, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, convened hearings to ensure that the American Zionist Council—funded by the Jewish Agency—register as the agent of a foreign government. JFK was then president and brother Robert his attorney general. Edward (”Ted”) Kennedy was elected to the Senate that year to fill his brother Jack’s seat. In October 1963, the Department of Justice—led by Robert Kennedy—demanded that the Council register as a foreign agent.

Following the Kennedy assassination in November 1963, Nicholas Katzenbach succeeded RFK as Attorney General for Lyndon Johnson. To avoid registration, the Zionist Council morphed into the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). That umbrella organization—still disguised as a domestic lobby—continues to coordinate the efforts of dozens of organizations that sustain a U.S. policy environment favorable to a foreign nation.

The Kennedy brothers shared a little-known insight into the confidence with which Israel wields political influence across party lines. In the closing weeks of his 1960 presidential campaign, candidate Kennedy traveled to New York to seek financial support from Jewish business leaders. On his return to Washington, he called his old friend Charlie Bartlett who had introduced Jack to Jackie.

According to Bartlett, Kennedy was livid after those he met in Manhattan assured him that the funds he sought were available but only if he turned over to them the formulation of U.S. policy in the Middle East. With brother “Bobby” his chief campaign strategist, that experience doubtless came to mind when, in 1963, JFK confirmed that Israel—while portraying itself a U.S. ally—repeatedly lied to him about its development of nuclear weapons.

Israel vs. the Kennedys

At the height an unpopular war in Vietnam, Robert Kennedy emerged to challenge the policies of the Texan who replaced his brother as president in 1963. No one knows for sure that, as president, RFK would have followed JFK’s stance on the Zionist state’s nuclear arsenal. Nor do we know for certain that he would have renewed his insistence that the Israel lobby register as the agent of a foreign government.

When a second Kennedy threat was eliminated with an assassination in June 1968, Tel Aviv welcomed to the White House Richard Nixon who supported Israel’s strategically essential “ambiguous” policy on nuclear arms. Nixon Attorney General John Mitchell was a partner in the same New York law firm (Mudge, Rose, Guthrie & Alexander) that Nixon joined in 1963 after his failed bids as president, losing to JFK in 1960, and as governor of California two years later. In honor of Nixon’s arrival, the dominantly Jewish firm was renamed Nixon, Mudge, Rose, Guthrie & Alexander.
In 1973, five years after RFK’s death, Senator Fulbright could announce with confidence that “Israel controls the U.S. Senate.” By 1974, he was replaced in the Senate. Journalist Helen Thomas was then covering Nixon, one of ten presidents in her lengthy career as White House correspondent. In Obama’s first press conference, she sought to clarify the ambiguity about just who posed a nuclear threat in the region. Her question for this latest Commander in Chief: which nation in the Middle East has nuclear weapons?

In response, Chicagoan Barack Obama did the “Tel Aviv Two-Step.” Rather than answer the question, he spoke about the need for nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. Not since then has Thomas been allowed to ask another question. Instead she was subjected to a withering barrage of personal attacks by pro-Zionist broadcasters who sought to make it appear that she—not the answer to her question—is the problem.

At every opportunity, Tel Aviv insists that Tehran’s nuclear energy program poses an “existential threat.” That claim is correct though not for the reason that the Israel lobby would have Americans believe. If Israel cannot persuade the U.S. to join (or condone) an attack on Iran, some faint semblance of stability may yet be attained in the Middle East. With stability will come an opportunity to confirm the common source of the fixed intelligence that induced the U.S. to invade Iraq in response to the mass murder of 911.

Only one nation had the means, motive, opportunity and, importantly, the stable nation state intelligence to mount such a deception inside the U.S. As that fact becomes apparent, an informed American public will insist that its leadership revisit the legitimacy of the Zionist enterprise along with the costs that this “special relationship” has imposed on the U.S. in blood, treasure and hard-earned credibility.

Israel is the Real Threat to Israel

The existential threat to Israel is real but its source is not Iran. The real threat is the facts that Tel Aviv may again obscure if it succeeds in provoking yet another crisis in the region. Those facts confirm the illegitimacy of the Zionist enterprise as a nation state.

The threat to Barack Obama could become existential should he act consistent with his oath of office. As yet he has shown no inclination to address the perils that this entangled alliance with Jewish extremists imposes on U.S. national security and on the prospects for peace.

As the source of the duplicity that induced the U.S. to war becomes known, Americans will insist on accountability. Zionist fanatics may choose another course. A modern-day Masada is a nuclear possibility. With their vast arsenal (estimates range from 200 to 400 warheads), these religious extremists could preempt accountability by creating chaos worldwide while affixing blame on “Islamo” fascists in an attempt to keep their victim status plausibly intact.

To eliminate the existential threat posed by nuclear-armed religious extremists requires that the U.S.—as Israel’s key ally—isolate the Zionist enterprise, withdraw its recognition as a legitimate state and reclassify its advocates as foreign agents. That long overdue change in the legal status of the Israel lobby—first sought in 1962—will enable U.S. law enforcement to pursue its operatives for giving aid and comfort to an enemy within.

The focal point for peace in the Middle East should not be those nations that do not have nuclear weapons but the one nation that does. Absent external pressure, Israeli behavior will not change. Those who seek peace in the region must boycott Israeli exports, divest from Israeli firms and insist on sanctions against Israel akin to those it seeks against others. Anything less will ensure that Zionist extremists continue to endanger us all.

