Help Obama Kickstart World War 3

Our president can’t launch into another war without you. And remember: when we voted for him in 2008 and 2012, we promised to support him no matter what.

And America is dead-ass broke, so our goal is to raise $1.6 trillion on behalf of the U.S. government.

That’s where you come in.

Even a small donation will make all the difference.

World War III is a very important, very progressive war that Obama tells me is very important. So it must be.

World War III is not going to be like those other Republican wars fought on just 1 percent of the world; this war is going to be fought on 99 percent of the world.

It will be everywhere: Russia, China, Africa, Cincinnati, your favorite brunch spot — the one with those kickass ranchero breakfast burritos.

As an incentive, those pledging $25 a piece of rubble from a war-torn Middle Eastern country, kissed by Sen. Lindsey Graham, while $100 donations gets donors a day pass to leave their local refugee camp.

It’ll be all over Twitter, Facebook, Vine, Pinterest, and whatever eventually replaces Pinterest, and I mean, just think of all the hilarious skits we can make of cats reacting to their owners’ homes being obliterated,” the video says. Lots of shock, but tons of awww.

Ten dollars gets one a “shout out” on social media. In fact, the video promises that World War III will be the most social media-focused war in history.

So please, help us reach our goal of $1.6 trillion so we can make World War III a reality. Why? Because Obama.

Let’s make World War 3 a reality!

By The Second City Network

Countdown To Looking Glass

Docudrama uses fictional reports of a crisis in the Middle East, which leads to a nuclear confrontation between the US and the USSR. "Looking Glass" is the code word for the Strategic Air Command's control plane which is to be used in the case of nuclear war.

Mention the similarities between the story and today's Geo-political situation.

Starring: Scott Glenn, Michael Murphy, Helen Shaver, Patrick Watson. 

Operation Looking Glass

s the code name for an airborne command center operated by the United States. It provides command and control of U.S. nuclear forces in the event that ground-based command centers are destroyed or otherwise rendered inoperable. In such an event, the general officer serving as the Airborne Emergency Action Officer (AEAO) on Looking Glass assumes by devolution the authority of the National Command Authorities and can command execution of nuclear attacks. The AEAO is supported by a battle staff of approximately 20 people, with another dozen responsible for the operation of the aircraft systems.

The Looking Glass was initiated by the U.S. Air Force's Strategic Air Command in 1961 and operated by the 34th Air Refueling Squadron, Offutt AFB, Nebraska. In August 1966 the mission transferred to the 38th Strategic Reconnaissance Squadron, the 2d Airborne Command and Control Squadron in April 1970, to the 7th Airborne Command and Control Squadron in July 1994, and to the U.S. Navy in October 1998.

The Strategic Air Command began the Looking Glass mission on February 3, 1961, using EC-135C^[1] From the Airborne Command Post (ABNCP) conception aircraft based at its headquarters at Offutt AFB, Nebraska backed up by aircraft flying with the Second Air Force / 913th Air Refueling Squadron at Barksdale AFB Louisiana, Eighth Air Force / 99th Air Refueling Squadron at Westover AFB, Massachusetts, and Fifteenth Air Force / 22d Air Refueling Squadron, March AFB, California.

EC-135 Looking Glass aircraft were airborne 24 hours a day for over 29 years,^[2] until July 24, 1990, when "The Glass" ceased continuous airborne alert, but remained on ground or airborne alert 24 hours a day. The one break in the schedule occurred March 4, 1980, when a 1st Airborne Command and Control Squadron E-4 operated a combined Nightwatch / Looking Glass mission, Scheduled for an eight-hour mission, it ended up flying a double (16 hours) due to bad weather at both Offutt and Ellsworth.

The airborne command post is referred to as Looking Glass because its mission "mirrors" ground-based command, control, and communications located at the USSTRATCOM Global Operations Center (GOC) at Offutt Air Force Base. It has also been called the "Doomsday Plane," since its role would only be necessary in the event that the ground nuclear command centers at Offutt, the National Military Command Center, and Site R were destroyed. The Looking Glass is equipped with the Airborne Launch Control System, capable of transmitting launch commands to U.S. ground-based ICBMs in the event that the ground launch control centers are rendered inoperable.

At DEFCON 2 or higher, the Looking Glass pilot and co-pilot were both required to wear an eye patch, retrieved from theirEmergency War Order (EWO) kit. In the event of a surprise blinding flash from a nuclear detonation, the eye patch would prevent blindness in the covered eye, thus enabling them to see in at least one eye and continue flying. Later, the eye patch was replaced by goggles that would instantaneously turn opaque when exposed to a nuclear flash, then rapidly clear for normal vision.

The Looking Glass is also designed to help ensure continuity and reconstitution of the US government in the event of anuclear attack on North America. Although the two types of aircraft are distinct, the Doomsday Plane nickname is also frequently associated with the E-4 "Nightwatch" Advanced Airborne Command Post mission and aircraft.

The Looking Glass was the anchor in what was known as the World Wide Airborne Command Post (WWABNCP) network. This network of specially equipped EC-135 aircraft would launch from ground alert status and establish air-to-air wireless network connections in the event of a U.S. national emergency. Members of the WWABNCP network included:

• (1) Operation "Silk Purse" for the Commander in Chief, U.S. European Command (USCINCEUR), based at RAF Mildenhall in the United Kingdom;
• (2) Operation "Scope Light" for the Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Forces (CINCLANT), based at Langley AFB, VA;
• (3) Operation "Blue Eagle" for the Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Command (USCINCPAC), based at Hickam AFB, HI; and
• (4) Operation "Nightwatch" which supported the President of the United States and were based at Andrews AFB, Maryland. In the early 1970s the E-4B aircraft replaced the EC-135s on this mission.

