Nuclear

Japan Nuclear Meltdown? Maybe Worse Than Thought?

December 4, 2011 By T Kelly Leave a Comment

Molten nuclear fuel at Japan’s Fukushima plant might have eaten two thirds of the way through a concrete containment base, its operator said, citing a new simulation of the extent of the March disaster.

Tokyo Electric Power (TEPCO) said their latest calculations showed the fuel inside the No. 1 reactor at the tsunami-hit plant could have melted entirely, dropping through its inner casing and eroding a concrete base.

In the worst-case scenario, the molten fuel could have reached as far as 65 centimetres (2 feet) through the concrete, leaving it only 37 centimetres short of the outer steel casing, the report, released Wednesday, said.

Until now, TEPCO had said some fuel melted through the inner pressure vessel and dropped to the containment vessel, without saying how much and what it did to the concrete, citing a lack of data.

“Almost no fuel remains at its original position,” TEPCO said in the report.

Two other reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant also went into meltdown when the tsunami knocked out cooling systems at the plant.

However, only about 60 percent of their fuel dropped through to the concrete floor and caused less damage, the report projected.

The molten fuel in the three reactors is believed to have stayed cool and stable because water has been injected into the vessels, the utility said.

TEPCO added, however, that it has yet to closely study many areas of the damaged reactors due to high level of radiation and stressed its findings were based on modelling.

The exact position of the fuel believed to have eaten its way through the concrete and to what extent it is being exposed to the cooling water is not known.

“Uncertainly involved in the analysis is significant due to the uncertain nature of the original conditions and data used,” the report said.

“Using (realistically assumed) conditions for the evaluation, the concrete could have been penetrated, but (the fuel) stayed inside the casing,” it said.

Fukushima Daiichi has spewed radioactive materials across eastern Japan since it was inundated by the huge waves of March 11.

The world’s worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl in 1986 has not directly claimed any lives, but has left tens of thousands of people displaced and rendered tracts of land uninhabitable, possibly for decades.

TEPCO and the Japanese government have pledged to bring all the plant’s reactors to a state of cold shutdown by the end of 2011.

Source: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/japan-nuclear-meltdown-maybe-worse-thought-081203089.html

Filed Under: Environment, Fukushima, Nuclear, Radiation, Science

‘Depleted Uranium’s Toxic Legacy To Poison Libya For 40 Years’

December 2, 2011 By T Kelly Leave a Comment

Filed Under: Health, Libya, Nuclear, Radiation, Uncategorized, Weapons Tagged With: Depleted Uranium

Digging Into China’s Nuclear Tunnels

December 1, 2011 By T Kelly 1 Comment

The Chinese have called it their “Underground Great Wall” — a vast network of tunnels designed to hide their country’s increasingly sophisticated missile and nuclear arsenal.

For the past three years, a small band of obsessively dedicated students at Georgetown University has called it something else: homework.

Led by their hard-charging professor, a former top Pentagon official, they have translated hundreds of documents, combed through satellite imagery, obtained restricted Chinese military documents and waded through hundreds of gigabytes of online data.

The result of their effort? The largest body of public knowledge about thousands of miles of tunnels dug by the Second Artillery Corps, a secretive branch of the Chinese military in charge of protecting and deploying its ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads.

The study is yet to be released, but already it has sparked a congressional hearing and been circulated among top officials in the Pentagon, including the Air Force vice chief of staff.

Most of the attention has focused on the 363-page study’s provocative conclusion — that China’s nuclear arsenal could be many times larger than the well-established estimates of arms-control experts.

“It’s not quite a bombshell, but those thoughts and estimates are being checked against what people think they know based on classified information,” said a Defense Department strategist who would discuss the study only on the condition of anonymity.

The study’s critics, however, have questioned the unorthodox Internet-based research of the students, who drew from sources as disparate as Google Earth, blogs, military journals and, perhaps most startlingly, a fictionalized TV docudrama about Chinese artillery soldiers — the rough equivalent of watching Fox’s TV show “24” for insights into U.S. counterterrorism efforts.

But the strongest condemnation has come from nonproliferation experts who worry that the study could fuel arguments for maintaining nuclear weapons in an era when efforts are being made to reduce the world’s post-Cold War stockpiles.

Beyond its impact in the policy world, the project has made a profound mark on the students — including some who have since graduated and taken research jobs with the Defense Department and Congress.

“I don’t even want to know how many hours I spent on it,” said Nick Yarosh, 22, an international politics senior at Georgetown. “But you ask people what they did in college, most just say I took this class, I was in this club. I can say I spent it reading Chinese nuclear strategy and Second Artillery manuals. For a nerd like me, that really means something.”

For students, an obsession

The students’ professor, Phillip A. Karber, 65, had spent the Cold War as a top strategist reporting directly to the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But it was his early work in defense that cemented his reputation, when he led an elite research team created by Henry Kissinger, who was then the national security adviser, to probe the weaknesses of Soviet forces.

Karber prided himself on recruiting the best intelligence analysts in the government. “You didn’t just want the highest-ranking or brightest guys, you wanted the ones who were hungry,” he said.

In 2008, Karber was volunteering on a committee for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, a Pentagon agency charged with countering weapons of mass destruction.

After a devastating earthquake struck Sichuan province, the chairman of Karber’s committee noticed Chinese news accounts reporting that thousands of radiation technicians were rushing to the region. Then came pictures of strangely collapsed hills and speculation that the caved-in tunnels in the area had held nuclear weapons.

Find out what’s going on, the chairman asked Karber, who began looking for analysts again — this time among his students at Georgetown.

The first inductees came from his arms-control classes. Each semester, he set aside a day to show them tantalizing videos and documents he had begun gathering on the tunnels. Then he concluded with a simple question: What do you think it means?

“The fact that there were no answers to that really got to me,” said former student Dustin Walker, 22. “It started out like any other class, tests on this day or that, but people kept coming back, even after graduation. . . .We spent hours on our own outside of class on this stuff.”

The students worked in their dorms translating military texts. They skipped movie nights for marathon sessions reviewing TV clips of missiles being moved from one tunnel structure to another. While their friends read Shakespeare, they gathered in the library to war-game worst-case scenarios of a Chinese nuclear strike on the United States.

Over time, the team grew from a handful of contributors to roughly two dozen. Most spent their time studying the subterranean activities of theSecond Artillery Corps.

While the tunnels’ existence was something of an open secret among the handful of experts studying China’s nuclear arms, almost no papers or public reports on the structures existed.