Source: The Rebel


TVA works for the war machine

Posted on

Can TVA be trusted to maintain safety with radioactive nuclear bomb making gas when they can’t even contain coal ash?

No matter where we turn, we can’t escape the militarism that is America’s biggest business.
Even paying that electric bill contributes.
The Tennessee Valley Authority’s Watts Bar Nuclear Plant in East Tennessee produces tritium for the U.S. nuclear arms program.

TVA’s role in nuclear defense program to grow

Plant near Chattanooga to make gas for warheads

By Anne Paine • The Tennessean • August 24, 2009

The United States maintains a hardline policy opposing countries’ use of civilian nuclear reactors to produce material for weapons, including Iran and North Korea.

But that is what the U.S. Department of Energy has been doing at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Watts Bar reactor in East Tennessee since 2003, and now the department has signaled its intention to start additional production of tritium at TVA’s Sequoyah plant, near Chattanooga.

Tritium, which is a radioactive form of hydrogen, is needed to boost the explosive power of nuclear warheads. The DOE’s 2010 budget proposal includes plans to make tritium at the two Sequoyah reactors, and TVA spokesman Terry Johnson confirmed that the electricity-generating plant is being prepared for the production of the weapons material.

“It’s part of national defense needs, and TVA is participating in that,” Johnson said. “We feel it’s a saving overall for the nation as a whole.” He said he doesn’t expect production to start before at least 2012.

Critics say, in addition to posing environmental and safety concerns, the move is undermining U.S. policy and the international nuclear nonproliferation treaty that it is a party to.

“The expansion of and continued use of these facilities contradicts our message elsewhere around the world that civilian-power-generating reactors should not be used for military purposes,” said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association, which was established in 1971 to monitor and encourage arms control.

“This has been a core principle of the United States and our allies for more than four decades.”

Jennifer Wagner, a spokeswoman for DOE’s National Nuclear Safety Administration, said, “Our justification is obviously that our core mission is to maintain the safety and reliability of our stockpile so we have an effective deterrent.”

She referred to a speech by President Barack Obama in Prague earlier this year in which he said the goal was to reduce the overall number of nuclear weapons but to maintain an arsenal sufficient to discourage other countries from nuclear arms use.

Tritium production at Watts Bar means higher radiation doses for those at the nuclear plant and within a 50-mile radius, but it’s an insignificant amount, according to an Environmental Impact Statement on the project that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved in 2000.

Since production began at Watts Bar, tritium has been found in groundwater on the site, and higher levels than expected have shown up in the cooling water.“It hasn’t gone above regulated limits,” Johnson said. “The tritium that does not stay in the rods is still within the limits the plant is licensed for.”
{more – The Tennessean}

Will US-Russia Nuclear Arms Talks Include Israel?

Posted on Updated on

Nukes, what nukes?

Arial Sharon’s coma channeler

Ready and waiting while the Dimona nuclear plant is an accident waiting to happen.

LONDON (AFP) — US President Barack Obama and Russian leader Dmitry Medvedev on Wednesday agreed in a joint statement to launch talks on potentially far-reaching reductions of their nuclear arsenals. more

The US and Russia need an area where they can reduce some military expenses and since both have enough nuclear weapons to destroy most of the world many times over, this would be a logical place to start. Of course it may just be diversionary talk as it appears there will be no good news coming from the G20 summit.

Putting the nuke issue on the table is all well and fine but when you think about which country would be the most likely to use nuclear weapons, especially preemptively, only one nation comes to mind.

That would be the nation that has never publicly-officially acknowledged that they even have them. The one that imprisoned one of its own, Mordechai Vanunu, for 18 years for telling the world about the weapons program. The same one that Jimmy Carter said in 2008 had over 150 nuclear weapons. A nation that has never allowed international inspection of its nuclear facilities and never will.

Would Obama and the new administration confront Israel about their nukes and propose a reduction?

Not a chance.

Talking with Russia is safe. To even mention nukes and Israel in the same breath is forbidden among the US politicians and media, perhaps even suicidal.

To a country that continuously practices genocide of their unwanted ethnic populations and played a huge part in the 9/11 attacks, nuking an American city and blaming it on others is definitely a possibility if push came to shove.

Israel is the nuclear ‘wild card’ and the US doesn’t dare call their bluff in the rigged game of deception, payoffs and blackmail.

Living Death: The Eternal Now of Hiroshima

Posted on

Written by Chris Floyd
Wednesday, 06 August 2008

I once shared an office for a time with a Japanese scientist from Hiroshima. It was a strange setting for such an association: we were working at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), where the atomic bomb that obliterated my colleague’s city — 63 years ago today — was fashioned.

He never mentioned the bombing; he was too young to have experienced it himself, although some of his family certainly would have. I sometimes felt a bit awkward in his presence, as if I should say something about it, make some kind of apology. But what could you say? “Oh, sorry we destroyed your city and killed all those people in such a gruesome way when we really didn’t have to. Hey, could you pass me that stapler?” Ridiculous. Pointless.

In any case, we had a good time, a lot of laughs, during the months he was there, along with our other officemate, an American scientist who had been a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War, and had been sentenced to do public service for refusing to fight. He spent most of the war working in a juvenile detention center for troubled Native American adolescents somewhere in the Dakotas. Politics was a constant theme of our conversations, especially during that period: it was the time of the first war against Iraq, which, like the current one, had been the product of cynical manipulations, rank propaganda and outright deceit by national leaders named Bush and Cheney.

