Thursday, July 28, 2016

Who could have the Nuclear Rocket codes?

The United States of America is a great state bounded by the US Constitutionratified in 1790, checked and overseen by the balance between three divisions of the federal government and its people, one nation of people.  One man or woman can not make it or break it, but a nation of people could if they ignore the foundation that the state is built upon.  Do not ignore who is slated to be the head of our protection and military as commander in chief.  Take the time to read what he was said and what others have researched about him.  I endorse no candidate and unhappy with the available choices. 

Holding the codes to our nuclear weapons is a very crucial responsibility.  Read about our many soldiers and citizens that were exposed to an over zealous individual.  We need to understand and predict the President's decisions on this toxic serpent of nuclear weapons.

Author Eric Schlosser, Sept 13, 2016 discusses "emotional unstable" President ending up with the nuclear codes.. plot out of a science-fiction film

Quote from Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe on August 3, 2016
“Several months ago, a foreign policy expert went to advise Donald Trump,” Scarborough said. “And three times he asked about the use of nuclear weapons — three times he asked. At one point, ‘If we have them, why can’t we use them?’”
Trumps Misunderstanding of the Nuclear Triad (strategic bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles) GOP debate 12-2015 asked by Hugh Hewitt:
Trump was asked to offer his opinion on which leg of the nuclear triad, decried by many as outdated, he believed was most crucial to update. The Republican frontrunner did not appear to understand the topic.
In his original answer, Trump said it was important to have a strong leader with sound judgment during perilous times. He then trailed off to talking about opposing the Iraq War and how important limiting nuclear proliferation is. The response did not touch on Hewitt’s question, so he asked again.
“I think for me nuclear – the power, the devastation is very important to me,” Trump said in his second attempt
Biden Once Again Mentions Military Aide Carrying Nuclear Codes
in Newsmax and Washington Free Beacon  

Trump has suggested America use nuclear weapons to bomb Islamic State. He has proposed that Japan and maybe even Saudi Arabia build their own arsenals. And he may have weakened the deterrent effect of nuclear bombs in Europe by suggesting a Trump administration would not come to the aid of NATO members who owe the alliance money. 