So the students turned to publicly available Chinese sources — military journals, local news reports and online photos posted by Chinese citizens. It helped that China’s famously secretive military was beginning to release more information, driven by its leaders’ eagerness to show off China’s growing power to its citizens.

The Internet also generated a raft of leads: new military forums, blogs and once-obscure local TV reports now posted on the Chinese equivalents of YouTube. Strategic string searches even allowed the students to get behind some military Web sites and download documents such as syllabuses taught at China’s military academies.

Drudgery and discoveries

The main problem was the sheer amount of translation required.

Each semester, Karber managed to recruit only one or two Chinese-speaking students. So the team assembled a makeshift system to scan images of the books and documents they found. Using text-capture software, they converted those pictures into Chinese characters, which were fed into translation software to produce crude English versions. From those, they highlighted key passages for finer translation by the Chinese speakers.

The downside was the drudgery — hours feeding pages into the scanner. The upside was that after three years, the students had compiled a searchable database of more than 1.4 million words on the Second Artillery and its tunnels.

By combining everything they found in the journals, video clips, satellite imagery and photos, they were able to triangulate the location of several tunnel structures, with a rough idea of what types of missiles were stored in each.

Their work also yielded smaller revelations: how the missiles were kept mobile and transported from structure to structure, as well as tantalizing images and accounts of a “missile train” and disguised passenger rail cars to move China’s long-range missiles.

To facilitate the work, Karber set up research rooms for the students at his home in Great Falls. He bought Apple computers and large flat-screen monitors for their video work and obtained small research grants for those who wanted to work through the summer. When work ran late, many crashed in his basement’s spare room.

“I got fat working on this thing because I didn’t go to the gym anymore. It was that intense,” said Yarosh, who has continued on the project this year not for credit but purely as a hobby. “It’s not the typical college course. Dr. Karber just tells you the objective and gives you total freedom to figure out how to get there. That level of trust can be liberating.”

Some of the biggest breakthroughs came after members of Karber’s team used personal connections in China to obtain a 400-page manual produced by the Second Artillery and usually available only to China’s military personnel.

Another source of insight was a pair of semi-fictionalized TV series chronicling the lives of Second Artillery soldiers.

The plots were often overwrought with melodrama — one series centers on a brigade commander who struggles to whip his slipshod unit into shape while juggling relationship problems with his glamorous Olympic-swim-coach girlfriend. But they also included surprisingly accurate depictions of artillery units’ procedures that lined up perfectly with the military manual and other documents.

“Until someone showed us on screen how exactly these missile deployments were done from the tunnels, we only had disparate pieces. The TV shows gave us the big picture of how it all worked together,” Karber said.

A bigger Chinese arsenal?

In December 2009, just as the students began making progress, the Chinese military admitted for the first time that the Second Artillery had indeed been building a network of tunnels. According to a report by state-run CCTV, China had more than 3,000 miles of tunnels — roughly the distance between Boston and San Francisco — including deep underground bases that could withstand multiple nuclear attacks.

The news shocked Karber and his team. It confirmed the direction of their research, but it also highlighted how little attention the tunnels were garnering outside East Asia.

The lack of interest, particularly in the U.S. media, demonstrated China’s unique position in the world of nuclear arms.

For decades, the focus has been on the two powers with the largest nuclear stockpiles by far — the United States, with 5,000 warheads available for deployment, and Russia, which has 8,000.

But of the five nuclear weapons states recognized by the Non-Proliferation Treaty, China has been the most secretive. While the United States and Russia are bound by bilateral treaties that require on-site inspections, disclosure of forces and bans on certain missiles, China is not.

The assumption for years has been that the Chinese arsenal is relatively small — anywhere from 80 to 400 warheads.

China has encouraged that perception. As the only one of the five original nuclear states with a no-first-use policy, it insists that it keeps a small stockpile only for “minimum deterrence.”

Given China’s lack of transparency, Karber argues, all the experts have to work with are assumptions, which can often be dead wrong. As an example, Karber often recounts to his students his experience of going to Russia with former defense secretary Frank C. Carlucci to discuss U.S. help in securing the Russian nuclear arsenal.

The United States had offered Russia about 20,000 canisters designed to safeguard warheads — a number based on U.S. estimates at the time.

The generals told Karber they needed 40,000.

Skepticism among analysts

At the end of the tunnel study, Karber cautions that the same could happen with China. Based on the number of tunnels the Second Artillery is digging and its increasing deployment of missiles, he argues, China’s nuclear warheads could number as many as 3,000.

It is an assertion that has provoked heated responses from the arms-control community.

Gregory Kulacki, a China nuclear analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, publicly condemned Karber’s report at a recent lecture in Washington. In an interview afterward, he called the 3,000 figure “ridiculous” and said the study’s methodology — especially its inclusion of posts from Chinese bloggers — was “incompetent and lazy.”

“The fact that they’re building tunnels could actually reinforce the exact opposite point,” he argued. “With more tunnels and a better chance of survivability, they may think they don’t need as many warheads to strike back.”

Reaction from others has been more moderate.

“Their research has value, but it also shows the danger of the Internet,” said Hans M. Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists. Kristensen faulted some of the students’ interpretation of the satellite images.

“One thing his report accomplishes, I think, is it highlights the uncertainty about what China has,” said Mark Stokes, executive director of the Project 2049 Institute, a think tank. “There’s no question China’s been investing in tunnels, and to look at those efforts and pose this question is worthwhile.”

This year, the Defense Department’s annual report on China’s military highlighted for the first time the Second Artillery’s work on new tunnels, partly a result of Karber’s report, according to some Pentagon officials. And in the spring, shortly before a visit to China, some in the office of then-Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates were briefed on the study.

“I think it’s fair to say senior officials here have keyed upon the importance of this work,” said one Pentagon officer who was not authorized to speak on the record.

For Karber, provoking such debate means that he and his small army of undergrads have succeeded.

“I don’t have the slightest idea how many nuclear weapons China really has, but neither does anyone else in the arms-control community,” he said. “That’s the problem with China — no one really knows except them.”

Source:

Filed Under: China, Nuclear, Politics, Weapons

Iran Strike To Paralyze Life In Israel

December 1, 2011 By T Kelly Leave a Comment

Former director of the Mossad spy agency Meir Dagan has warned that an Israeli military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities would lead to a regional war.

Dagan said in a television interview on Tuesday that Iran, and the Hezbollah and Hamas resistance movements will respond with massive rocket attacks on Israel if the Tel Aviv regime attacks Iranian atomic sites, Haaretz reported.

He noted that Syria would also join Iran in that scenario.