ORNL itself was a sprawling, labyrinthine complex, something like an college campus — albeit one surrounded by walls topped with barbed wire and patrolled by armed guards — which was in turn part of a much larger complex of laboratories and huge technical facilities scattered throughout that rural area of East Tennessee, all of which had contributed to the creation of the bomb. During World War II, the federal government had constructed not only the secret laboratories but an entire secret city, Oak Ridge, to house the tens of thousands of scientists, technicians and laborers. My grandfather had helped build the housing there. He was a carpenter in Middle Tennessee, one of thousands of workers requisitioned into service by the government. He spent months building the secret city, returning home only on weekends, and was strictly forbidden to tell his family where he was working or what he was doing.

By my day, all weapons production long ceased, and the complexes had been turned into research facilities in a variety of areas. When I was there, as a technical editor, I worked on projects dealing with global warming, energy conservation, transportation and artificial intelligence. I also worked with a remarkable scientist who wanted to set up a new “Court of the Generations,” a kind of Supreme Court that would consider the effects of current policies — particularly technological and scientific developments — on future generations, and act as an advocate for them. I helped prepare his presentation to Congress on the matter. Obviously, the idea went nowhere: Future generations? Are you kidding? Who cares? Or as George W. Bush once put it so eloquently: “History? We don’t know. We’ll all be dead.” Still, it was an intriguing idea: one that might have come in handy during the early days of the laboratory, in the feverish rush to build — and use — atomic weapons.

Here too, amidst all the secrecy and feverish activity, there was deceit and manipulation at work. As John Pilger notes in a blistering article in the Guardian on the anniversary of Hiroshima’s destruction, the stated justifications for using this horrific weapon on a civilian population have all been exposed as deliberate falsehoods. Pilger writes:

The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a criminal act on an epic scale. It was premeditated mass murder that unleashed a weapon of intrinsic criminality. For this reason its apologists have sought refuge in the mythology of the ultimate “good war”, whose “ethical bath”, as Richard Drayton called it, has allowed the west not only to expiate its bloody imperial past but to promote 60 years of rapacious war, always beneath the shadow of The Bomb.

The most enduring lie is that the atomic bomb was dropped to end the war in the Pacific and save lives. “Even without the atomic bombing attacks,” concluded the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946, “air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that … Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”

The National Archives in Washington contain US government documents that chart Japanese peace overtures as early as 1943. None was pursued. A cable sent on May 5, 1945 by the German ambassador in Tokyo and intercepted by the US dispels any doubt that the Japanese were desperate to sue for peace, including “capitulation even if the terms were hard”. Instead, the US secretary of war, Henry Stimson, told President Truman he was “fearful” that the US air force would have Japan so “bombed out” that the new weapon would not be able “to show its strength”. He later admitted that “no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb”. His foreign policy colleagues were eager “to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip”. General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that made the bomb, testified: “There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis.” The day after Hiroshima was obliterated, President Truman voiced his satisfaction with the “overwhelming success” of “the experiment”.

Pilger then concludes:

…In waging their bogus “war on terror”, the present governments in Washington and London have declared they are prepared to make “pre-emptive” nuclear strikes against non-nuclear states. With each stroke toward the midnight of a nuclear Armageddon, the lies of justification grow more outrageous. Iran is the current “threat”. But Iran has no nuclear weapons and the disinformation that it is planning a nuclear arsenal comes largely from a discredited CIA-sponsored Iranian opposition group, the MEK – just as the lies about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction originated with the Iraqi National Congress, set up by Washington…

This progression of lies has brought us to one of the most dangerous nuclear crises since 1945, because the real threat remains almost unmentionable in western establishment circles and therefore in the media. There is only one rampant nuclear power in the Middle East and that is Israel. The heroic Mordechai Vanunu tried to warn the world in 1986 when he smuggled out evidence that Israel was building as many as 200 nuclear warheads. In defiance of UN resolutions, Israel is today clearly itching to attack Iran, fearful that a new American administration might, just might, conduct genuine negotiations with a nation the west has defiled since Britain and America overthrew Iranian democracy in 1953.

In the New York Times on July 18, the Israeli historian Benny Morris, once considered a liberal and now a consultant to his country’s political and military establishment, threatened “an Iran turned into a nuclear wasteland”. This would be mass murder. For a Jew, the irony cries out.

The question begs: are the rest of us to be mere bystanders, claiming, as good Germans did, that “we did not know”? Do we hide ever more behind what Richard Falk has called “a self-righteous, one-way, legal/moral screen [with] positive images of western values and innocence portrayed as threatened, validating a campaign of unrestricted violence”? Catching war criminals is fashionable again. Radovan Karadzic stands in the dock, but Sharon and Olmert, Bush and Blair do not. Why not? The memory of Hiroshima requires an answer.

The fate of Hiroshima is still with us, like those shadows of the victims permanently burned into the stones of the city by the flash of the bomb, as Pilger describes at the beginning of his article. It affects not only the survivors of that first blast, and their descendants, like my Oak Ridge colleague, but all of us. Several generations, including mine, were brought up with the threat of imminent nuclear destruction constantly pressed upon us, as Gregory McNamee describes in his book, Blue Mountains Far Away. (The relevant chapter can be found here). The manufactured crisis with Iran has brought a little something of that anxiety-riddled atmosphere back to public consciousness — and, as Pilger notes, the Terror War has made the possibility of another American use of nuclear weapons on defenseless citizens in a non-nuclear country far more likely.