“It’s been shock therapy for the American public,” said Joseph Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, which promotes nuclear disarmament. “Up until last month, most Americans did not even know a president could launch a nuclear war on their own authority.”
Regardless, Trump has plunged into an issue presidential candidates gently sidestepped for years. U.S. policy for when and how nuclear arms should be deployed has been one of the rare points of bipartisan foreign policy agreement. Yet it doesn’t fit neatly into Trump’s unique ideology, which is driven by challenging existing orthodoxy on everything.
In a phone interview, Brown vividly lays out a scenario Perry warns about in which terrorists could smuggle a crude nuclear device into the center of Washington and use it to wipe out the president, key Cabinet members, most of Congress and tens of thousands of people..setting off mass panic and descending the nation into chaos.
“The only way people talk about [nuclear weapons] is as if Trump might get his hand on the button,” Brown said. “Whether he does or not, we have these catastrophic dangers lurking out there. And leaders that should be worrying about it are sleepwalking.”
Trump won't Outline Plans for North Korea in Tampa Bay Tribune, September 9, 2016 from Associated Press
Trump also suggested Clinton and others are wrong to outline their national security policies, because doing so could help the nation's enemies. "Maybe we shouldn't be so honest when it comes to military strategy," he said.
But at a crowded rally Friday night in Pensacola, Trump said he'd order an attack on Iranian boats if they harassed the U.S. Navy.
D. T., Cold War Nuclear Negotiator in the National Review of a repost from 1984 in the Washington Post, Donald Trump Holding All the Cards: the Tower, the Team, the Money, the Future.
"This morning, Trump has a new idea. He wants to talk about the threat of nuclear war. He wants to talk about how the United States should negotiate with the Soviets.
He wants to be the negotiator.
He says he has never acted on his nuclear concern. But he says that his good friend Roy Cohn, the flamboyant Republican lawyer, has told him this interview is a perfect time to start.
"Some people have an ability to negotiate," he says. "It's an art you're basically born with. You either have it or you don't."
He would know what to ask the Russians for, he says. But he would rather not tip his hand publicly. "In the event anything happens with respect to me, I wouldn't want to make my opinions public," he says. "I'd rather keep those thoughts to myself or save them for whoever else is chosen...
"It's something that somebody should do that knows how to negotiate and not the kind of representatives that I have seen in the past."
He could learn about missiles, quickly, he says.
"It would take an hour-and-a-half to learn everything there is to learn about missiles... I think I know most of it anyway. You're talking about just getting updated on a situation... You know who really wants me to do this? Roy... I'd do it in a second." "
Trumps Nuclear Experience Advice for Reagan, in 1987 he set out to solve the world's biggest problem by Ron Rosenbaum reprint by Slate Mag in 2016
"Donald Trump with the power to destroy life on earth. At the heart of the near hysterical (and mostly justified) Fear of Trump that escalates as he approaches the Republican nomination is the Fear of Trump With the Trigger. That explosive temperament combined with that explosive capability.
But it has largely been forgotten that Trump is not new to nuclear matters. He has been thinking about how he’d handle nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation for more than a quarter-century, at least since 1987, when he claimed to me that he was “dealing at a very high level” with people in the White House (that would have been the Reagan White House) on doomsday questions...
“He told me something a few years ago,” Trump recalls. “He told me, ‘You don’t realize how simple nuclear technology is becoming.’ That’s scary. He said it used to be that only a few brains in the world understood it and now you have a situation where thousands and thousands of brains can easily understand it, and it’s becoming easier, and someday it’ll be like making a bomb in the basement of your house. And that’s a very frightening statement coming from a man who’s totally versed in it...”
Still, Impatience, combativeness, impulsiveness—not exactly what you’re hoping for when it comes to the guy in charge of the nuclear trigger. The combo makes one uneasy.
-Would you be willing to have the U.S. be the first to use nuclear weapons in a confrontation with adversaries?
TRUMP: An absolute last step. I think it’s the biggest, I personally think it’s the biggest problem the world has, nuclear capability. I think it’s the single biggest problem. When people talk global warming, I say the global warming that we have to be careful of is the nuclear global warming. Single biggest problem that the world has. Power of weaponry today is beyond anything ever thought of, or even, you know, it’s unthinkable, the power. You look at Hiroshima and you can multiply that times many, many times, is what you have today. And to me, it’s the single biggest, it’s the single biggest problem.
-Could you give us a vision of whether or not you think that the United States should regularly be using cyberweapons, perhaps, as an alternative to nuclear? And if so, how would you either threaten or employ those?
TRUMP: I don’t see it as an alternative to nuclear in terms of, in terms of ultimate power. Look, in the perfect world everybody would agree that nuclear would, you know, be so destructive, and this was always the theory, or was certainly the theory of many. That the power is so enormous that nobody would ever use them. But, as you know, we’re dealing with people in the world today that would use them, O.K.? Possibly numerous people that use them, and use them without hesitation if they had them. And there’s nothing, there’s nothing as, there’s nothing as meaningful or as powerful as that, and you know the problem is, and it used to be, and you would hear this, David, and I would hear it, and everybody would hear it, and — I’m not sure I believed it, ever. I talk sometimes about my uncle from M.I.T., and he would tell me many years ago when he was up at M.I.T. as a, he was a professor, he was a great guy in many respects, but a very brilliant guy, and he would tell me many years ago about the power of weapons someday, that the destructive force of these weapons would be so massive, that it’s going to be a scary world. And, you know, we have been under the impression that, well we’ve been, I think it’s misguided somewhat, I’ve always felt this but that nobody would ever use them because of the power. And the first one to use them, I think that would be a very bad thing. And I will tell you, I would very much not want to be the first one to use them, that I can say.
-What they’ll say to you is that Russia is resurgent right now. They are rebuilding their nuclear arsenal. They’re [unintelligible] Baltics. We’ve got submarine runs, air runs. Things that have at least echoes of the old Cold War. The view is that their mission is coming back. Do you agree with that?
TRUMP: I’ll tell you the problems I have with NATO. No. 1, we pay far too much. We are spending — you know, in fact, they’re even making it so the percentages are greater. NATO is unfair, economically, to us, to the United States. Because it really helps them more so than the United States, and we pay a disproportionate share. Now, I’m a person that — you notice I talk about economics quite a bit, in these military situations, because it is about economics, because we don’t have money anymore because we’ve been taking care of so many people in so many different forms that we don’t have money — and countries, and countries. So NATO is something that at the time was excellent. Today, it has to be changed. It has to be changed to include terror. It has to be changed from the standpoint of cost because the United States bears far too much of the cost of NATO. And one of the things that I hated seeing is Ukraine. Now I’m all for Ukraine, I have friends that live in Ukraine, but it didn’t seem to me, when the Ukrainian problem arose, you know, not so long ago, and we were, and Russia was getting very confrontational, it didn’t seem to me like anyone else cared other than us. And we are the least affected by what happens with Ukraine because we’re the farthest away. But even their neighbors didn’t seem to be talking about it. And, you know, you look at Germany, you look at other countries, and they didn’t seem to be very much involved. It was all about us and Russia. And I wondered, why is it that countries that are bordering the Ukraine and near the Ukraine – why is it that they’re not more involved? Why is it that they are not more involved? Why is it always the United States that gets right in the middle of things, with something that – you know, it affects us, but not nearly as much as it affects other countries. And then I say, and on top of everything else – and I think you understand that, David – because, if you look back, and if you study your reports and everybody else’s reports, how often do you see other countries saying ‘We must stop, we must stop.” They don’t do it! And, in fact, with the gas, you know, they wanted the oil, they wanted other things from Russia, and they were just keeping their mouths shut. And here the United States was going out and, you know, being fairly tough on the Ukraine. And I said to myself, isn’t that interesting? We’re fighting for the Ukraine, but nobody else is fighting for the Ukraine other than the Ukraine itself, of course, and I said, it doesn’t seem fair and it doesn’t seem logical.