The Eastern Auxiliary (EAST Aux) and Western Auxiliary (West Aux) Command Posts were also part of the WWABNCP ("wah-bin-cop") network and were capable of assuming responsibility for Looking Glass as the anchor. The West Aux 906th Air Refueling Squadron was based at Minot AFB, North Dakota and moved to the 4th Airborne Command & Control Squadron at Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota in April 1970 and the East Aux mission 301st Air Refueling Squadron was based at Lockbourne AFB, Ohio and moved to the 3rd Airborne Command & Control Squadron at Grissom AFB, Indiana in April 1970. After 1975 East Aux would be assumed from the Looking Glass backup ground alert aircraft launched from Offutt AFB.

U.S. Plan For Nuclear First Strike Attack On Russia And China

RT: US revives plans for a nuclear first strike on Russia. Coming up.

Announcer: “Soft assassinations” of anti-NATO leaders.

Star Wars tested for Eastern Europe.

And US space weapons quote an “unofficial declaration of war.”

RT: Secret clauses of NATO membership state, the US can and will depose Europe’s governments on the orders of the White House.

Giuseppe De Lutiis, NATO author: Even if the electorate were to show a different inclination, secret protocols guarantee alignment by any means.

RT: “By any means” means exactly that. Early NATO whistleblower Hans Otto exposed ‘”kill lists” of leading European politicians that defied investigators’ belief, but were subsequently confirmed by police.

Officers found 15 pages of members of the German Communist Party to be assassinated, and 80 pages on Germany’s Social Democrats, one of the two major parties in the country.

The documents state these assassinations would take place “in case of X”. X may refer, writes NATO scholar Dr. Daniele Ganser, to mass protests against a US-backed government, or an election victory of a genuinely left-wing party.

Instructions for such operations were kept at NATO military headquarters south of Brussels.

Der Spiegel reveals a quote “a strictly secured wing of the building. A grey, steel bank vault door prohibits trespassing to the unauthorized.” Papers on NATO operations in Europe are marked “American eyes only.”

When the EU Parliament officially demanded NATO stop these operations, which have become known by the codename Gladio, the US simply ignored it.

Richard Cottrell is a former Member of the European Parliament. NATO tried to ban his investigation Gladio, NATO’s Dagger at the Heart of Europe, which reports both so-called “soft assassinations” – smearing non-aligned EU politicians through mainstream media to make them unelectable – and real assassinations of politicians that still got elected.

Richard joins us, really great to see you, what’s going on?

Richard Cottrell, author of Gladio, NATO’s Dagger at the Heart of Europe: The United States is not prepared to tolerate governments which are unfavorable to the regime. Let’s give the example of Syriza in Greece at the moment, which has just won, come top of the list in the European elections. This is an example of a government which is not going to be tolerated by the United States of America.

RT: You write a prototype “soft assassination”, British Prime Minister Harold Wilson, whose “blasphemy in American eyes” was to “flirt with nuclear disarmament”.

Cottrell: Yes, it’s become a little bit more difficult to, shall we say, use violent means, than it was in the past. So now you’re going to see more of the Harold Wilson tactics. And they will now increase and I will tell you why – because this weekend the European elections were held. And this has resulted in a very large bloc of anti-Europeans, led by the “Penista”, the National Front of France, which has come out on top in the European elections. Nigel Farage, leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party in the UK, who has come from virtually nowhere to become the leader of the third largest party. This will not be allowed to happen, so there will have to be Harold Wilson-type moves now to remove those leaderships, and those parties in those various countries.

RT: NATO is attempting to supersede and actually replace the United Nations, reveals former Assistant General Hans Sponeck.

Its revised doctrine refuses the UN monopoly on the use of force, reports Global Research News.NATO now promotes itself as the military wing of the UN itself.

The doctrine reserves the right to intervene anywhere in the world where there’s “movements of large numbers of persons.” Its newly formed Partners Across The Globe program’s already incorporated Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Pakistan, and Iraq, and leads the occupation of Afghanistan.

With the expected addition of states like Colombia and El Salvador, NATO will be on all six inhabited continents.

Obama’s foreign policy guru, Zbigniew Brzezinski, calls people in countries under US control “vassals,” a medieval term for slaves.

American armed forces are now in over 150 countries. The unofficial figure, including clandestine US forces, is thought to be much higher.

The Pentagon recently formed the United States Africa Command. Since then, NATO’s dispatched the continent’s most developed nation to a “Hobbesian anarchy”, overthrew the Ivory Coast, and chopped Sudan’s oil-rich southern half into a new state, leaving just two and a half countries still outside its military grid.

Leading military analyst, editor of the newslist Stop NATO Rick Rozoff joins us, great to see you. What’ll happen to people when the last countries fall to US control?

Rick Rozoff, Stop NATO newslist: Global enslavement is the answer to that, and we see it manifested for example in ways that may not be immediately obvious, but after certain amount of analysis we can see for example votes that’ve come up in the United Nations General Assembly in the last year and a half, two years, particularly I’m thinking on the question of Syria. We see that the US through a number of factors – economic bribery, diplomatic blackmail, subversion but also through bilateral, multilateral military programs, has been able to secure the overwhelming compliance or servility of other nations. And that’s one of the reasons why there’s no diplomatic and political independence in nations, because they are beholden to the United States and, frankly speaking, they’re fearful of US economic and ultimately military retaliation should they not go along with the US diktat.