The Atomic Age ushered in by the attack on Hiroshima has produced a kind of quantum-state apocalypse, one that is both here and not-here, but which can be actuated at any moment. McNamee quotes a passage from Susan Sontag that aptly sums up our strange and warping state of being:

…a permanent modern scenario: apocalypse looms, and it doesn’t occur…. Apocalypse has become an event that is happening, and not happening. It may be that some of the most feared events, like those involving the irreparable ruin of the environment, have already happened. But we don’t know it yet, because the standards have changed. Or because we do not have the right indexes for measuring the catastrophe. Or simply because this is a catastrophe in slow motion.

The nuclear age is indeed a catastrophe in slow motion. Given all that we know of human nature, it is almost inconceivable that these monstrous weapons will not be used again, either individually, as against Japan, or en masse, as in the fearsome Cold War scenarios. It all began in Hiroshima 63 years ago, but that horrible moment — the searing flash and the poison wind — has not yet ended; the slow-motion catastrophe is still unfolding, inside us and all around us.

*Picture from The Hiroshima Panels by Maruki Iri and Maruki Toshi.*


Israel’s 60 years of nuclear proliferation

Posted on it began before 1948, when Israel and Palestine were partitioned by the UN into two separate but equal states. Perhaps the nuclear notion occurred to David Ben-Gurion and friends in 1945, as they observed two atomic bombs dropped by the US on the Empire of Japan (mostly civilian populations) to end WW II. In fact, the nuclear solution brought about an immediate surrender.

In 1948, many highly-skilled Jewish scientists who came to Palestine during the 1930s and 1940s, in particular Dr. Ernst David Bergman, who became the director of the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission and founder of his new nation’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons, joined in support of Ben-Gurion. Those scientists scoured the Negev Desert for uranium deposits on orders from the Israeli Ministry of Defense. By 1950, low-grade deposits near Beersheba and Sidon were found, and their discoverers worked on a low power system of heavy water production.

After all, Israel, having created itself as a Jewish island in a sea of angry Arabs, must have been impressed by the US bombs. Here was a way for David to slay Goliath, a nuclear slingshot, so powerful that it dared any new Holocaust seekers to attempt another. That nuclear stone, properly aimed, powered and fired, would neutralize the would-be attackers in their own Holocaust, if necessary Thus began the tyranny of the rogue nuclear power while the Goliaths of America and Russia were nuclear arming themselves to the teeth.

In fact, as US Army Lt. Col. Warner D. Farr, retired, tells us of this in his must-read 27-page history of Israel’s Nuclear Weapons — The Third Temple’s Holy of Holies, “As payment for Israeli participation in the Suez Crisis of 1956, France provided nuclear expertise and constructed a reactor complex for Israel at Dimona (Beersheba) capable of large-scale plutonium production and reprocessing. The United States discovered the facility in 1958 and it was a subject of continual discussions between American presidents and Israeli prime ministers.” A bit of war guilt for the Nazi and Vichy governments was mixed in as well.

As Farr reports, “Israel used delay and deception to at first keep the United States at bay, and later used the nuclear option as a bargaining chip for a consistent American conventional arms supply. After French disengagement in the early 1960s, Israel progressed on its own, including through several covert operations, to project completion. Before the 1967 Six-Day War, they felt their nuclear facility threatened and reportedly assembled several nuclear devices. By the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel had a number of sophisticated nuclear bombs, deployed them, and considered using them. The Arabs may have limited their war aims because of their knowledge of the Israeli Nuclear weapons. . . .” And so it goes.

With one of the world’s largest nuclear facilities, the actual reactor nested in a deeply set basement, not available for “nuclear opacity,” Israel was on its way to becoming one of the world’s larger nuclear powers and skirting observation. Israel leadership must have breathed a sigh of relief at this Pandora’s Box gifted them, as if from heaven. Dr. Bergmann in fact continued to work closely with the newly created Weizman Institute of Science from 1949 on. In fact, they would contribute to France’s development of nuclear weapons, as well, to help it catch up with the US, USSR, UK, and Canada. course, by 1958, the Dimona plant, alternately called a manganese and/or textile plant, was photographed by US U-2 spy planes and identified as a likely site of a reactor complex. The French, swarming like ants about the complex, were hard to hide as well in Beersheba, so much so that Charles DeGaulle, France’s president, wanted a promise from Israel not to make nuclear weapons, and to announce the “project” to the world. Before Israel did that, they were preempted by the US State Department announcing the secret plant. Even the NY Times announced on December 21, 1960 that Ben-Gurion was building a 24-megawatt reactor “for peaceful purposes.” Sure it was.

This led to a strain in relations between the two nations, with inspections beginning in 1962 until 1969. In fact, the US inspectors only saw the buildings above ground, not the many levels underground. The above ground areas had simulated control rooms. Access to the underground plutonium reprocessing plant was kept so secret that elevator entrances to it were actually bricked over, a highly conscious deception that would cause a country like Iran today a great deal of flak, to say the least. In fact, Ben-Gurion continued to talk about peaceful uses of the plant as it sunk deeper into making nuclear weapons. This as Israel dodged the 50’s and 60’s NATO and US nuclear umbrella.

The French continued to partner, hand in hand, sharing even nuclear tests and data, the French reportedly reshipping reprocessed plutonium back to Israel as payback for scientific assistance.