SANGER: So we talked a little this morning about Japan and South Korea, whether or not they would move to an independent nuclear capability. Just last week the United States removed from Japan, after a long negotiation, many bombs worth, probably 40 or more bombs worth of plutonium or highly enriched uranium that we provided them over the years. And that’s part of a very bipartisan effort to keep them from going nuclear. So I was a little surprised this morning when you said you would be open to them having their own nuclear deterrent. Certainly if you pull back one of the risks is that they would go nuclear.
TRUMP: You know you’re more right except for the fact that you have North Korea which is acting extremely aggressively, very close to Japan. And had you not had that, I would have felt much, I would have felt differently. You have North Korea, and we are very far away and we are protecting a lot of different people and I don’t know that we are necessarily equipped to protect them. And if we didn’t have the North Korea threat, I think I’d feel a lot differently, David.
SANGER: But with the North Korea threat you think maybe Japan does need its own nuclear…
TRUMP: Well I think maybe it’s not so bad to have Japan — if Japan had that nuclear threat, I’m not sure that would be a bad thing for us...
SANGER: For that reason, they may well need their own and not be able to just depend on us…
TRUMP: I really believe that’s true. Especially because of the threat of North Korea. And they are very aggressive toward Japan. Well I mean look, he’s aggressive toward everybody. Except for China and Iran.
See we should use our economic power to have them disarm — now then it becomes different, then it becomes purely economic, but then it becomes different. China has great power over North Korea even though they don’t necessarily say that. Now, Iran, we had a great opportunity during this negotiation when we gave them the 150 billion and many other things. Iran is the No. 1 trading partner of North Korea. Now we could have put something in our agreement that they would have led the charge if we had people with substance and with brainpower and with some negotiating ability. But the No. 1 trading partner with North Korea is Iran. And we did a deal with them, and we just did a deal with them, and we don’t even mention North Korea in the deal. That was a great opportunity to put another five pages in the deal, or less, and they do have a great influence over North Korea. Same thing with China, China has great influence over North Korea but they don’t say they do because they’re tweaking us. I have this from Chinese. I have many Chinese friends, I have people of vast wealth, some of the most important people in China have purchased apartments from me for tens of millions of dollars and frankly I know them very well. And I ask them about their relationship to North Korea, these are top people. And they say we have tremendous power over North Korea. I know they do. I think you know they do...
SANGER: But the other day, I’m sorry, this morning, you suggested to us you would only use nuclear weapons as a last resort.
TRUMP: Totally last resort.
SANGER: And what did Douglas MacArthur advocate?
TRUMP: I would hate, I would hate —
SANGER: General MacArthur wanted to go use them against the Chinese and the North Koreans, not as a last resort.
TRUMP: That’s right. He did. Yes, well you don’t know if he wanted to use them but he certainly said that at least.
SANGER: He certainly asked Harry Truman if he could.
TRUMP: Yeah, well, O.K.. He certainly talked it and was he doing that to negotiate, was he doing that to win? Perhaps. Perhaps. Was he doing that for what reason? I mean, I think he played, he did play the nuclear card but he didn’t use it, he played the nuclear card. He talked the nuclear card, did he do that to win? Maybe, maybe, you know, maybe that’s what got him victory. But in the meantime he didn’t use them. So, you know. So, we need a different mind set. So you talked about torture before, well what did it say — well I guess you had enough and I hope you’re going to treat me fairly and if you’re not it’ll be forgotten in three or four days and that’ll be the story. It is a crazy world out there, I’ve never seen anything like it, the volume of press that I’m getting is just crazy. It’s just absolutely crazy, but hopefully you’ll treat me fairly, I do know my subject and I do know that our country cannot continue to do what it’s doing. See, I know many people from China, I know many people from other countries, I deal at a very high level with people from various countries because I’ve become very international. I’m all over the world with deals and people and they can’t believe what their countries get away with. I can tell you people from China cannot believe what their country’s, what their country’s getting away with. At let’s say free trade, where, you know, it’s free there but it’s not free here. In other words, we try sell — it’s very hard for us to do business in China, it’s very easy for China to do business with us. Plus with us there’s a tremendous tax that we pay when we go into China, where’s when China sells to us there’s no tax. I mean, it’s a whole double standard, it’s so crazy, and they cannot believe they get away with it, David. They cannot believe they get away with it. They are shocked, and I’m talking about people at the highest level, people at — the richest people, people with great influence over, you know, together with the leaders and they cannot believe it. Mexico can’t believe what they get away with. When I talked about Mexico and I talked about they will build a wall, when you look at the trade deficit we have with Mexico it’s very easy, it’s a tiny fraction of what the cost of the wall is. The wall is a tiny fraction of what the cost of the deficit is. When people hear that they say “Oh now I get it.” They don’t get it. But Mexico will pay for the wall. But they can’t believe what they get away with. There’s such a double standard. With many countries. It’s almost, we do well with almost nobody anymore and a lot of that is because of politics as we know it, political hacks get appointed to negotiate with the smartest people in China, when we negotiate deals with China, China is putting the smartest people in all of China on that negotiation, we’re not doing that. So anyway, I hope you guys are happy.
Trumps Misunderstanding about the US Constitution before members of US Congress Republicans 
Michigan Rep. Tim Walberg asked Trump what his understanding is of Article I (which enumerates the powers of Congress). “I think his response was, ‘I want to protect Article I, Article II, Article XII,’ going down the list. There is no Article XII,” Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) 
National Review article, Donald Trump's Constitution of One by Josh Blackman states
  • Free speech? He will “open up the libel laws” to allow public officials to sue the media, and use the Federal Communications Commission to fine critics. 
  • Private property? To Trump, eminent domain is a “wonderful thing” and is not actually “taking property” because the owner can move “two blocks away.” (don't forget about the discourse at homeowners around his Aberdeen, Scotland golf course)
  • Faithfully executing the law? His harebrained scheme to make Mexico pay for the border wall ignores the clear text of a statute and unilaterally prohibits foreign commerce. 
  • Serving as commander in chief? Trump has already pledged that he would violate international treaties and domestic law. The military “won’t refuse” his illegal orders. “Believe me,” he promised. 
  • Protecting our national security? Trump has lauded FDR’s internment of Japanese Americans, one of the darkest hours in the history of our Republic. 
  • About the Supreme Court? Assuming he keeps his promise to appoint conservative jurists — and that this promise is not merely a negotiating tactic — Trump’s approach would likely mirror that of George W. Bush: appoint justices who will defer to bold assertions of federal power. Judicial minimalist, thy name is John Robert
  • Senator Rand Paul (R., Ky.) pointed out, “if you are going to kill the families of terrorists, realize that there’s something called the Geneva Convention we’re going to have to pull out of. It would defy every norm that is America.” He’s right. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions — which the United States Senate ratified, and is part of our “supreme law of the land”, mandates that people who are taking no active part in the hostilities “shall in all circumstances be treated humanely.” That means you can’t kill innocent family members.