Dagan added that such a war would take a heavy toll in terms of lost lives and would paralyze life in Israel.

Earlier in May, Dagan publicly argued against an airstrike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

He described the possibility of a future Israeli airstrike on Iran as “the stupidest thing he has ever heard.”

The former Mossad chief said that any military strike was likely to prompt a regional war and missile attacks from several fronts on Israel, adding that any attack on Iran would have no advantage for Tel Aviv.

Israeli officials roundly criticized Dagan for calling a possible attack on Iran “a stupid idea,” saying such remarks undermine Israel’s ability of prowess.

“Any ability to disperse the ambiguousness surrounding the issue of Iran hurts Israel’s standing against Iran,” Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said during an interview with Israel Radio on July 5.

He added that the military option against Iran must remain on the table.

Israel’s Science and Technology Minister Daniel Hershkowitz also said an indictment against Dagan should be considered, adding that he should not have made the comments whether they were correct or not.

“If someone came out of a cabinet meeting and discussed Israel’s capabilities or lack thereof, he would be indicted for compromising national security…His statements harm the people who stood behind him. Perhaps it would have been better to just keep his mouth shut,” Hershkowitz said.

The United States and Israel have repeatedly threatened Tehran with the “option” of a military strike, based on the allegation that Iran’s nuclear work may consist of a covert military agenda.

Iran has refuted the allegations, saying that as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it has the right to develop and acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

While Israel refuses to allow inspections of its nuclear facilities or to join the NPT based on its policy of nuclear ambiguity, Iran has been subjected to snap IAEA inspections due to its policy of nuclear transparency.

Israel recently test fired a new long-range missile capable of carrying nuclear warheads. The test was carried out at the Palmahim air base in central Israel.

This three-stage Jericho-3 missile, which is capable of delivering a 750-kilo warhead to a distance, is estimated to have a range of up to 10,000 kilometers. Paradoxically, Israel’s new nuke-capable missile, which can target many parts of the globe, is not considered a threat in the eyes of the West.

Source: https://flipthepyramid.com/index.php/entry/iran-strike-to-paralyze-life-in-israel

Filed Under: Iran, Israel, Nuclear, Syria, Weapons

Whose Finger On Pakistan’s Nuclear Trigger?

November 28, 2011 By T Kelly Leave a Comment

ISLAMABAD - While the United States has officially refuted recent international media reports questioning Pakistan’s nuclear safety mechanisms, saying that its security measures are state-of-the-art, it is the country’s all-powerful army leaders who will have the final say in the use of nuclear weapons if it ever came to that.

This is despite the fact that in theory the prime minister’s finger should be on the nuclear trigger as chairman of the Nuclear Command Authority (NCA) that handles the command and control of strategic nuclear forces and organizations.

Fresh controversy over the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons was set off with an article in the December 2011 issue of a leading US magazine, The Atlantic. Titled “The Alley from Hell”, the report described Pakistan as an unstable and violent country located at the epicenter of global jihadism, which might not be the safest place on earth to warehouse 100-plus nuclear weapons.

Tagging Pakistan as an obvious place for a jihadi organization to seek a nuclear weapon or fissile material, the article said the Pakistani military and security services were infiltrated by an unknown number of jihadi sympathizers.

The Atlantic pointed out three key threats to Pakistan’s nuclear program: a terrorist theft of a nuclear weapon, a transfer of a nuclear weapon to another state like Iran, and a takeover of nuclear weapons by a militant group during a period of instability. The magazine claimed:

In a country that is home to the harshest variants of Muslim fundamentalism, and to the headquarters of the organizations that espouse these extremist ideologies, including al-Qaeda, the Haqqani network, and Lashkar-e-Toiba, nuclear bombs capable of destroying entire cities are transported in delivery vans on congested and dangerous roads.

And Pakistani and American sources say that since the raid on Abbottabad [in May this year to kill Osama bin Laden], the Pakistanis have provoked anxiety inside the Pentagon by increasing the pace of these movements. In other words, the Pakistani government is willing to make its nuclear weapons more vulnerable to theft by jihadis simply [in a bid] to hide them from the United States, the country that funds much of its military budget.

The Pakistani Foreign Office jumped in to dismiss the apprehensions as pure fiction, baseless and motivated, adding that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal was absolutely safe under multi-layered custodial controls.

“The surfacing of such campaigns is not something new. It is orchestrated by quarters that are inimical to Pakistan,” said a November 6 statement issued by the Foreign Office in Islamabad.

Highly-placed circles in the Ministry of Defense who were approached for comments said that in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks in the US in 2001 and nuclear proliferation charges leveled against the founder of Pakistan’s nuclear program, Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan, in 2003, Pakistani authorities had taken drastic steps to improve the institutional frameworks and operational procedures for the country’s atomic arsenal, with a view to preventing any further proliferation of nuclear-related technologies and materials.

Defense ministry circles further confirmed reports that Pakistani authorities were training 8,000 additional people to protect its nuclear weapons.

A Pakistani military spokesman, in a statement released on November 6 to accompany the graduation of 700 of these security personnel, stated:

This group comprises hand-picked officers and men who are physically robust, mentally sharp and equipped with modern weapons and equipment. Extensive resources have been made available to train, equip, deploy and sustain an independent and potent security force to meet any and every threat emanating from any quarter.

The graduation ceremony was attended by Major General Muhammad Tahir, head of security for the Strategic Planning Division (SPD), the arm of the Pakistani military that is tasked with protecting the nuclear arsenal.

Officials in the Ministry of Defense say the credibility of their claims about the country’s nuclear safety mechanisms can be gauged from the fact that these have been endorsed by none other than the administration of US President Barack Obama.

They recalled that in an official statement released on November 7, the US Embassy in Islamabad supported Pakistan while denying the title story of The Atlantic:

The US government’s views have not changed about nuclear security in Pakistan. We have confidence that the Pakistan government is well aware of the range of potential threats to its nuclear arsenal and has accordingly given very high priority to securing its nuclear weapons and materials effectively. Pakistan has a professional, highly motivated, and dedicated security force that fully understands the importance of nuclear security.

A spokesman at US Embassy, Mark E Stroh, recalled, “President Obama had declared in March 2010 during the Nuclear Security Summit: ‘I feel confident about Pakistan’s security around its nuclear weapons programs’.”

According to a 2001 US Department of Defense report, Islamabad’s nuclear weapons are stored in component form, which suggests that the nuclear warheads are stored separately from the delivery vehicles. Some reports say the fissile cores of the weapons are separated from the non-nuclear explosives.