Barack Obama: So today, I state clearly, and with conviction, America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. I’m not naive.

RT: Obama’s duplicity is perhaps historically unparalleled. As soon as he envisioned a planet without nuclear weapons, he mushroomed nuclear weapons spending to levels above the height of the Cold War.

He has expanded the infamous Bush Doctrine of a nuclear strike against any country, regardless of international law.

“Full spectrum dominance” is the official term used by his administration, meaning “control everything, everywhere on sea, land, air, space, and outer space.” US Space Command documents plan to even “deny other nations the use of space.”

The “one remaining power” with the capacity to stop what the Pentagon calls full spectrum dominance, writes intelligence analyst William Engdahl, is Russia.

By design or coincidence, crisis in Ukraine provided the perfect excuse for US military control of the region.

Ten days ago the administration tested its Star Wars system for Eastern Europe, which will now be rolled out starting in Romania. Obama brands his system the “stronger, smarter and swifter” version of Ronald Reagan’s initial Star Wars program.

Under the plan, the US attacks Russia with nuclear weapons, while NATO missile defense in Eastern Europe mops up any attempted response.

NSNBC News writes “it is most likely and understandable” Russia interprets NATO’s Star Wars deployment on its border as an “unofficial declaration of war.”

Aerospace analysts told Global Research that US Space Command is planning a nuclear first strike on Russia, as well as one on China in 2016.

Bruce Gagnon of the Global Network Against Weapons in Space joins us, thank you very much for coming on, what do we know about the first strike plans?

Bruce Gagnon, Global Network Against Weapons in Space: This is in the planning process today. The US Space Command practicing engaging in a first strike attack and this is the key element here. These are first strike attack planning, these so-called missile defense systems are key elements in US first strike attack planning. The idea is to hit China or Russia first with a first strike, and then when they try to fire their nuclear retaliatory capability, it is then that the so-called missile “defense” systems would be used to pick off any retaliatory strike, so after a first strike sword is thrust into the heart of China or Russia, then the missile defense shield would be used to pick off any retaliation giving the US the a “successful” first strike attack.

It has nothing at all to do with defense, it has nothing to do with freedom or democracy, or any of those words that are used all the time to disguise the true intentions; it’s all about full spectrum dominance.

RT: Several decades ago the first Star Wars initiative faced intense public and industry debate.

Today the US is controlled by just six mainstream media, all totally suborned to the White House. The result is an Orwellian silence on perhaps the most dangerous issue today.

Europeans may decide they want their leaders chosen by NATO, or even that they support nuclear strikes on China and Russia.

Since the US-controlled mainstream’s never even informed the public these apocalyptic plans are on the agenda, the first people may hear of it, would be this. Seek truth from facts. This is The Truthseeker.

ALMOST EVERYTHING IN “DR. STRANGELOVE” WAS TRUE

POSTED BY ERIC SCHLOSSER

This month marks the fiftieth anniversary of Stanley Kubrick’s black comedy about nuclear weapons, “Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.” Released on January 29, 1964, the film caused a good deal of controversy. Its plot suggested that a mentally deranged American general could order a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, without consulting the President. One reviewer described the film as “dangerous … an evil thing about an evil thing.” Another compared it to Soviet propaganda. Although “Strangelove” was clearly a farce, with the comedian Peter Sellers playing three roles, it was criticized for being implausible. An expert at the Institute for Strategic Studies called the events in the film “impossible on a dozen counts.” A former Deputy Secretary of Defense dismissed the idea that someone could authorize the use of a nuclear weapon without the President’s approval: “Nothing, in fact, could be further from the truth.” (See a compendium of clips from the film.) When “Fail-Safe”—a Hollywood thriller with a similar plot, directed by Sidney Lumet—opened, later that year, it was criticized in much the same way. “The incidents in ‘Fail-Safe’ are deliberate lies!” General Curtis LeMay, the Air Force chief of staff, said. “Nothing like that could happen.”

 The first casualty of every war is the truth—and the Cold War was no exception to that dictum. Half a century after Kubrick’s mad general, Jack D. Ripper, launched a nuclear strike on the Soviets to defend the purity of “our precious bodily fluids” from Communist subversion, we now know that American officers did indeed have the ability to start a Third World War on their own. And despite the introduction of rigorous safeguards in the years since then, the risk of an accidental or unauthorized nuclear detonation hasn’t been completely eliminated.

The command and control of nuclear weapons has long been plagued by an “always/never” dilemma. The administrative and technological systems that are necessary to insure that nuclear weapons are always available for use in wartime may be quite different from those necessary to guarantee that such weapons can never be used, without proper authorization, in peacetime. During the nineteen-fifties and sixties, the “always” in American war planning was given far greater precedence than the “never.” Through two terms in office, beginning in 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower struggled with this dilemma. He wanted to retain Presidential control of nuclear weapons while defending America and its allies from attack. But, in a crisis, those two goals might prove contradictory, raising all sorts of difficult questions. What if Soviet bombers were en route to the United States but the President somehow couldn’t be reached? What if Soviet tanks were rolling into West Germany but a communications breakdown prevented NATOofficers from contacting the White House? What if the President were killed during a surprise attack on Washington, D.C., along with the rest of the nation’s civilian leadership? Who would order a nuclear retaliation then?