Donald Trump thinks that tactical nuclear weapons may be worth using in the war against the Islamic State.
With Mark Halperin and John Heilemann of Bloomberg, the Republican presidential frontrunner refused to rule out using tactical nuclear weapons in the war against ISIS.
“I’m never going to rule anything out—I wouldn’t want to say. Even if I wasn’t, I wouldn’t want to tell you that because at a minimum, I want them to think maybe we would use them,” he said.
Unpredictability on Nukes Among Trumps Keys to Muslim Respect in Bloomberg, 3-23-2016
..leaving open the possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons against the Islamic State. 
“I'm never going to rule anything out—I wouldn't want to say. Even if I wasn't, I wouldn't want to tell you that because at a minimum, I want them to think maybe we would use them,” he said. 
“We need unpredictability,” Trump continued. “We don't know who these people are. The fact is, we need unpredictability and when you ask a question like that, it's a very sad thing to have to answer it because the enemy is watching and I have a very good chance of winning and I frankly don't want the enemy to know how I'm thinking. But with that being said, I don't rule out anything.”
Yet Trump followed up his bellicose rhetoric with positions unfamiliar from those of past Republican standard-bearers, such as questioning America's involvement in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. “I think NATO may be obsolete. NATO was set up a long time ago, many, many years ago. Things are different now,” Trump said, adding, “We're paying too much. As to whether or not it's obsolete, I won't make that determination.”
Tony Schwartz, Co-Author of The Art of the Deal says
"I genuinely believe that if Trump wins and gets the nuclear codes there is an excellent possibility it will lead to the end of civilization," Tony Schwartz told Mayer.
Watch Trump on NBC talking about foreign affairs with NATO, IRAN, JAPAN