Whether this is actually the case is unclear; one report states that the warheads and delivery vehicles are probably stored separately in facilities close to one another, but it says nothing about the fissile cores.

According to an account of a 2008 experts’ group visit to Pakistan, Lieutenant General Khalid Kidwai, the head of the SPD, suggested that the nuclear warheads (containing the fissile cores) may be mated with their delivery vehicles.

Kidwai said the SPD’s official position was that the nuclear weapons would be ready when required at the shortest notice, but the Pakistani doctrine was not endorsing the US-Soviet Union model of weapons on hair-trigger alert. Likewise, the 2001 US Defense Department report clearly stated that Pakistan could assemble its weapons fairly quickly.

United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) chief General David Petraeus, who previously had commanded US forces in Afghanistan, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 15: “There is quite considerable security for the Pakistani nuclear weapons.”

Asked about the security of Pakistan’s weapons following the May 2011 fidayeen (suicide) attack on the Mehran naval base in the southern port city of Karachi, US Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake stated in Washington on June 21: “There is much more heightened security around Pakistan’s nuclear weapons facilities than at the Karachi naval base.”

But it appears that American knowledge of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal remains quite limited. For example, former chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, stated last year: “We are limited in what we actually know about Islamabad’s nuclear arsenal.”

Similarly, former CIA chief Leon Panetta acknowledged in a May 18, 2010 speech that the US did not possess the intelligence to locate all of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons-related sites. Therefore, despite repeated claims by Islamabad about the safety of its nuclear arsenal that have been endorsed by top government officials in the White House, the US has continued to monitor Pakistan’s nuclear program.

Information acquired by the US State Department about Pakistan’s nuclear program (made public in a cable revealed by WikiLeaks in December 2010) showed that 120,000-130,000 people were directly involved in Pakistan’s nuclear and missile programs, working in the facilities and protecting them.

The cable acknowledged that Pakistan had developed a well-structured system of security for its nuclear program, but added that doubts about the program of the only Muslim nuclear state were not dying out.

The State Department cable claimed that the Russians, like the Americans, Europeans, Indians and Israelis, raised their concerns that the nukes might fall into the hands of what they call Islamic extremists. The cable said that of the 120,000-130,000 people involved in the Pakistani nuclear program, any one of them could be an “extremist”.

Yet Defense Ministry circles in Islamabad insist that all key international regulatory authorities, including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), have acknowledged the efficacy of Pakistan’s comprehensive command and control structures in making its nuclear assets impervious to any threat, both internal or external.

Over the past decade, Pakistani authorities have instituted numerous advanced security mechanisms, from tightened physical safety to technical controls on the nuclear weapons themselves. Pakistan’s command and control over its nuclear weapons is believed to be compartmentalized and includes strict operational security. The system is based on “C4I2SR” (command, control, communication, computers, intelligence, information, surveillance and reconnaissance).

It was after then-army chief General Pervez Musharraf toppled the civilian government in 1999 to become a president in uniform that Pakistan’s key nuclear institutions were placed under a unified control of the National Command Authority (NCA).

The NCA was made responsible for the formulation of policy that exercises employment and development control over all strategic nuclear forces and organizations. While decision-making power pertaining to nuclear deployment was given to the NCA, Musharraf made the Office of the President all-powerful by making him cast the final vote to order a nuclear strike in his capacity as the NCA chairman and the supreme commander of the armed forces. The prime minister was the vice chairman of the NCA in that set up.

However, after the 2008 general elections and the subsequent exit of Musharraf, the new president, Asif Ali Zardari, decided to transfer control of the nuclear weapons to the prime minister - in this instance Yousaf Raza Gillani.

In a bid to establish civilian command over the nuclear arsenal, the National Assembly passed the National Command Authority (NCA) bill on January 28, 2010, primarily to place the NCA under the control of the elected prime minister. As things stand, the prime minister, as head of government, is chairperson of the NCA. The NCA also includes the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the ministers of defense, interior and finance; the director general of the SPD; and the commanders of the army, air force and navy.

The final authority to launch a nuclear strike requires consensus within the NCA; the chairperson (prime minister in this case) must cast the final vote. But there are those in the Pakistani security establishment who still believe that passing the chairmanship of the NCA from the president to the prime minister hardly makes any practical difference to the nuclear program, which remains under the firm control of the mighty military establishment.

Technically, the nuclear control and command system is based on a three-tier structure: the National Command Authority, the SPD and the Services’ Strategic Forces Command (SSFC). The NCA, which has 10 members, with the prime minister as its chairman, has responsibility to formulate policies, deploy strategic forces, coordinate activities of all strategic organizations, negotiate arms control/disarmament, supervise implementation of export controls and safeguard nuclear assets and sites.

The NCA has two committees: the Employment Control Committee (ECC) and the Development Control Committee (DCC). The ECC is responsible for directing policy-making during peace time and deployment of strategic forces during war time, making recommendations on the evolution of nuclear doctrine, establishing the hierarchy of command and the policy for authorizing the use of nuclear weapons, and establishing the guidelines for an effective command and control system to safeguard against accidental or unauthorized use.

The DCC is responsible for exercising technical, financial and administrative control over the strategic organizations involved in the nuclear weapons program, and overseeing development of strategic weapons programs.

The Strategic Plans Division, which was actually created in 1998 as the permanent secretariat for the NCA, is headed by a director general appointed from the army (Lieutenant General Khalid Kidwai is the incumbent) and comprises some 50-70 officers from the three services.

The SPD is responsible for formulating policy options (nuclear policy, strategy and doctrine) for the NCA, implementing the NCA’s decisions, drafting strategic and operational plans for the deployment of strategic forces. The SPD carries out the day-to-day management of the county’s strategic forces, coordinates the activities of the different strategic organizations involved in the nuclear weapons program, and oversees budgetary, administrative and security matters.

The SPD has eight directorates - including the Operations and Planning Directorate, the Computerized, Control, Command, Communication, Information, Intelligence and Surveillance Directorate, the Strategic Weapons Development Directorate, and the Arms Control and Disarmament Affairs Directorate - and several divisions. One of the main divisions is the security division, which has a 10,000-strong force charged with guarding and protecting Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.

The Services Strategic Forces Command (SSFC) is raised from the three services - the army, navy and the air force - which all have their respective strategic force commands. The SSFC is responsible for daily and tactical operational control of nuclear weapon delivery systems (although the NCA is still responsible for overall strategic operational control). This operational control includes technical, training and administrative control over missiles and aircraft that would be used to deliver nuclear weapons.