With great reluctance, Eisenhower agreed to let American officers use their nuclear weapons, in an emergency, if there were no time or no means to contact the President. Air Force pilots were allowed to fire their nuclear anti-aircraft rockets to shoot down Soviet bombers heading toward the United States. And about half a dozen high-level American commanders were allowed to use far more powerful nuclear weapons, without contacting the White House first, when their forces were under attack and “the urgency of time and circumstances clearly does not permit a specific decision by the President, or other person empowered to act in his stead.” Eisenhower worried that providing that sort of authorization in advance could make it possible for someone to do “something foolish down the chain of command” and start an all-out nuclear war. But the alternative—allowing an attack on the United States to go unanswered or NATO forces to be overrun—seemed a lot worse. Aware that his decision might create public unease about who really controlled America’s nuclear arsenal, Eisenhower insisted that his delegation of Presidential authority be kept secret. At a meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he confessed to being “very fearful of having written papers on this matter.”

President John F. Kennedy was surprised to learn, just a few weeks after taking office, about this secret delegation of power. “A subordinate commander faced with a substantial military action,” Kennedy was told in a top-secret memo, “could start the thermonuclear holocaust on his own initiative if he could not reach you.” Kennedy and his national-security advisers were shocked not only by the wide latitude given to American officers but also by the loose custody of the roughly three thousand American nuclear weapons stored in Europe. Few of the weapons had locks on them. Anyone who got hold of them could detonate them. And there was little to prevent NATO officers from Turkey, Holland, Italy, Great Britain, and Germany from using them without the approval of the United States.

In December, 1960, fifteen members of Congress serving on the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy had toured NATO bases to investigate how American nuclear weapons were being deployed. They found that the weapons—some of them about a hundred times more powerful than the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima—were routinely guarded, transported, and handled by foreign military personnel. American control of the weapons was practically nonexistent. Harold Agnew, a Los Alamos physicist who accompanied the group, was especially concerned to see German pilots sitting in German planes that were decorated with Iron Crosses—and carrying American atomic bombs. Agnew, in his own words, “nearly wet his pants” when he realized that a lone American sentry with a rifle was all that prevented someone from taking off in one of those planes and bombing the Soviet Union.

* * *

The Kennedy Administration soon decided to put locking devices inside NATO’s nuclear weapons. The coded electromechanical switches, known as “permissive action links” (PALs), would be placed on the arming lines. The weapons would be inoperable without the proper code—and that code would be shared with NATO allies only when the White House was prepared to fight the Soviets. The American military didn’t like the idea of these coded switches, fearing that mechanical devices installed to improve weapon safety would diminish weapon reliability. A top-secret State Department memo summarized the view of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1961: “all is well with the atomic stockpile program and there is no need for any changes.”

After a crash program to develop the new control technology, during the mid-nineteen-sixties, permissive action links were finally placed inside most of the nuclear weapons deployed byNATO forces. But Kennedy’s directive applied only to the NATO arsenal. For years, the Air Force and the Navy blocked attempts to add coded switches to the weapons solely in their custody. During a national emergency, they argued, the consequences of not receiving the proper code from the White House might be disastrous. And locked weapons might play into the hands of Communist saboteurs. “The very existence of the lock capability,” a top Air Force general claimed, “would create a fail-disable potential for knowledgeable agents to ‘dud’ the entire Minuteman [missile] force.” The Joint Chiefs thought that strict military discipline was the best safeguard against an unauthorized nuclear strike. A two-man rule was instituted to make it more difficult for someone to use a nuclear weapon without permission. And a new screening program, the Human Reliability Program, was created to stop people with emotional, psychological, and substance-abuse problems from gaining access to nuclear weapons.

Despite public assurances that everything was fully under control, in the winter of 1964, while “Dr. Strangelove” was playing in theatres and being condemned as Soviet propaganda, there was nothing to prevent an American bomber crew or missile launch crew from using their weapons against the Soviets. Kubrick had researched the subject for years, consulted experts, and worked closely with a former R.A.F. pilot, Peter George, on the screenplay of the film. George’s novel about the risk of accidental nuclear war, “Red Alert,” was the source for most of “Strangelove” ’s plot. Unbeknownst to both Kubrick and George, a top official at the Department of Defense had already sent a copy of “Red Alert” to every member of the Pentagon’s Scientific Advisory Committee for Ballistic Missiles. At the Pentagon, the book was taken seriously as a cautionary tale about what might go wrong. Even Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara privately worried that an accident, a mistake, or a rogue American officer could start a nuclear war.

Coded switches to prevent the unauthorized use of nuclear weapons were finally added to the control systems of American missiles and bombers in the early nineteen-seventies. The Air Force was not pleased, and considered the new security measures to be an insult, a lack of confidence in its personnel. Although the Air Force now denies this claim, according to more than one source I contacted, the code necessary to launch a missile was set to be the same at every Minuteman site: 00000000.

* * *

The early permissive action links were rudimentary. Placed in NATO weapons during the nineteen-sixties and known as Category A PALs, the switches relied on a split four-digit code, with ten thousand possible combinations. If the United States went to war, two people would be necessary to unlock a nuclear weapon, each of them provided with half the code. Category APALs were useful mainly to delay unauthorized use, to buy time after a weapon had been taken or to thwart an individual psychotic hoping to cause a large explosion. A skilled technician could open a stolen weapon and unlock it within a few hours. Today’s Category D PALs, installed in the Air Force’s hydrogen bombs, are more sophisticated. They require a six-digit code, with a million possible combinations, and have a limited-try feature that disables a weapon when the wrong code is repeatedly entered.