1963-1973, project completion

Cutting through this bizarre web (all of which you should read in Farr’s article), the French continued work with Israel at Dimona, the sole purpose being to use the underground processing plant for one use, and one use only, nuclear weapons. In fact, for accidentally passing into Dimona’s airspace, Israel shot down one of its own Mirage fighters during the Six-Day War and a Libyan airliner in 1973, with 104 passengers on board, when it strayed over the Sinai. Extra heavy water to run the reactor at a higher rate was provided not only by France, but Norway, while the US provided the uranium for “Operation Plumbat.”

After the ’67 war, France cut off uranium supplies to Israel; supplies had come from former French colonies, Gabon, the infamous Niger (as in yellowcake), and the Central African Republic. Small quantities of uranium came from Israel’s Negev phosphate mines, while it bought quantities from Argentina and South Africa. The West Germans had a front company for high seas transfer, which delivered 200 tons of yellowcake, delivered by the smugglers in 560 sealed oil drums labeled “Plumbat,” which means lead. How clever. The complicity of these nations remained underground as well, so as not anger the Soviets and Arabs. MOSSAD info on former Nazi then German officials helped with motivation.

The first extraction of plutonium, under Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, occurred in 1965. Unfortunately by that time, the Egyptian Air Force had overflown Dimona and most probably recognized the presence of a nuclear reactor. Additionally, 50 American HAWK anti-aircraft missiles half-ringed the plant. Yet Israel consider Egyptian overflights of May 16, 1967, as possible pre-strike reconnaissance, one source listing the flights as trip wires that drove Israel to war. Unfortunately, if one has powerful weapons the impulse is to use or threaten to use them, even if cause needs to be fabricated. Fortunately, Nasser vetoed an Egyptian military plan to attack Dimona at the start of any war. Israel put together two nuclear bombs and 10 days later went to war. The nuclear option was being played out.

And so it went, through the 60s. Lyndon Johnson was more willing than John Kennedy to look the other way, even as Israel pressed him for A-4E Skyhawks first and F-4E Phantoms later, with an agreement not to use them to deliver nuclear weapons. Sure. The F-4s were delivered on September 5, 1969, with their nuclear capable hardware intact. So it goes. Israel and the world dig themselves deeper into a nuclear hole. See the Farr article for complete details. The next section, from 1974-1999, is called Bringing the Bomb up the Basement Stairs, that is into artillery pieces to fire nuclear shells.

By 1976, even the CIA believed that the Israelis were using plutonium from Dimona and had 10 to 20 nuclear weapons available. In 1985, whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu reported the number of nuclear fission bombs at 200 or more, with boosted devices, neutron bombs, F-16 deliverable warheads and Jericho warheads. “The Vanunu photos show a sophistication that inferred to the requirement for testing,” comments Farr.

Indian Ocean tests?

On September 22, 1979, a bright familiar flash in the south Indian Ocean was seen by an American satellite. It was believed to be a South Africa-Israel joint nuclear test. It was, as Farr reports, “according to some, the third test of a neutron bomb. The first two were hidden in clouds to fool the satellite and the third was an accident — the weather cleared.” Though experts differ on these tests, other writers report that scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory believed it to have been a nuclear explosion. This as a presidential panel decided otherwise.

Controversy over possible nuclear testing continues until this day. In June 1998, Farr reports, “a Member of the Knesset accused the government of an underground test near Eilat on May 28, 1998. Egyptian ‘nuclear experts’ have made similar charges. The Israeli government hotly denied the claims.”

In addition, the Israelis have been interested in American nuclear weapons development data, especially from US intelligence. Farr tells us, “American-born Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard obtained satellite-imaging data of the Soviet Union, allowing Israel to target accurately Soviet Cities [after discovering they, Israel, were on a Soviet target list]. This showed Israel’s intention to use its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent political lever, or retaliatory capability against the Soviet Union itself.

“Israel also used American satellite imagery to plan the 7 June 1981 attack on the Tammuz-1 reactor at Osiraq, Iraq. This daring attack, carried out by eight F-16’s accompanied by six F-15’s punched a hole in the concrete reactor dome before the reactor began operation (and just days before an Israeli election) . . . The blasts shred the reactor and blew out the dome foundations, causing it to collapse on the rubble. This was the first attack on a nuclear reactor [Itals mine].” So Israel, US, Russia, France, et al, where do we go from here?

Perhaps to Gordon Thomas, reporting at Globe Intel in his article, Mossad and the Russian Mafia Plutonium Connection, 11/21/03. Here is a sample. You can read the rest . . .

“Scientists at the European Trans-Uranium Institute at Karlsruhe in Germany, tracking the movements of all fissionable material from the former Soviet Union’s nuclear arsenal, have raised suspicions that Mossad has purchased some of the material to allegedly stop it falling
into the hands of Islamic and other terror groups.

“But there is also the real possibility that Israel has gone into the nuclear black market to buy fissionable material to bolster its own huge nuclear arsenal. Israel already has one of the world’s largest arsenals — more than capable of decimating all its Arab neighbors. Its 200 nuclear bombs and missiles are stockpiled in the Negev desert.

“The suspicion that Israel has also started to buy material stolen from the former Soviet Union surfaced a year ago when a quantity of Uranium-235 was found in the Paris apartment of three criminals known to broker arms deals with terror groups like al-Qaeda. . . .”

So, now we have a Wild East situation, with Israel purchasing nuclear material supposedly to stop it from falling into the hands of Al-Qaeda. It would seem said material is no safer in Israel’s hands than in those of the fictional Al-Qaeda, a CIA brand name for terror, originally created, funded, and armed to fight the Russians in 1979 in Afghanistan. Its name was used again in 2001 to describe the patsies for 9/11, those 19 Muslim characters whose presence on the four ill-fated airliners has never been fully validated. This brings us full circle to Israel’s own participation in 9/11, a story for another day, but a very real story.