According to the NCA’s strategic operational policy guidelines, a decision to launch a nuclear strike is made by consensus within the NCA with the chairman casting the final vote. The NCA would communicate decisions and delegate implementing authority to the SPD and down the institutional hierarchy/structure. While the number of people required in different parts of the hierarchy varies because of technical reasons, no single individual in any part of the institutional hierarchy is in a position to launch a nuclear strike or operate a nuclear weapon on their own.

Pakistan has already developed Permissive Action Links (PALs), a protective fail-safe system that the US also uses to guard against any accidental or unauthorized launches of nuclear systems. The PALs require a code to be entered before a nuclear weapon can be detonated.

And Pakistan requires the “standard two-man rule”, under which two separate operators enter codes or turn keys to arm and launch nuclear weapons. Although not originally equipped with PALs that require the entry of a code before the nuclear weapon can explode, each Pakistani warhead is now fitted with this code-lock device.

In practice, the army controls the NCA, which has the final say in sanctioning any nuclear attack. It is the director general of the SPD, Kidwai, who controls and guards the nuclear arsenal, under the supervision of army chief General Ashfaq Kiani, with the assistance of the army.

Therefore, the short answer to the question whose finger is on the N-button is this: Kiani and Kidwai and the will of the prime minister would hardly prevail when a decision about the use of the nuclear option was taken.

Going by the contents of his April 30, 2009, news conference in Washington to mark the first 100 days of his presidency, it seems that Obama is fully aware of the army’s firm control over the nuclear weapons program.

“I am confident that the Pakistan army will not allow its nuclear arsenal to fall into the hands of Islamic militant groups like the Taliban or al-Qaeda,” said Obama, while not expressing the same faith in Pakistan’s civilian government led by Zardari, which he dubbed as fragile, adding that the US was gravely concerned about the situation in Pakistan.

Source: https://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/MK17Df03.html

Filed Under: Nuclear, USA, Weapons

Curiosity Launch: Fukushima for Everyone?

November 27, 2011 By T Kelly Leave a Comment

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) intends in coming days to launch a rover to be deployed on Mars fueled with 10.6 pounds of plutonium. If there is an explosion on launch in Florida and plutonium is released, an area as far as 62 miles from the launch pad could be impacted, NASA acknowledges. If the rocket lofting the rover falls back to Earth instead of breaking away from Earth’s gravitational field to keep going into space, re-entry into the atmosphere would cause both the rocket and rover to disintegrate, potentially releasing plutonium over a huge area.

An example of a space device meant to go to Mars but likely to fall back to Earth is unfolding now. A Russian space probe, named Phobos-Grunt, launched on November 9, reached low Earth orbit, but then an engine system failed to fire to power it on to Phobos, one of two moons of Mars. The Russian space agency is trying to get the craft’s onboard computer, which it believes is the source of the problem, to function properly. But prospects are dim. Reuters in an article on the situation quotes Russian space expert Vladimir Uvarov: “In my opinion Phobos-Grunt is lost.” Unless a fix is made, the probe will come crashing back to Earth, probably in January.

There is concern about the 12 tons of chemical fuel onboard the Phobos-Grunt impacting the Earth. If the Mars rover, which NASA calls Curiosity, falls back to Earth with its 10.6 pounds of plutonium, it would present a far, far more serious danger.

NASA intends to launch the plutonium-powered rover on what it has named its Mars Science Laboratory mission during a window from November 25 to December 15.

In its final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the mission, NASA addresses the possibility of an accident similar to what the Phobos-Grunt is facing in what NASA designates as “Phase 4″ of the launch. Plutonium could be released in such an accident, “affecting Earth surfaces” along a wide belt around the middle of the Earth.

NASA’s language for this: “Phase 4 (Orbital/Escape): Accidents which occur after attaining parking orbit could result in orbital decay reentries from minutes to years after the accident affecting Earth surfaces between approximately 28-degrees north latitude and 28-degrees south latitude.” NASA gives odds of 1-in-830 for the “probability of a release” of plutonium in such an accident. Between 28 degrees north and 28 degrees south covers much of South America, Africa and Australia.

The EIS says the cost of decontamination of areas affected by the plutonium would be $267 million for each square mile of farmland, $478 million for each square mile of forests and $1.5 billion for each square mile of “mixed-use urban areas.” The Curiosity mission itself has a cost of $2.5 billion.

The EIS says “overall” on the mission, the likelihood of plutonium being released is 1 in 220. It puts the odds at 1 in 420 of plutonium being released in a launch accident. This could “release material into the regional area defined … to be within … 62 miles of the launch pad,” says the EIS. The most densely populated part of that area is Orlando.

“NASA is planning a mission that could endanger not only its future but the state of Florida and beyond,” declares John Stewart of Pax Christi Tampa Bay, a leader in Florida in challenging the launch. “The absurd - and maddening - aspect of this risk is that it is unnecessary,” says Stewart, who is also a teacher. “The locomotion for NASA’s Sojourner Mars rover, launched in 1996, and the Spirit and Opportunity Mars rovers, both launched in 2003, was solar powered, with the latter two rovers performing well beyond what their engineers expected. Curiosity’s locomotion could also be solar-powered. NASA admits this in its EIS, but decided to put us all at risk because plutonium-powered batteries last longer and they want to have the ‘flexibility to select the most scientifically interesting location on the surface’ of Mars.”

Bruce Gagnon, coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, which has been opposing NASA’s nuclear missions for two decades, says, “NASA sadly appears committed to maintaining its dangerous alliance with the nuclear industry. Both entities view space as a new market for the deadly plutonium fuel. The taxpayers are being asked once again to pay for nuclear missions that could endanger the lives of all the people on the planet. Have we not learned anything from Chernobyl and Fukushima? We don’t need to be launching nukes into space. It’s not a gamble we can afford to take.”

There have been accidents in the use of nuclear power in space. Of the 26 US space missions listed in the EIS which have used plutonium, three underwent accidents, the EIS admits. The worst occurred in 1964 and involved, it notes, the Systems for Nuclear Auxiliary Power (SNAP)-9A plutonium system aboard a satellite that failed to achieve orbit and dropped to earth, disintegrating as it fell. The 2.1 pounds of plutonium fuel dispersed widely over Earth. The late Dr. John Gofman, professor of medical physics at the University of California at Berkeley, long linked this accident to an increase in global lung cancer. Following the SNAP-9A accident, NASA switched to solar energy on satellites. Now all satellites and the International Space Station are solar powered.