Watch the documentary of The Mad World of Donald Trump

Documentary by Selina Scott Meets Donald Trump, June 1995 ITV, censored by NBC (runs Trump's show, Apprentice).  Who bought the video and all the extra footlage?

His Tax Returns and Tax Rate in the NY Times, 5-13-2016

What did William F. Buckley think about DT in 2000? In the National Review,
DT calls his lies "Truthful Hyperbole"
What Sort of Man Is Donald Trump? published in the New Yorker

Read Transcript of Washington Post interview or listen below
STROMBERG: Don’t good businessmen hedge against risks, not ignore them?
TRUMP: Well I just think we have much bigger risks. I mean I think we have militarily tremendous risks. I think we’re in tremendous peril. I think our biggest form of climate change we should worry about is nuclear weapons. The biggest risk to the world, to me – I know President Obama thought it was climate change – to me the biggest risk is nuclear weapons. That’s – that is climate change. That is a disaster, and we don’t even know where the nuclear weapons are right now. We don’t know who has them. We don’t know who’s trying to get them. The biggest risk for this world and this country is nuclear weapons, the power of nuclear weapons...
RYAN: You [MUFFLED] mentioned a few minutes earlier here that you would knock ISIS. You’ve mentioned it many times. You’ve also mentioned the risk of putting American troop in a danger area. If you could substantially reduce the risk of harm to ground troops, would you use a battlefield nuclear weapon to take out ISIS?
TRUMP: I don’t want to use, I don’t want to start the process of nuclear. Remember the one thing that everybody has said, I’m a counterpuncher. Rubio hit me. Bush hit me. When I said low energy, he’s a low-energy individual, he hit me first. I spent, by the way he spent 18 million dollars’ worth of negative ads on me. That’s putting [MUFFLED]…
RYAN: This is about ISIS. You would not use a tactical nuclear weapon against ISIS?
TRUMP: I’ll tell you one thing, this is a very good looking group of people here.  Could I just go around so I know who the hell I’m talking to?
After last election DT was on World Wrestling Federation and fake wrestle another man.

Decades Later Disagreement Over Young Trumps Military Academy Post written and published in Jan. 2016 in the Washington Post

Convicted child sex offender Jeff Epstein. "If you talk to Donald Trump, a different Epstein emerges.
His Family and their Health Care:
  • Lost Tycoon by Harry Hurt III, referenced rape and ripping out the hair of Ivana Trump, his first wife, and reading Hilter's book, and Harry overhearing Fred Trump Sr to his longtime secretary/mistress 'hoping that it crashes' refering to Donald's plane 
  • TrumpNaton by Timothy O'Brien who was sued by Trump when he wrote that he was not a billionaire. O'Brien won the case and Trump had to release financial records proving likewise.  
  • Never Enough by Michael D'Antonio, about Trump's childhood 
  • Trump, Deals and the Downfall, in 1991 by Wayne Barrett, said the only signature on contracts that mattered was Fred Trump Sr   
  • The Trumps by Gwenda Blair, three generation, wrote about his grandfather's business in the Klondikes, where sporting ladies” could “entertain” miners
  • Trump and Me and Character Studies, Encounters with the Curiously Obsessed by Mark Singer (of the New Yorker, Trump Solo 5-19-1997) visits from the "fear monster" and "little freak-out." "From there it was only a short leap to saving the planet. What if, say, a troublemaker like Muammar Qaddafi got his hands on a nuclear arsenal? Well, Trump declared, he stood ready to work with the leaders of the then Soviet Union to coördinate a formula for coping with Armageddon-minded lunatics.", DT wrote to the editor of NY Times 
  • Trump Revealed 8-23-2016, by Washington Post journalists, Marc Fisher and Michael Kranish 
  • How the End Begins, the Road to a Nuclear World War III by Ron Rosenbaum, inserted interview with Donald Trump
Fake alias of DT, John Barron or John Miller to the media to skirt unpaid illegal workers suing him for pay in Vice and Washington Post

Trump a War Criminal in the Making published in Rolling Stone.

Criminal activity:
Son in law, Jared Kushner, of the NY Observer and real estate owner, whose father was convicted felon Charles Kushner (found in Business Insider).  Also found in Gothamist 3-30-2016, Jared Kushner Not Good, owns 50 pieces of property

DT Friends with David Pecker, CEO of National Enquirer, The Star, Shape (tabloid grocery mags) printed article in NY Times, Roger Stone, Roger Ailes former CEO of FoxNews, and DT campaign guy, 4-19-2016 about Paul Manafort

Remember the Dunning-Kruger Effect about illusory superiority and lack of metacognitive ability to assess one's own ability.

Ten Signs of a cult leader and followers from cult expert Rick Ross
  • Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.   No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry. 
  • No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget or expenses, such as an independently audited financial statement.
  • Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions. 
  • Says no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil. 
  • Former members relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances. 
  • There are records, books, news articles, or broadcast reports that document the abuses of the group/leader. 
  • Followers feel they can never be "good enough". 
  • Group/leader is always right. Claims to be the smartest, best at everything
  • Group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.
Recruiting styles and brainwashing: Love bombing by the leader and members, sleep deprivation, over work you, treat you like children, only the leader can save you, you must show immediate and unquestioning obedience to rules and regulations which maybe arbitrary, petty or pointless to ensure allegiance and obedience, they offer simple, clear messages in an increasingly complex world, opposition is evil and the worst

Seven Signs that You Are a Branch Trumpidian by Steve Berman 4-16-2016

Sign #1:  You seek out friends who also love Trump and reject those who don’t
People like friends who share their beliefs.  That’s only natural.  As you get older, you make new friends, and lose some old friends.  That’s natural too.  When there’s a pattern, where all your new friends believe just like you do in the same doctrine, church, or group, and there’s no dissension at all, that’s a sure sign of a cult.  When those new friends start to pressure you to drop your old friends, because they don’t believe, that’s a big, red, flashing sign reading “warning: cult ahead!”