The Air Force’s land-based Minuteman III missiles and the Navy’s submarine-based Trident II missiles now require an eight-digit code—which is no longer 00000000—in order to be launched. The Minuteman crews receive the code via underground cables or an aboveground radio antenna. Sending the launch code to submarines deep underwater presents a greater challenge. Trident submarines contain two safes. One holds the keys necessary to launch a missile; the other holds the combination to the safe with the keys; and the combination to the safe holding the combination must be transmitted to the sub by very-low-frequency or extremely-low-frequency radio. In a pinch, if Washington, D.C., has been destroyed and the launch code doesn’t arrive, the sub’s crew can open the safes with a blowtorch.

The security measures now used to control America’s nuclear weapons are a vast improvement over those of 1964. But, like all human endeavors, they are inherently flawed. The Department of Defense’s Personnel Reliability Program is supposed to keep people with serious emotional or psychological issues away from nuclear weapons—and yet two of the nation’s top nuclear commanders were recently removed from their posts. Neither appears to be the sort of calm, stable person you want with a finger on the button. In fact, their misbehavior seems straight out of “Strangelove.”

Vice Admiral Tim Giardina, the second-highest-ranking officer at the U.S. Strategic Command—the organization responsible for all of America’s nuclear forces—-was investigated last summer for allegedly using counterfeit gambling chips at the Horseshoe Casino in Council Bluffs, Iowa. According to the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation, “a significant monetary amount” of counterfeit chips was involved. Giardina was relieved of his command on October 3, 2013. A few days later, Major General Michael Carey, the Air Force commander in charge of America’s intercontinental ballistic missiles, was fired for conduct “unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.”According to a report by the Inspector General of the Air Force, Carey had consumed too much alcohol during an official trip to Russia, behaved rudely toward Russian officers, spent time with “suspect” young foreign women in Moscow, loudly discussed sensitive information in a public hotel lounge there, and drunkenly pleaded to get onstage and sing with a Beatles cover band at La Cantina, a Mexican restaurant near Red Square. Despite his requests, the band wouldn’t let Carey onstage to sing or to play the guitar.

While drinking beer in the executive lounge at Moscow’s Marriott Aurora during that visit, General Carey made an admission with serious public-policy implications. He off-handedly told a delegation of U.S. national-security officials that his missile-launch officers have the “worst morale in the Air Force.” Recent events suggest that may be true. In the spring of 2013, nineteen launch officers at Minot Air Force base in North Dakota were decertified for violating safety rules and poor discipline. In August, 2013, the entire missile wing at Malmstrom Air Force base in Montana failed its safety inspection. Last week, the Air Force revealed that thirty-four launch officers at Malmstrom had been decertified for cheating on proficiency exams—and that at least three launch officers are being investigated for illegal drug use. The findings of a report by the RAND Corporation, leaked to the A.P., were equally disturbing. The study found that the rates of spousal abuse and court martials among Air Force personnel with nuclear responsibilities are much higher than those among people with other jobs in the Air Force. “We don’t care if things go properly,” a launch officer told RAND. “We just don’t want to get in trouble.”

The most unlikely and absurd plot element in “Strangelove” is the existence of a Soviet “Doomsday Machine.” The device would trigger itself, automatically, if the Soviet Union were attacked with nuclear weapons. It was meant to be the ultimate deterrent, a threat to destroy the world in order to prevent an American nuclear strike. But the failure of the Soviets to tell the United States about the contraption defeats its purpose and, at the end of the film, inadvertently causes a nuclear Armageddon. “The whole point of the Doomsday Machine is lost,” Dr. Strangelove, the President’s science adviser, explains to the Soviet Ambassador, “if you keep it a secret!”

A decade after the release of “Strangelove,” the Soviet Union began work on the Perimeter system—-a network of sensors and computers that could allow junior military officials to launch missiles without oversight from the Soviet leadership. Perhaps nobody at the Kremlin had seen the film. Completed in 1985, the system was known as the Dead Hand. Once it was activated, Perimeter would order the launch of long-range missiles at the United States if it detected nuclear detonations on Soviet soil and Soviet leaders couldn’t be reached. Like the Doomsday Machine in “Strangelove,” Perimeter was kept secret from the United States; its existence was not revealed until years after the Cold War ended.

In retrospect, Kubrick’s black comedy provided a far more accurate description of the dangers inherent in nuclear command-and-control systems than the ones that the American people got from the White House, the Pentagon, and the mainstream media.

“This is absolute madness, Ambassador,” President Merkin Muffley says in the film, after being told about the Soviets’ automated retaliatory system. “Why should you build such a thing?” Fifty years later, that question remains unanswered, and “Strangelove” seems all the more brilliant, bleak, and terrifyingly on the mark.

The 5 Worst Weapons Still In Use

We've put together a list of the top five worst weapons that are still in regular legal use, today. From downright nasty technology to devastating to local civilians, many of these weapons are in the process of being banned, or have had campaigns launched to outlaw them.

U.S. Military Killed 130,000 People In Nuclear Tests During A 12-Year Span

Words Can’t Describe The Pain and Suffering Endured By Survivors Of The Tragic 12-Year Wave Of Terror Unleashed By The U.S. Government.

By Shepard Ambellas

MICRONESIA, THE REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS  (INTELLIHUB) – 67 nuclear tests took place starting in 1946 and many living things, including humans, have been affected by the aftermath of radiation plumes released both undersea and in the earth’s atmosphere by the U.S. Government. In fact at the time it was unknown if any of the test explosions would actually fully ignite the oxygen in the earth’s atmosphere, possibly even decimating the entire surface of the planet.