But NASA kept using plutonium as a power source on space probes, maintaining that solar energy could not be utilized beyond the orbit of Mars. But in August 2011, NASA reversed itself with the launch of its solar-powered Juno space probe to Jupiter.

In its description of the Juno mission, NASA states that even when the probe gets to Jupiter, “nearly 500 million miles from the Sun,” its panels will be providing electricity.

The plutonium-fueled Curiosity mission could herald an expanded NASA space nuclear power program - not just for space probes but for nuclear propelled rockets.

During the 1950s and 1960s, NASA, working with the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), built such rockets under a program called Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application (NERVA) and then under Projects Pluto, Rover and Poodle. Billions in 1950s/1960s dollars were spent and ground testing was done, but no nuclear rocket ever got off the ground. There were concerns about a nuclear rocket blowing up on launch or crashing back to Earth.

Charles Bolden, a former astronaut and US Marine Corps major general and President Obama’s appointee to head NASA, is a big booster of nuclear propulsion for rockets. He has been pushing a design developed by a fellow ex-astronaut, Franklin Chang-Diaz, who has founded the Ad Astra Rocket Company.

With NASA turning over many space activities to private industry with the end of its shuttle program, another major private company involved is SpaceX. The web site of the journal Nature reported last year that SpaceX wants the US government to “return to developing nuclear-powered rockets pursued during the 1960s” - and specifically NERVA. “We have to do nuclear,” stated Tom Markusic, director of the company’s rocket development facility.

Meanwhile, there have not only been advances in solar energy as a power source in space, as demonstrated by the Juno space probe mission, but also in using nonnuclear technology to propel spacecraft. Last year, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency launched what it termed a “space yacht” called Ikaros which gets propulsion from the pressure on its large sails of ionizing particles emitted by the Sun. The sails also feature “thin-film solar cells to generate electricity and creating,” said Yuichi Tsuda of the agency, “a hybrid technology of electricity and pressure.”

NASA has also been pushing for establishment of a production facility for plutonium for space use to be situated at Idaho National Laboratory.

Plutonium has long been described as the most lethal radioactive substance, and the plutonium isotope used in the space nuclear program, and on the Curiosity rover, is significantly more radioactive than the type of plutonium used as fuel in nuclear weapons or built up as a waste product in nuclear power plants. It is plutonium-238, as distinct from plutonium-239. Plutonium-238 has a far shorter half-life - 87.8 years - compared to plutonium-239, with a half-life of 24,500 years. An isotope’s half-life is the period in which half of its radioactivity is expended.

Dr. Arjun Makhijani, a nuclear physicist and president of The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, explains that plutonium-238, “is about 270 times more radioactive than plutonium-239 per unit of weight.” Thus, in radioactivity, the 10.6 pounds of Plutonium-238 that is to be used on Curiosity is the equivalent of 2,862 pounds of plutonium-239. The atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki used 15 pounds of plutonium-239.

The far shorter half-life of plutonium-238 compared to plutonium-239 results in it being extremely hot. This heat is translated in a radioisotope thermoelectric generator into electricity.

The pathway of greatest human health concern for plutonium is the lungs: breathing in a particle can lead to lung cancer. A millionth of a gram of plutonium can be a fatal dose. The EIS for the Mars Science Laboratory mission speaks of particles that would be “transported to and remain in the trachea, bronchi, or deep lung regions.” The particles, “would continuously irradiate lung tissue.”

A key issue in terms of effects is whether the plutonium remains as the marble-sized pellets fabricated for space use or is dispersed as fine particles that can be inhaled.

The EIS also describes “secondary social costs associated with the decontamination and mitigation activities,” including: “Temporary or longer term relocation of residents; temporary or longer term loss of employment; destruction or quarantine of agricultural products including citrus crops; land use restrictions which could affect real estate values, tourism and recreational activities; restriction or bans on commercial fishing; and public health effects and medical care.”

Pax Christi is asking people to call, email or write NASA and, says Stewart, state, “that until they can launch spacecraft without nuclear materials aboard, they should not launch at all.” Also, it is calling for people to contact the White House “and tell President Obama that Curiosity should stay safely on the ground until it can be launched without threatening us and future generations.”

Opponents of the launch have posted an online petition to the White House - “Cancel the Launch of the Mars Rover Curiosity by NASA Which is Powered by Dangerous Plutonium-238.” They have also created a Facebook page warning people not to visit Disney theme parks in Orlando during the launch window. “Don’t Do Disney brought to you by NASA,” the Facebook page is titled.

Demonstrations in Florida are also planned.

The “grunt” in the space probe named Phobos-Grunt is the word for soil in Russian. The probe was to bring soil back to Earth from Phobos. Reuters has reported that “Phobos-Grunt is also carrying bacteria, plant seeds and tiny animals known as water bears, part of a US study to see if they could survive beyond the Earth’s protective bubble.”

Source: https://www.truth-out.org/curiosity-launch-fukushima-everyone/1322072685

Filed Under: Nuclear, USA Tagged With: NASA Space Launch, Plutonium

Seymour Hersh: Propaganda Used Ahead of Iraq War Is Now Being Reused over Iran’s Nuke Program

November 26, 2011 By Aaron Jackson 1 Comment

While the United States, Britain and Canada are planning to announce a coordinated set of sanctions against Iran’s oil and petrochemical industry today, longtime investigative journalist Seymour Hersh questions the growing consensus on Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.

International pressure has been mounting on Iran since the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency revealed in a report the “possible military dimensions” to Iran’s nuclear activities, citing “credible” evidence that “indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device.”

In his latest article for The New Yorker blog, titled “Iran and then IAEA,” Hersh argues the recent report is a “political document,” not a scientific study.

“They [JSOC] found nothing. Nothing. No evidence of any weaponization,” Hersh says. “In other words, no evidence of a facility to build the bomb. They have facilities to enrich, but not separate facilities to build the bomb. This is simply a fact.”

Source: https://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/21/seymour_hersh_propaganda_used_ahead_of

Filed Under: Iran, Iraq, Nuclear

UK Extremely Worried About Stolen Nukes

November 26, 2011 By Aaron Jackson Leave a Comment

Did we the British public know that our current Prime Minister was instrumental in the loss of three illegal nuclear weapons?

Is the UK frantically trying to find out where they were sold on the “Black Market”? We know something that you don’t…… but can’t talk about it Under the Nuclear Explosions Act otherwise we will all end up in gaol for life.

Chris McGreal of the Guardian newspaper published an article 24th of May 2010 revealing how Israel offered to sell nukes to South Africa during the apartheid era. What he failed to reveal was that Israel struck up a deal with South Africa to move its technicians down to the high-security weapons research and development facilities at Pelindaba.