Bottom line

I have not written this article to condemn Israel on its 60th anniversary as a quasi-legal state, quasi to question the UN’s legitimacy to create it, and quasi for Israel’s subsequent actions to ingest and destroy the Palestinians. My aim is to point out Israel’s own hypocrisy regarding Iran’s possible possession of nuclear capability not just for peacetime power. Beyond the Cold War, it is Israel that has historically been edging us into a worldwide nuclear conflagration; and doing so since 2001 with the hegemonic boobs presently running the USA and supporting Israel’s misguided efforts with billions of dollars of aid for arms in the hope that it will keep the Arab world intimidated and give us its oil.

I also understand the motivation of the Israeli founders in seeking a nuclear option as a deterrent to another Holocaust. But they have created now what Seymour Hirsch noted as “The Samson Option,” which is to bring down the whole world on our heads to prevent what seems a self-fulfilling prophecy of Holocaust.

As a rogue nation, under its own impetus, Israel should invoke its Talmudic and biblical conscience, take a breath, and rethink where they are, who they are, what they are doing, and to whom. The survival of Israel’s Zionist State of Mind should not be contingent on the potential destruction of the world. That is as simply, as compassionately, as reasonably as I can state it. After my voice, will come voices far more strident and ugly, as you can imagine.

Trust me. Put aside your arms and put aside your bunker mentality to talk peacefully.

By Jerry Mazza
Online Journal Associate Editor

Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer living in New York. Reach him at


Where Are the World’s Nuclear Weapons?

Recently someone asked me which countries have nuclear bombs, and how many they all have.

I was surprised to realize I didn’t know. And yet I’ve spent most of my life actively worried about powerful states with big bombs. I was born three years after the nuclear bomb was first detonated and four years before the first thermonuclear bomb was perfected. By the time I could read, I already knew the world could end at any moment. People my age are aptly called boomers; the Armageddon Generation would fit too.

We saw nuclear Armageddon as a possibility based on two facts:

  • The world was divided into two hostile camps
  • Each side possessed enough nuclear bombs to destroy life on Earth

Once the nuclear exchange started, we were given to understand, we’d all be dead in about an hour. Even in the old days, I didn’t know exactly how many bombs anyone had–just that it was some multiple of enough-to-kill-everyone. What else mattered?

The forgotten fear

Today, terrorism seems to occupy the slot that nuclear Armageddon once held in our public psyche. Yet aren’t the bombs still around? When the Soviet Union broke into 15 independent countries, did its arsenal vanish? Did the nuclear powers in other parts of the world stop building new weapons? What about that rumor about South Africa …? And didn’t North Korea …? And isn’t …? Yikes!

So which countries still have nuclear weapons?

Good question.

Dug up the answer

According to information compiled by the Nuclear Threat Initiative, an organization devoted to monitoring the status of the nuclear threat worldwide, nine countries had nukes by April 2004. The nine countries are listed below. Each figure includes the approximate number of both tactical and strategic bombs (nuclear and thermonuclear, or “big” and “really humongous”).



United States










United Kingdom






North Korea***




Asterisks explained

* Israel has a policy called “nuclear opacity” or “nuclear ambiguity,” which consists of refusing to confirm or deny that it has nuclear weapons at all. In 1986, however, whistle-blower Mordechai Vanunu, an Israeli nuclear weapons worker, published pictures of nuclear weapons facilities in Israel. Today, experts agree that Israel has between 100 and 300 warheads (and Israel doesn’t deny it).

** India and Pakistan both admit (boast?) that they have weapons, but are cagey about how many. Estimates for India run from 40 to 90 and for Pakistan from 30 to 50.

*** North Korea is anybody’s guess. At the end of 2003, U.S. intelligence experts were surmising it had three bombs, but four months later they tentatively raised their estimate to eight. They also said North Korea is geared up to build about six bombs a year from here on out.

In short, there are now some 20,000 fully operational nukes pointed at someone in this world.

The wannabes

Meanwhile, a second tier of nations loiters outside the clubhouse door, looking for ways to break in. I count seven of these Nuclear Weapons State Wannabes, based on the following criteria:

  • They possess nuclear reactors–and might therefore produce their own highly enriched uranium or plutonium, the indispensable ingredients of nuclear bombs
  • They have scientists and engineers with sufficient know-how to build bombs
  • They have missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads
  • They have indicated a hankering for nuclear weapons
  • The seven wannabes are: Egypt, Libya, Syria, South Korea, Taiwan, Iran, and Serbia and Montenegro.

So why aren’t we more worried?


Post by way of:

Manufactured Reality — Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

Posted on

By Peter Chamberlin

Peter Chamberlin’s blog

In order to force a new reality upon any targeted populace, the masters of the universe follow a simple strategy – they immediately make things twice as bad as they intend to keep them, only to take one step back after a short while, so that the new manufactured reality will be easier to accept. This strategy holds constant from the manipulation of oil prices to the military strategy to rule the world by force.

In the terror war, nuclear terrorism has become the weapon of both first choice and last resort for American war planners. It was more important to create the impression that nuclear war was imminent than it was to convince the world that we intended to use nuclear weapons as our ace in the hole. The world had to be terrorized into believing that our insane cowboy president was about to unleash nuclear war upon the world, so that it could be held over the people’s heads. The world had to be shocked and awed by American military supremacy into submitting to Bush’s demands.