“The Marshall Islands, officially the Republic of the Marshall Islands (Marshallese: Aolepān Aorōkin M̧ajeļ),is an island country located in the northern Pacific Ocean. Geographically, the country is part of the larger island group of Micronesia, with the population of 68,480 people spread out over 24 low-lying coral atolls, comprising 1,156 individual islands and islets. The islands share maritime boundaries with the Federated States of Micronesia to the west, Wake Island to the north, Kiribati to the south-east, and Nauru to the south. The most populous atoll is Majuro, which also acts as the capital.”, reads Wikipedia.org’s opening paragraph on the region._[1] Nonetheless, testing ensued.

Later on after the U.S. military used up and experimented with some 11,000 personnel throughout the 12-year testing process, the side-effects of the surrounding areas and areas downwind became evident. There was major collateral damage, damage that affected many living things in and around the region and damage that’s still is affecting living things to this day. An excerpt from a case study entitled U.S. Nuclear Testing on the Marshall Islands: 1946 – 1958_[2] reads:

I myself have met a survivor of the blast who was born with defects from the radiation and have seen first hand how sinister the U.S. Government is as they have actually offered the individual and others no financial assistance. Survivors and victims of the nuclear testing are currently planning to ban together in the near future to file a class-action lawsuit against the U.S. military for the experimental testing on human beings. Some lawsuits have already been filed.

Updated 2:57pm EST

I also wanted to add that my source for this information whom was indeed affected by the nuclear tests pointed out that still to this day, the entire area is highly contaminated with nuclear fallout. In fact my source stated that “flies will not even land on the fish” that you catch and told me how the fish actually “change color” when you pull them out of the water. My source also said that even coconut water in the area is contaminated and highly poisonous.

Nuclear Testing Review - Nuclear Test Film

Sources:

[1] Marshall Islands – Wikipedia.org

[2] U.S. Nuclear Testing on the Marshall Islands - http://www.uvu.edu/

Chemical Weapons: A Quiz

By GARY LEUPP

1. Which of the following is the most accurate statement?

1. chemical weapons were first used during the First World War

2. chemical weapons were invented and first used in the 19^th century

3. chemical weapons have been around since prehistoric people first put poisons on arrowheads

4. the first real chemical weapon was “Greek Fire” invented by the Byzantines in the 7^th century

5. chemical weapons were first produced in the 18^th century, based on formulae found in Leonardo da Vinci’s rediscovered writings

2. An international conference in 1899 produced the Hague Treaty, which bans the use of projectiles containing poison gas in warfare. Only one country’s representative dissented. What country was this?

1. Russia

2. U.S.

3. United Kingdom

4. Japan

5. Union of South Africa

3. In the First World War, what percentage of fatalities were due to chemical weapons?

1.  4%

2. 12%

3. 39%

4. 51%

5. 59%

4. In April 1917, British forces used poison gas against German and Ottoman forces in

1. Turkey

2. Germany

3. Austria

4. Libya

5. Palestine

5. Who made the following comment in May 1919, regarding the use of mustard gas against Mesopotamian Arabs?

“I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas…I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes… It is not 
necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.”

1. Benito Mussolini

2. Winston Churchill

3. Georges Clemenceau

4. Woodrow Wilson

5. Ibn Saud

6. Mustard gas was invented in 1917 by a scientist in

1. U.S.

2. Austria

3. Norway

4. Germany

5. Japan

7. During the First World War, Germany was the largest producer of chemical weapons. What country was number two?

1. U.K.

2. U.S.

3. Japan

4. Italy

5. France

8. 88,000 people died due to chemical weapons during the First World War. 56,000 of these were in one country. What was it?

1. Russia

2. Japan

3. China

4. Germany

5. France

9. At the Washington Arms Conference of 1922 which country opposed inclusion in a treaty of an article banning chemical weapons?

1. France

2. U.S.

3. U.K.

4. Russia

5. Japan

10. Over 60 U.S. merchant seamen were killed by mustard gas in an Italian port in December 1943. Why did this happen?

1. The ship was accidently attacked by a British submarine, with torpedoes armed with mustard gas

2. German troops attacked with gas

3. Italian guerrillas attacked with gas

4. The gas was aboard their ship and released when German forces bombed it

5. None of the above

11. How many tons of chemical weapons material did the U.S. at peak inventory?

1. The U.S. never built or stockpiled such weapons

2. 10,000 tons

3. 30,000 tons

4. 50,000 tons

5. 110,000 tons

12. Napalm was invented

1. by the ancient Greeks

2. by a Swedish scientist in 1876

3. by scientists at Harvard University in 1943

4. by Dow Chemical Corp. during the Vietnam War

5. by the Japanese military during World War II

13. Which president announced that the U.S. would not be the first to use chemical weapons?

1. Wilson

2. Eisenhower

3. Kennedy

4. Nixon

5. Carter

14. Napalm is:

1. A mix of petroleum plus a gelling agent that sticks to skin and causes severe burns when ignited

2. A gas that causes asphyxiation

3. A type of explosive bullet

4. An invisible gas released at low altitude by helicopters

5. A kerosene-based jet fuel used in firebombs

15. Over 2 million tons of napalm were used in World War II. Between 1965 and 1973 how many tons of napalm were dropped on Vietnam by U.S. forces?

1. 1 million

2. 2 million

3. 5 million

4. 8 million

5. 15 million

16. Up to March 1992, according to a Senate study, the U.S. licensed export of anthrax and VX nerve gas to which country among the following?