It was at this location that the Israeli technicians managed to covertly give themselves nuclear weapons but also under the table gave South Africa its own nuclear capability but guess what?…….the US and UK knew all about the programme but the UN did not!!!…….what was even more amazing was the fact that the UN sent a team to South Africa where they were convinced that South Africa had curtailed its nuclear weapons programme when in actual fact it had not!!

It is fairly obvious why Israel is totally consumed in trying to find these stolen weapon and needless to say the US and British Governments are equally as concerned and yet are not in a position to admit to their loss as in doing so would incriminate past and current very senior politicians including our current Prime Minister David Cameron.

It always appear to be the case that your past always comes back to haunt you. So let’s just recall the history behind these weapons that were designed and commissioned all during the UN embargo years and who was allegedly involved.

I must also make it quite clear that many of the world leaders and senior members of government have been involved in these under the table deals which has resulted in many of them accumulating much wealth either for the party election funds or for their own personal gain. When one further considers that these faceless individuals not only govern out country but are also directly responsible for the death of millions of people both military staff and civilians it is extremely hard to understand.

How can any government have such a flawed intelligence network and allow such things to take place without some sort of audit to see what is going on behind the scenes. We have seen both the US, UK, EU and Israel transfer almost everything from chemical and biological weapons to nuclear part to countries which they have since called the “Axis of Evil.”………..that statement is not totally true because the “Axis of Evil” is right here in the heart of London!!

It was in the late 1970 when the South African nuclear programme started to go into full swing with the compliments of the Israeli scientists resulting in the first test and only test firing of a nuclear weapon. The test took place on a moored vessel anchored off Prince Edward Island on the 22nd of September 1979 when a typical double flash was observed from a passing US satellite.

One has to understand that this was all under the radar of the United Nations with the full knowledge of selected members of the US and British Governments. The US immediately went on the defensive by creating their “False Flag” report known as the “Vela Incident” in which they explained the following:

The conclusions of the Presidential panel (the Ad Hoc Panel) were reassuring, as they suggested that the most likely explanation of the Vela detection was a meteoroid hitting the satellite - in part because of the discrepancy in bhangmeter readings Others who examined the data, including the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the national laboratories, and defense contractors reached a very different conclusion - that the data supported the conclusion that on 22 September 1979, Vela 6911 had detected a nuclear detonation.

What I find ironic here is the fact that several agencies confirmed it was a nuclear explosion but the US Government conveniently put it to bed. I can assure you that through my own scientific contacts in the US this did actually happen and an internal memo at the Los Alamos nuclear research facility confirmed that it had been a nuclear explosion. One has to understand the high stakes involved in such programmes, especially when vast sums of money are being banded around senior political figures. This is truly corruption at its best!

The joint venture (Israel - South Africa) created 10 Battlefield Bombs and after the first test that left nine. The bombs were designed to be highly mobile and reasonably compact and could be carried by the British Canberra bomber or the Buccaneer.

It became apparent in later years that the supremacy of white power in South Africa was about to finish and so they had to open up discussion with the Americans and British as they feared these weapons getting into the hands of the blacks. It was during this time that a decision was made to ship all nine bombs to Chicago for de commissioning. However, our dear “Iron Lady” Maggie Thatcher decided that it would be a good idea to maybe acquire a few of the weapons for possible use against Iraq in the event Saddam did not toe the line.

Thatcher then ordered her Page Boy, David Cameron, to go down to South Africa along with what was believed to be the only technical man available (non other than the now( Sir) Kenneth Warren). Others also believed to be implicated was David Wilshire and many other senior members of government. In actual fact as we follow this charade up to the current time we could possible include other very senior person such as Lord McAlpine, Peter Lilley, Alan Clarke and Ken Clarke and others I have previously named in other articles. The late Dr. David Kelly was also involved.

We have to remember that this was almost a private sector deal with many political figures implicated some of whom became share holders in the illegal nuke purchase. We are talking here about an extremely high risk deal, with little security for the weapons themselves as everything had to be done in a low-key covert way.

As we already know David Cameron was able to secure a deal for his lady mentor, Maggie Thatcher, and returned with a deal for three nuclear weapons. They were shipped to Oman whereby they were put in private sector storage and eventually stolen by John Bredenkamp, the arms dealer who sold them to Britain and then stole them back to sell on the Black market and the rest is now history.

We have to understand that British Tax Payers money was then placed in the Conservative Party Electoral Fund (£17.8m) which to this day has not been accounted for and other money was made available to Tony Blair (£1m) compliments of Bernie Ecclesone. On top of this a slush fund was also developed to silence other third parties that knew of the deal and our dear Mr. Ken Clarke then implemented his gagging orders to those involved!!

I guess you do not believe this story……why don’t you check it out yourself it is written in Hansard 22nd June 1993, and starting at Col. 197 when Lord Doug Hoyle raised the issue in the House as follows:

Mr Hoyle: If The Hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall tell him what information is now given to us. We understand the expenditure and what Tory central office receives. In 1992, central office received £20.7 million. When we asked about that and about company donations, the Tory party told us to look at company accounts. I repeat: in 1992, the Tories received £20.7 million. When the records were checked by Companies house, only £2.9 198million was shown in company accounts. That means that there is a deficit of £17.8 million. We want to know where that £17.8 million came from.

Mr Tim Smith: The Hon. Gentleman has made the suggestion about the accounts of the Conservative party that was made by a member of the Select Committee last week: that no accounts had been published between 1979 and 1983. They were published, and I undertook to send copies to the Select Committee.

Mr Hoyle: I gave way to The Hon. Gentleman because I expected him to tell me where the difference of £17.8 million came from. I shall give way again to him. I am told that he is a treasurer of the Conservative party. I give way to him now so that he can stand up and tell us where the £17.8 million came from. Does the hon. Gentleman care to do that? I am waiting. I do not think that we shall get the information from the horse’s mouth. We certainly did not get it from the Secretary of State.

I could write article after article on the many levels of corruption that occurred in both the US and the UK (not forgetting Israel) and the terrible consequences of this greed resulting in the death of many of our own troops and innocent civilians….all for their own pocket. Solid evidence proves that over the period of 1982-90 Iraq was supplied by the US and UK with WMD, including biological cultures and chemical precursors of nerve gases. Etcetera.