America took two giant steps forward militarily, intending in the end to take one step back from the precipice of actual global thermonuclear war, to a more limited approach that only called for a limited use of “tactical” nukes. A two-track approach to the war was undertaken; one path leading to immediate global nuclear war and another “democratic” approach, which put-off the use of nuclear weapons until some future action, in order to create unlimited opportunities for subversion where America’s full military might could be brought to bear upon more specific targets. (Have they already been used?)

The threat that full-scale nuclear war in the center of the world’s primary energy basket was imminent created a global atmosphere of mortal fear and dread, while covert limited wars were simultaneously pursued. This was intended to cow both the American people and the people in the targeted countries into submission to presidential dictates. The threat of general nuclear war was used to intimidate the targeted governments into “playing nice” diplomatically, while America interfered in their national affairs, introducing its revolutionary “democratic” form of politics, which included backing extremist groups.

Fear of US nuclear forces provided cover to American agitation in the Middle East region along the lines of “Operation Gladio,” which was used against our own allies in Europe. In both operations, sympathetic right-wing leaders were found who could be bought, to be groomed by the CIA, to cultivate and organize local opposition groups. From these agitated groups more violent radicals were found and hired to stage terrorist (“false flag”) attacks upon civilians and the governments, to be blamed upon their local opposition, which were usually actual patriot groups.

The second leg of the neoconservative war doctrine is the spreading of subversion under the cover of implanting democracy by force, and its companion, the spreading of force through democratic means. Divisive political campaigns in targeted nations (including staged attacks by extremists) were engineered, to split the tribal societies into heavily-armed polarized factions waiting for retribution.

We have this apt description of this divisive American strategy from former Pakistani ISI agent, turned human rights activist, Khalid Khawaja:

“Many of us call it a battle between East and West, between the Islamic and Judeo-Christian world, but it is neither of these. It is in fact the ruling regimes that want to dictate their will…

Ninety percent of people accept to be ruled, but there always remain some elements who refuse to succumb. They fight for freedom and resist till their last. However, in this conflict of two minorities – those who impose their will and those who resist it – the majority remains the sole victim. Yet people talk about Islam versus Christianity or Judaism. The basic theme remains the same. There is a group of people who want to impose their will, whether they happen to be Christian or Muslim, and there is a group of people who want to resist, and there is a silent majority which is trampled in between.”

Mr. Khawaja continues to delve into the under-discussed cause of the whole war on terror:

“In Afghanistan’s case, a similar game was carried out on a massive scale when Muslim youths from all over the world were brought in by Pakistan and the US [to fight against the Soviets in the 1980s]. They were tools for the empires’ proxy war. The name of jihad was used…it is a question of a state imposing its will. The message is clear: if you are against us, we will kill you and your sympathizers. In this state terrorism, there is no exception, be it Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Pakistan, India, the US or Israel. All are the same.

When two elephants fight, it is the grass that gets crushed. When two elephants make love, it is again the grass that gets crushed. Whether states fight with each other or make friendships, it is only the tools who became victims.”

The same deception has been practiced in both Iraq and Afghanistan, to prolong both of those wars until the doctrine could be spread beyond them. Both countries had been targeted for regime change, but nonetheless, even after the first regime was replaced, the doctrine of creating surrogate militias to promote democratic revolution was still developed in each one, targeting the new regimes. In each country violent extremist groups, usually identified as “al Qaida related,” were put on the American payroll to fight against US troops and US installed governments. The hiring and training of these “militia” mercenary groups falls within the recognized definition of treason, “levying war against [the United States].”

That destabilizing doctrine is now being exported into Iran from Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, where beachheads have been established for a planned assault upon the entire neighborhood. These training centers are terrorist camps, plain and simple. These are the American trained terrorists who will carry the limited warfare scenario into Iran under cover of the greater threat of nuclear terrorism. The United States of America is the world’s number one supporter and exporter of terrorism; it always has been.

In order to carry out the Israeli-centric PNAC (Project for a New American Century) terror war plan that they have committed to, Bush and Cheney have doggedly undermined America’s national interests at home and all over the world. America’s national interest has always been based on advancing liberty and human rights to the whole world, but now, under the neocon plan, these are rights that must be earned. Bush was sent unto the world to turn reality upon its head.

On a rotating basis, America and Israel took turns slinging threats of nuclear annihilation and libelous invective at Iran and Syria, hyping the threats to intensify the notion that a nuclear attack was becoming imminent. As Israel and America ramp-up the war-mongering against Iran and Syria, Israel sings out the threats first, then America will provide the chorus and hopefully the highly desired “money shot” afterwards.

As a final machination, to seal America and Israel’s position, the neocon doctrine unlocked the prohibition of the offensive use of nuclear weapons, even in civilian areas. It is this new free use of nuclear weapon doctrine that is the icing on the cake for those who are plotting to seize the world under the threat of American nuclear terrorism. Because it is now possible, it is easy to convince us all that our cowboy administration of religious zealots is about to commit an insane act, i.e., unleashing nuclear war to eliminate the possibility of a nuclear war.

Patriotic anti-government voices in this country and in the targeted countries, helped to create a strong public perception that nuclear war was imminent. Antiwar voices of protest like mine sound a warning to alert the people to the crimes being planned that must be heard, but in so doing, we play into the government scheme by helping to hype the threat. It is both necessary and natural that patriots arise to defend their nations in the face of American invasion or aggression. We play a vital role in the planned drama, as it unfolds. We have convinced the world that Bush and Cheney were insane enough to radiate the Middle Eastern oil fields, in order to steal the world’s oil. We now may have to convince the world that the crazies themselves are the source of most of the terrorism which we fight.