Sign #2:  Nobody questions authority; your loyalty is required
Most groups have some authority structure in the form of a leader or guiding principles.  Even anarchist groups have leaders—anonymous and hidden though they may be.  A group without a leader is a drinking club, but still someone has to buy the booze and pour.

Sign #3:  The source of authority is vested in a person.
Living or dead, most cults have their genesis rooted in an individual, whose special skills, revelation, or understanding have a unique, exclusive quality and magnetism to which people are drawn.
Trump claimed in an interview with the Washington Post that he can clear up American’s $19 trillion debt in 8 years. The only source of this claim is Donald Trump.

Sign #4:  There is no independent evidence of that person’s authority
I am declaring myself the world’s coconut bowling champion.  Nobody is better at coconut bowling than me.  I know this to be true.  That’s because I just invented coconut bowling.  I am making up the rules as I’m writing this.  If you have your own version of coconut bowling, it’s not the authentic coconut bowling since I am the authoritative source of all knowledge for coconut bowling.

Of course, I’ve never tried coconut bowling, and I’ve never written down the rules.  Until I do, you have no reason to trust my authority to determine who the champion is (it’s me though).  My point is that genuine authority cannot be claimed unless it’s independently witnessed and testified to.

Trump says he’s a conservative, because he says so. But conservatives all over America (National Review devoted an entire issue to this) disagree with his statement. Thousands of Twitter and Facebook followers, many accounts which are in themselves suspect or of unknown origin, support Trump. Suddenly, groups of people who have never attended a single GOP meeting, never supported a single candidate, never taken up a political cause, say they are true conservatives, because they support Trump.

Sign #5:  Doctrine must not be questioned
When you are criticized for even questioning, that’s the sign of a cult.  Knowledge and learning thrive on questioning and challenging what is known and what isn’t known.  When what is known directly contradicts what’s being taught, or just doesn’t line up with the group’s doctrine, it’s time to ask questions and challenge doctrine.

Authentic groups welcome the challenge in any form.

Sign #6:  Secrecy and excommunication
Trump makes all his employees and staffers sign non-disclosure agreements. He thinks it’s a good idea for government too. Yes, if you handle secrets, an NDA is necessary, but for everyone? Only if you work for Trump.

Sign #7:  Ideas are supported by reality

This last sign is fairly easy to understand.  Going back to Zorg, if the only reference to Zorg and Org and the Orgians came from me, you’d correctly count me crazy.  That’s because there’s no basis in reality for me to make this claim.  Only slightly more reality-based is a cult called Heaven’s Gate, who you might remember suffered 39 suicides in 1997 when the promised spaceship trailing the Hale-Bopp comet failed to beam them up.

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Once Close to Home, Nuclear Weapons, ICBM?

Rehearsal for Armageddon, ICBM, Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. While our country had been testing nuclear weapons in the USA since 1945, they had also been storing them in our back yards since the 1950s.  

Do not go into any of the old silos without permission from the owners and with proper protection since they dangerous, hazardous, and privately owned.

The weapon locations have either been demolished, abandoned filled with rust, dust, lead paint, black mold, trash, and asbestos, or sold to private owners.
  1. Atlas (D sites (30 locations from 1959-1964, California), E sites (28 sites, California, Washington, Wyoming, Kansas), F sites (72 locations: Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Nebraska, New York))
  2. Titan I, 6 bases, 18 operational sites in 5 states, 3 missiles each, began in 1959 and was completed in 1962.  By 1965 every single Titan I site and all the Atlas sites, were shut down and later scrapped and abandoned.  None was operational for 4 years.
  3. Titan II, 108 produced in 1963
  4. Minuteman II, 1966, Whiteman AFB Missouri
  5. Minuteman III, from 1971, 450 still operational
Titan II,18 at Little Rock AFB, 2 Strategic Missile Squadrons (SMSs) of 9 missiles each
  • Pulaski County, Jacksonville
  • Van Buren County, accident
  • Cleburne County
  • Faulkner County
  • White County

Titan II, 18 at Davis-Montham AFB2 Strategic Missile Squadrons (SMSs) of 9 missiles each
Titan Missile Museum, 20 miles south of Tucson


Atlas D, 6 at Vandenburg AFB
Atlas E, 1 at Vandenburg AFB
Titan I, 9, from 1961, Chico at Beale AFB, Cost of $40 million, accident in 1962, rebuilt for $20 million

Titan I, 18 sites near Deer Trail, Aurora, south of Elizabeth, Lowry AFB, 724th and 725th SMS
Minuteman III near Peetz, 10 silos on border with Nebraska

Titan I, 9, from 1961-1965, Mountain Home AFB

Atlas E, 9, (Rock Creek, Worden, Waverly, Burlingame, Bushong, Dover, Wamego, Delia, Holton), Forbes AFB, 548th SMS
Atlas F, 12 in Salina, Schilling AFB
Titan II, 18 in Osage City at McConnell AFB, 2 SMSs of 9 missiles each