[Article by : Peter Eyre - Middle East Consultant]

Source: https://www.presstv.ir/detail/212022.html

Filed Under: Nuclear, Politicians, United Kingdom, Weapons

United Nations Nuclear Bank

November 24, 2011 By T Kelly Leave a Comment

The media hailed Warren Buffett last December for donating $50 million dollars toward a United Nations nuclear bank with control over uranium enrichment. The intent is control over nuclear weapons and nuclear power by the elites who are the true forces behind the UN.

The UN nuclear bank is will be under the authority of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is NOT independent; it was created through a UN treaty and answers to the UN and the UN Security Council. The fully funded UN nuclear bank does not require nations to stop uranium enrichment, which was the original plan; however, the final terms have not been set. The fuel bank will sell enriched uranium for power plants to countries in “good standing“. Therefore, only countries who kow-tow to the UN and IAEA will be provided with enriched uranium.

The United Nations is a supranational entity that answers to no one. After WWII, the UN was sold to the public as an voluntary collection of nations committed to peace and ending war. The UN pretends to vote on issues democratically, but its true goal is a totalitarian world government ruled by the elites at the top. They are happy to bully countries and go to war over resources, as evidenced by the UN resolution last week to attack Libya. They claim that war is necessary for peace.

The UN nuclear bank will consolidate power under the UN for nuclear energy and weaponry, which is another piece of UN Agenda 21, the blueprint for total control and depopulation.

UN WORLD DOMINANCE
Four things are needed to take political control over a population (the UN has set its sights on the entire world):

1. Money
2. An army
3. Control over the media
4. Control over education

If you have enough money and an army, then control over the media and education are useful but not essential.

UN NUCLEAR BANK FINANCING
Warren Buffet proposed the UN nuclear bank and made a self-serving “donation” of $50 million while demanding matching funds of $100 million from governments. Obama provided $50 million in US taxpayer money and the EU, UAE, Kuwait and Norway made up the rest. At $150 million, world domination is astonishingly cheap! Buffett, a proponent of depopulation, was celebrated as a hero in the media because most people are ignorant about the UN’s true goals.

Warren Buffett is in the energy utility business and owns MidAmerican Energy; his motivation for “donating” to the UN nuclear bank could benefit him later with regard to a UN monopoly over nuclear power for electricity.

Taxpayers will ultimately fund the UN nuclear bank that is in opposition to public interest and freedom. This trick is accomplished through foundations convincing governments to regulate or take action on an issue and then passing the cost on to taxpayers (click here to find out how individuals create public policy that has been used for depopulation).

Buffett proposed the UN nuclear bank through a foundation that he provides funding, called the ‘Nuclear Threat Initiative‘ (NTI). Ted Turner, known for supporting depopulation, is co-chairman of the Nuclear Threat Initiative and Sam Nunn, a former US Senator, is the other co-chair of NTI.

NUCLEAR SECURITY PROJECT
Nunn is the front man working with Cold-War hawks Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State, George Schulz, former Defense Secretary and William Perry, former Secretary of State in the ‘Nuclear Security Project‘ to dismantle nuclear weapons. This project is supported by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell and many others.

Nunn, Kissinger, Schulz and Perry are aggressively pushing the dismantling of nuclear weapons through the US-Russia-UN START Treaty and the UN Non-Proliferation Treaty. The objective of these types of treaties, according to Department of State Publication 7277, is to disarm states to a “point where no state would have the military power to challenge the strengthened UN Peace Force….”

Buffett has provided funding for the Nuclear Security Project, too. Buffett said that an atomic attack on the US by mid-century is a “virtual certainty”. In my opinion, with psychopaths like Buffett, Turner and Kissinger (a Rockefeller lieutenant) at the helm, this is practically unavoidable.

CONCLUSION
As sovereign countries dismantle their nuclear weapons under UN treaties, the UN is simultaneously building its nuclear arsenal by way of the nuclear bank.

Additionally, the UN is locking in another uranium enrichment monopoly over nuclear power for electricity, which will also increase “interdependency of nations.”

SOLUTIONS:
Michael Shaw, UN Agenda 21 expert and president of FreedomAdvocates.org, says:

The UN has a plethora of schemes to advance the goal of world government. The most important of these is Agenda 21 Sustainable Development. This is the global to local movement designed under the cover of green to transform our systems of government and economics. Every county in America has adopted its Sustainable plan moving us all closer to the one world order where your unalienable rights are no longer politically recognized.

While there is little the citizen can do to halt the UN’s control of uranium, the typical American can do much toward exposing the local application of the UN’s march under the local Agenda 21 protocol. In particular, Americans need to understand city alliances with the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). ICLEI is an NGO, accredited by the United Nations for the purpose of implementing Agenda 21 at the local level. Such contracts have been entered into by over 600 American cities. This is treasonous.

In short, the Sustainable objective is the abolition of private property, education for global citizenship, and the use of technology to control human action. As ordinary people become aware of Agenda 21 hope rises that the Republic can be reestablished and that then the US can sever its ties with the United Nations and end the globalists’ one world ambition.

For full analysis of Agenda 21 Sustainable Development visit www.FreedomAdvocates.org.

Source: https://www.activistpost.com/2011/03/united-nations-nuclear-bank.html

Filed Under: Nuclear, United Nations

Radiation Covers 8% Of Japan

November 22, 2011 By T Kelly Leave a Comment

Japan’s science ministry says 8 per cent of the country’s surface area has been contaminated by radiation from the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant.

It says more than 30,000 square kilometres of the country has been blanketed by radioactive caesium.

The ministry says most of the contamination was caused by four large plumes of radiation spewed out by the Fukushima nuclear plant in the first two weeks after meltdowns.

The government says some of the radioactive material fell with rain and snow, leaving the affected areas with accumulations of more than 10,000 becquerels of caesium per square metre.

Last week tests found unsafe levels of radioactive contamination in recently harvested rice from the Fukushima region.

The levels of radioactive caesium were measured at 630 becquerels per kilogram, above the maximum allowable level of 500 becquerels.

Officials from Fukushima prefecture have now asked all rice farmers in the district to suspend shipments.

There have been a series of scares over radiation in food in Japan in recent months; in products such as beef, mushrooms and green tea, but never before in the country’s staple, rice.

Authorities have also begun testing soil in some Tokyo playgrounds and schools for traces of radioactive contamination.

Many people in Japan have purchased their own Geiger counters to monitor radiation levels around them.

The Fukushima plant went into meltdown after a massive earthquake and tsunami hit the country in March.

Source: https://fukushimaemergencywhatcanwedo.blogspot.com/2011/11/radiation-covers-8-of-japan.html

Filed Under: Fukushima, Nuclear