1. Zimbabwe

2. South Africa

3. United Kingdom

4. Iraq

5. Canada

17. In March 1988 Iraqi forces attacked Kurds in northern Iraq with chemical weapons, killing over 3000. How did the U.S. react?

1. The State Department stated its belief that Iran was behind the attacks

2. Pres. Reagan declared Iraq in violation of international law and asked Congress for permission to punish it

3. U.S. officials openly argued that since Saddam Hussein was a firm ally against Iran the U.S. had to overlook his war crimes

4. The U.S. placed Iraq back on its list of terror-sponsoring nations

5. The U.S. halted military cooperation with Iraq in its war with Iran

18. Which of the following countries are believed to possess stockpiles of chemical weapons?

1. Russia, China, France, U.K., Russia, Syria

2. Egypt, Israel, Syria, North Korea, Russia, U.S.

3. Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, China, France, Russia, U.S.

4. Iran, Syria, Russia, U.S., India, Egypt

5. Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, Russia, U.S., Germany

19. The U.S. claims that Syria possesses about 1000 tons of chemical weapons. How many tons does the U.S. still possess?

1. 500

2. 1000

3. 2000

4. 2500

5. 3000

20.  What countries continue to refuse to ban chemical weapons?

1. Syria, Israel, Zimbabwe, South Korea, North Korea

2. Angola, Egypt, North Korea, South Sudan

3. Syria, Israel, U.S., Russia, China

4. Syria, Iran, Zimbabwe, North Korea

5. Angola, Syria, Egypt, North Korea, South Sudan

Bonus question:

The Chemical Weapons Convention approved by the UN General Assembly that bans use of chemical weapons was first signed by participating nations in what year?

1. 1945

2. 1968

3. 1974

4. 1993

5. 2003

 Answers:

1. 3 (Salon of Athens poisoned the Spartan water supply. Henry III used quicklime against the French. In 1675 the French and Germans agreed to stop using poisoned bullets. Chemical warfare is not only modern.)

2. 2 (The U.S. representative wanted no curbs on U.S. inventiveness.)

3. 1 (Remarkably small proportion.)

4. 5 (Mostly British versus Germans, with the latter winning.)

5. 2 (Churchill the consummate colonialist.)

6. 4 (Germany’s chemical industry led the world.)

7. 5 (The U.K. and U.S. produced chemical weapons too, but France was far ahead.)

8. 1 (Compare 9000 Germans, 8000 French, 8000 British Empire, 1500 U.S.)

9.1 (Not surprising, since France was then the world’s leading manufacturer of chemical weapons.)

10.  4 (News of this was hushed up.)

11. 3 (Now down to 3000.)

12. 3 (The scientists were doing war-related research. Napalm was soon used; on March 9, 1945 napalm dropped on Tokyo killed over 87,000 people.)

13. 4 (Nov. 25, 1969 statement.)

14. 1 (From naphthenic palmitic acids.)

15. 4

16. 4 (As part of cooperation during the Iran-Iraq War.)

17. 1 (At the same time anonymous government officials opined that there was no law preventing someone from using weapons of mass destruction on his own people.)

18. 2 (Israel argues that its chemical weapons serve as a deterrent to Syrian attack.)

19. 5 (Russia has about 9000 and plans to destroy it all by next year.)

20. 2 (Now that Syria has signed the treaty, just four countries remain outside it.)

Bonus: 4 (There are now 189 signatories.)

GARY LEUPP is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, (AK Press). He can be reached at: gleupp@granite.tufts.edu

America’s Tricky Relationship With Chemical Warfare

By Veena Trehan

Above photo from Defense Dept website, 1996 press release about chemical weapon stockpiles awaiting destruction.

The United States has awakened to the Syrian crisis and wants to help.  But you hear little from our leaders about the suffering of 6 million Syrians – proportional to 80 million Americans – who have fled their homes. The 2 million international refugees and 4.25 million internally displaced are becoming what United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called “a humanitarian crisis of unprecedented proportions in recent history”.  Instead the chest-thumping, misleading speeches of the American war machine advocate for airstrikes to punish President Bashar al-Assad’s use of toxic chemicals with which we have an on-again, off-again love affair.  We hear little of a Syrian pipeline Assad won’t agree to, or Julian Assange’s assertion that documents show we have been looking to interfere in Syria for several years. Instead, US leaders advocate action that will likely be incendiary or ineffective, with poor international and popular support, and no legal basis. Clearly playing the world’s rogue cop is a relatively easy, high-profile role. But long term, challenging, collaborative work to provide funds, food, doctors, aid workers, and political leadership –like championing a resolution to refer Assad’s actions to the International Criminal Court – are more likely to achieve a lasting, positive legacy.

What specifically of unending chatter about the red line? First, killing breeds hatred regardless of techniques, as a classic scene from “The Princess Bride” teaches kids through the swashbuckling, Spanish fencer’s chant: “My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.” (no clarification on weaponry needed). Are we to believe the Syrians’ return to the brutal killing modes responsible for 99 percent of their dead represents “mission accomplished”?  Even more problematic is the shift-shaping propaganda machine, a la President Bush. Early American rationales for military action in Syria were numerous: strikes as part of a larger strategy, agreed to facts, an international coalition, international law, and the offense’s legality. Now military strikes are rationalized mainly with the notably poor defense, “Because I said so.”  The US account of the suburban Damascus attack and their estimate of 1,429 dead (the highest to date) isn’t backed by intelligence available to other countries or our public, even Congress sees very little. Secretary of State John Kerry says only three “tyrants” have used chemical weapons, while ignoring four American presidents – Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush –  who either assisted or used weapons of mass destruction.  Leaders talk of a longstanding international norm. But chemicals have killed and maimed on at least 10 occasions since 1925. Retaliatory, unilateral military action from outside actors has been illegal and rare.