It is pretty obvious that they really are that insane, but it should be even more obvious that their greedy masters don’t want their world destroyed, they only want to control it. Why should they actually nuke Iran, if they can persuade the locals to overthrow the regime for us, causing less collateral damage (it would be difficult to operate the Middle East oil facilities, if they were all radioactive). We have to convince the American people that Bush even though the little dictator is both stupid and insane, the real deciders are neither of those things. It is their wills which will prevail, meaning that there are other less final, less costly ways to takeover the oil reserves and the pipeline routes.

We have to concentrate on stopping the secret war, without being blinded by the glare of nuclear terrorism. Exposure of American sponsorship of world terrorism (some of the very “terrorism” we are fighting) must become our top priority. Legal actions must be taken to stop the illegal support of terrorism upon civilians by our government. Further legal actions must be taken to separate American foreign policy from Israel, in order to bring the terror war to an end.

Israel has been the primary source for most of the “intelligence” that launched the war on Iraq, the Iranian reactors and hypothetical nuclear weapons, as well as the alleged Syrian reactors. America turned Israel’s evidence into grounds for waging war, even nuclear war. They are behind the new push to find other Syrian nuclear facilities… as well as the alleged Iranian warhead blueprint.…

Israel is behind every military move against Iran that is being brought-up in the press. It was the first to suggest taking out Iranian reactors, the first to recommend a naval blockade of Iran and an embargo on air flights between Iran and Syria and Lebanon. American Zionist Congressional leaders gladly took up the torches lit by Israel, to create Israeli security at America’s expense. A Congressional resolution is awaiting passage in the Senate, which demands that our government carry-out these acts of war, both the naval blockade and the air embargo, House Resolution 1194

The American people must rise-up in outrage to the terrorists who rule over us and stop the planned escalation, as a first step to de-escalating the war. It is time for us to take our own two steps forward, to force the aggressors to take one step back and begin to tear-down their manufactured reality.

Contact author:

New Book From Former White House Whore Cuts No Rope

Posted on Updated on

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Winter Patriot

The new tell-all [sic] book from professional liar and former White House mouthpiece Scott McClellan may best be seen as a crass attempt to make a few bucks while trying to avoid responsibility for the war crimes and crimes against humanity in which he so gleefully participated.

But there’s still a noose in The Hague with Scottie’s name on it, and the real journalists who work for McClatchy have all the details.

The noose with McClellan’s name on it is in a room full of nooses — with the names of all the war criminals who have taken over our government.

And this room may well be the last, best, and only hope for mankind.

It’s a shame nothing in it will ever be used.


I agree with Larisa Alexandrovna when she says (at At-Largely): “Go there and show these few, brave reporters some love. Leave a comment.”

Jason Leopold at ConsortiumNews points to a passage in the book which suggests Karl Rove had a hand in the cover-up of the Valerie Plame case. Wow! Wouldn’t that be a shock!!

Back at At-Largely, Larisa agrees with Jason’s assessment, at least in the broad outlines. And Kathy says there’s strong circumstantial evidence suggesting that Bush authorized the leak of Plame’s identity.

Wouldn’t these all be shocks? Oh come on, now. Seriously. Wouldn’t you be just mortified? Imagine how it would look to the people of America!

If it shattered their “faith” in “democracy”, might that lead to something positive?


Nuclear Proliferation To A Radical Islamic State? All Part Of The Job For BushCo

Thursday, May 29, 2008

It seems almost impossible that the Bush administration, while threatening to wage war in order to prevent Iran from enriching uranium, could simultaneously give enriched uranium to another radical Islamic country.

Or perhaps I should rephrase that: If it seems impossible, you haven’t been paying any attention at all.

But Chris Floyd has been paying close attention all along, and he has the goods on “Uranium Enrichment: The Bushes, The Saudis and The Bomb“. It’s a long piece, even by Floyd’s standards. But it’s well worth reading. Follow some of the links, too, for an education you won’t soon forget.


Civilized Countries Vote To Ban Cluster Bombs

Thursday, May 29, 2008

All the civilized countries of the world have voted for a ban on cluster bombs. But — big surprise — the US was not among them!

More than 100 countries reached agreement Wednesday to ban cluster bombs, controversial weapons that human rights groups deplore but that the United States, which did not join the ban, calls an integral, legitimate part of its arsenal.


The weapons consist of canisters packed with small bombs, or “bomblets,” that spread over a large area when a canister is dropped from a plane or fired from the ground. While the bomblets are designed to explode on impact, they frequently do not. Civilians, particularly children, are often maimed or killed when they pick up unexploded bombs, sometimes years later.

And that’s legitimate!

A Pentagon spokesman contributed the usual bullshit:

Navy Cmdr. Bob Mehal, a Pentagon spokesman, [said] “cluster munitions have demonstrated military utility, and their elimination from U.S. stockpiles would put the lives of our soldiers and those of our coalition partners at risk.”

Of course it’s much better — and much more legitimate — to put the lives of innocent civilians at risk, while we wage illegitimate wars with so-called legitimate weapons.

Along with the USA, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel also refused to sign the agreement.

It is becoming increasingly difficult not to believe that the world would be a better place if all six were reduced to ashes.