Minuteman, 150 at Whiteman AFB

Minuteman IA, 200 at Malmstrom AFB
Minuteman III, 150 at Malmstrom AFB

Atlas D, 9 at Offutt AFB
Atlas F,12 at Lincoln AFB, 551st SMS

New Mexico
Atlas F, 12 in Roswell, Walker AFB, 579st SMS, 12 locations

North Dakota
Minuteman III, 150, Minot AFB
Minuteman, 150, Grand Forks AFB

New York
Atlas F, 12 in Lewis, Plattsburgh AFB, 556th SMS

Atlas F, 12 at Altus AFB, 577th SMS

South Dakota
Titan I, 9, from 1960-1965, Box Elder, Ellsworth AFB 
Minuteman, 150, Ellsworth AFB

Atlas F, 12 sites in Abilene, Dyess AFB, 578th SMS (Corinth, Anson, Nolan, Shep, Winters, Bradshaw, Lawn, Oplin, Denton, Clyde, Albany, Phantom Lake)

Titan I, 9, from 1961-1965, Moses Lake, Larson AFB, Deer Park
Atlas E, 9 sites at Fairchild AFB

Atlas D, 15 sites at  F.E. Warren AFB
Atlas E, 9 sites at F.E. Warren AFB
Minuteman, 200, F.E, Warren AFB
Minuteman III, 150, F.E. Warren AFB

Titan ISM-68HGM-25A
Titan IISM-68BLGM-25C
Minuteman ISM-80LGM-30A/BHSM-80
Minuteman IILGM-30F
Minuteman IIILGM-30G


The Pentagon is embarking on an ambitious new plan to develop and build a next generation nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missile. But experts question if the U.S. military really needs to spend billions of dollars on a new missile when the service’s current Minuteman III could easily be refurbished and used for decades to come.

Moreover, there are serious questions about whether the U.S. even needs a land-based ICBM—especially when the Congressional Budget Office is projecting that the American taxpayer is on the hook for at least $348 billion over the ten years to pay for its range of air-, sea-, and land-based nuclear weapons.

A number of experts—including Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel—have written that land-based ICBMs are only really useful against single foe: Russia. But there are other nuclear adversaries on the horizon, including China, North Korea, and even Iran. Against them, Hagel and others have written, such weapons would be largely ineffective because they would have to overfly Russian airspace.

“The Government is preparing to acquire a replacement for the MM III [Minuteman III] intercontinental ballistic missile system that replaces the entire flight system,” reads an Air Force document of posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website on Jan. 23. “The new weapon system will use the existing Mk12A and Mk21 Reentry Vehicles (RV) in the single and multiple RV configurations. The remainder of the missile stack will be replaced.”

But arms control advocates say that the Pentagon is looking for something it doesn’t need. “There is no need to build a new ICBM,” Kingston Reif, director for disarmament and threat reduction policy at the Arms Control Association, told The Daily Beast. “RAND did a report last year showing that the United States can maintain the ICBM leg of the [nuclear] triad [of bombers, ballistic missile submarines and land-based missiles] for decades to come by simply pursuing refurbishment,” Reif said. “That would be much cheaper.”

The counter argument is that though the Minuteman III has been refurbished many times, the older the weapon gets, the harder and more difficult it is to maintain. That means that the Pentagon would have to spend ever increasing sums of money to keep the 40-year-old Minuteman III viable. The Air Force wants to field the new ICBM “in the 2027 time frame” due to Minuteman’s rocket and guidance ageing-out and not having enough spare missiles lying around.

Yet the missiles are not quite the creaky old machines they appear to be. In recent years, the missiles’ engines, guidance systems, and other parts have been replaced.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, it costs about $2.6 billion per year to maintain the ICBM force. That sounds like alot—it is a lot—but it’s a relative pittance, compared to the cash needed to maintain the other legs of the nuclear triad. And building replacements from scratch could cost much more. Further, the Pentagon could save a lot of money by reducing the number of existing ballistic missiles. “The ICBM force is the least important leg of the triad,” Reif said.

The Air Force’s ICBM force is largely designed to be a sponge to absorb part of a massive hypothetical Cold War-style Soviet nuclear attack. “An adversary would have to fire hundreds, if not thousands, of missiles to eliminate that leg of the triad,” Reif said. The only potential adversary capable of doing so is Russia—China only has about 100 missiles that are able to hit U.S. territory.

A 2012 report co-authored by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, among others, made a similar argument, that land-based ICBMs are only useful against Russia. That is because to hit other potential targets like China, Iran and North Korea, the missiles would have to overfly Russia.

“ICBMs can only support nuclear wartime operations against Russia because current-generation ICBMs fired from the existing three bases on their minimum energy trajectories have to overfly Russia and China to reach targets in potentially adversarial third countries (e.g., Iran, North Korea), and fly dangerously close to Russia to reach Syria,” reads the 2012 Global Zero U.S. Nuclear Policy Commission Report. “U.S. ICBMs would also have to overfly Russia to reach targets in China.”