A review of the major treaties governing the use of chemical warfare and the nations who have used them proves illustrative.

World War 1: Both Central Powers and Allies takes advantage of a new era of poison gases. Chlorine, phosgene, and most famously mustard gas terrify the military and civilians alike, although they are responsible for a small percentage of total deaths.

Geneva Protocol: The 1925 treaty broadly prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons. About two-thirds of the countries have signed on. The United States, which had an extensive chemical weapons program for decades, takes 50 years to ratify the protocol, choosing to sign it in 1975 rather than the more comprehensive Chemical Weapons Convention developed that year.

World War II:  Adolf Hitler uses gas chambers to kill Jews, Gypsies, and other groups. The tyrant, who was gassed in World War I, does not use chemical weapons in military attacks.

World War II:  America/ President Franklin Delano Roosevelt firebomb 67 Japanese cities using napalm (jellied gasoline) destroying half or more of 33 cities. General Curtis LeMay who was responsible for the bombing, said that “If we’d lost the war, we’d all have been prosecuted as war criminals.” (a violation of the Hague Conventions, among others).  ”I think he’s right,” comments Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, in “The Fog of War”.

America/President Franklin Delano Roosevelt drop two nuclear bombs that flattenNagasaki and Hiroshima. Approximately 185,000 people are vaporized, crushed or burned to death immediately, while others are tormented by bone marrow syndrome, excessive diarrhea and vomiting, burns, and other torturous conditions before dying.  While these weapons operate by nuclear rather than chemical reactions, the International Court of Justice has stated using the weapons is clearly contrary to international military and humanitarian law.

The US has built 65,000 nuclear warheads in total; 7700 remain today. Excluding Russia, which holds 8500, the US arsenal is seven times that of all other nuclear powers combined.

Vietnam War:  America/President Lyndon Johnson uses 20 million gallons of herbicides and defoliants during the Vietnam War.  About half a million children suffer from severe physical or mental disabilities as a result of the highly toxic Agent Orange. About 3 million have been affected altogether. A joint Vietnamese-US panel recommended in 2010 the US government, corporations and other donors spend $300 million to compensate Vietnamese victims and clean up their ecosystems. So far, the US government has not pledged such compensation. Similarly, many Congressmen appalled by the Syrian attack have failed to champion the House’s “Victims of Agent Orange Relief Act” introduced three months ago.

Chemical Weapons Convention: The 1975 international treaty prohibits the use and production of chemical weapons and sets a timetable for their destruction. To date, seven countries in the world, including Israel and Syria, have either not signed or not ratified it. The United States signed the treaty in 1997, basically gutting its provisions through limits. The US also missed the deadlines established in the convention for destroying the vast majority of their chemical weapons. Needless to say, the treaty does not allow military force to be taken in case of noncompliance.

Side note on international treaties: Other countries could not legally bomb the US for violating treaties that it has not ratified (or has unsigned) that are agreed to by the vast majority of the world. A few include the Convention of Discrimination Against Women, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Yet action without United Nations Security Council approval would violate international law.

Iraq-Iran War: Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush sell Saddam Hussein toxic poisons and biological viruses which Iraq uses in the Iraq-Iran War. The American government knows and approves of this use. In fact, the Reagan administration provides intelligence to Iraq to identify Iranian targets for chemical warfare.  Additionally, Saddam Hussein uses chemical weapons against the Kurdish people in 1987.

Gulf and Iraq Wars: America/George Bush uses white phosphorus in Fallujah, Iraq, reportedly melting the skin of Iraqis and causing a higher incidence of birth defects, cancer, leukemia, and infant mortality than after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. The United States also used weapons and munitions containing mildly radioactive and toxic depleted uranium in both the Gulf and Iraq Wars, causing cancer and birth defects, while leaving toxic land behind for the Iraqi citizens to live in.

Israel-Palestine Conflict: Israel uses the chemical white phosphorus in Gaza in the 2008-2009 war. Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch found white phosphorus was used in civilian areas, inflicting major injuries and chemical burns. Israel initially denied the chemical was used, but later admitted to it.

Syrian Civil War: Assad forces are widely believed to have used chemical weapons on August 21. The report from a United Nations inspection is an estimated two weeks away. Initial reports suggest the chemicals were obtained legally from Britain.

(Other chemical warfare that is omitted for space include Italy’s use of chemical weapons against what is now Ethopia, Japan use against China (clean up is still underway), and Egypt use in Yemen, among others).

“When you point one fingers, three finger points back at you,” according to a popular quote.

In the long term, a planet without chemical weapons – and many manmade chemicals – would be a much better world.  Indeed, using less chemicals would help restore the integrity to our environment and health to our bodies. Much of this is achievable by employing viable strategies to shift to organic food, eliminate toxic chemicals from garment production, and transition to renewable energy. Such a move would eliminate the confusion over civilian versus military uses.  Additionally, a helpful step towards reducing arms stockpiles and violence would be for President Obama to sign and the Senate to ratify the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, and champion and agree to other international arms covenants. For now, America’s decision to view Syria mostly through the lens of a chemical weapons attack that merits bombing blinds us to a more meaningful role. Our Nobel Peace Prize winner president should work with the international community committed to alleviating suffering, and using diplomacy and international courts. Such a commitment to peace would evince true leadership.