Therefore, Reif noted, ICBMs are inherently inflexible weapons that are of limited utility. But getting rid of them is extremely controversial, even if they are more or less costly white elephants.

Mark Gunzinger, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and former Air Force B-52 pilot, disagreed. He told The Daily Beast that maintain a nuclear triad of bombers, missile submarines and ICBMs is necessary. “Without a land-based ICBM, we would be in a situation where an enemy would only need to strike a very small number of targets to greatly diminish our strategic deterrence posture,” he said. “We have three bases for nuclear-capable bombers and two bases for SSBNs [ballistic missile submarines]. SSBNs at sea during an unannounced, ‘bolt from the blue’ nuclear strike would be secure, but the entire boomer fleet is not at sea during peacetime.”

But even if an enemy nuclear first strike eliminated the bomber and submarine bases, there are a number of Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines at sea at all times. Those submarines can carry up to 24 Trident D5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) each carrying multiple warheads. Those submarines would be able to launch a devastating counter-attack on any enemy or combination of enemies. “That would ruin anyone’s day,” Rief said.

It costs about $2.6 billion per year to maintain the ICBM force. That sounds like alot – it is a lot – but building replacements from scratch could cost much more.

The U.S. Navy is already planning on shelling out over $100 billion to develop and build a new fleet of ballistic missile submarines. While the Navy is refurbishing its fleet of Trident IIs nuclear missiles, it it, for now, deferring the construction of new ones; part of the reasoning for that is the exorbitant cost of the weapons, Reif said. The Navy is already fretting over how the bill for those submarines will impact the rest of its fleet.

Meanwhile the Air Force has embarked on a project to build a new extremely stealthy Long-Range Strike Bomber and associated Long-Range Standoff (LRSO) nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. The Air Force hopes to buy between 80 and 100 of the new nuclear-capable stealth bombers for roughly $550 million each—plus the cost of development for both the aircraft and the LRSO missile. Meanwhile, the Pentagon and Department of Energy will shell out $6.8 billion to develop a new nuclear warhead for the new LRSO cruise missile.

Now, on top of the expense of building a ballistic missile submarine for $4.9 billion each—if we’re lucky—a new bomber and a new cruise missile, the Pentagon wants to buy a new ICBM, Reif said.

It’s a decision that comes as a surprise to some arms control experts. “I was very interested to see that because up to this point I was operating under the assumption that the Air Force had yet to decide how exactly they would pursue a follow-on to the Minuteman III,” Reif said.

Even the CBO—which issued a report earlier this month on the cost of maintaining America’s nuclear forces through 2024—seems to have been caught by surprise. “The department plans to operate the current Minuteman III ICBM through 2030. Although it is considering several options for fulfilling the ICBM’s mission after 2030—such as refurbishing existing missiles, developing a new missile, or both—its plans are not final,” reads the CBO report.

The CBO had anticipated that Air Force would defer developing a new missile until it had completed refurbishing its existing weapons—which would have saved some money over the long-term.

But as the Air Force document indicates, the Pentagon is already getting the ball rolling to replace its Minuteman III arsenal. But why now?

“There is a lot that must be done before the Air Force finalizes key performance parameters for a new ICBM and issues an RFP [request for proposals] to industry,” Gunzinger said. “A replacement missile will then have to be developed, tested, launched, and go through a certification process to ensure it will be safe and reliable.  This takes time.  Developing a non-nuclear major weapon system typically takes ten or more years.  This is something that we want to take the time to do right—it is about sustaining our nations strategic deterrence posture.”

Another part major reason is that defense companies need the Pentagon’s business to keep missile engineers busy. While arm-manufacturers like Lockheed Martin—which builds the Navy’s Trident D5 nuclear missile—still have the engineers to develop a new missile, they might not in a few years.

The Russians—whose industry imploded in the years since the collapse of the Soviet Union—have had all sorts of troubles building new nuclear missiles to replace their old Cold War-era hardware. Without a new project to work on, engineers and factory workers find other jobs—since people have families to feed. “It would be interesting to ask industry if the answer would still be ‘yes’ [we have the engineering talent] if a new ICBM program were delayed another ten years,” Gunzinger said.

Gunzinger admits that a new ICBM will be expensive, but said it is a necessary price to pay. “It will be expensive, but maintaining our nation’s strategic deterrence posture is worth the investment,” he said. “I would never try to evaluate the cost effectiveness of our nuclear triad from the ‘will it be used in combat’ perspective.  Rather, we should ask what is needed to ensure that it is never used and our enemies understand that a nuclear act of aggression against the United States risks a devastating response.”

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Truman's Decision
The grandson of former U.S. President Harry Truman is in Japan to discuss the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, just ahead of the 67th anniversaries of those momentous events that ended World War II.
Clifton Truman Daniel, 55, spoke with bomb survivors as well as students at a forum in Tokyo University on Friday, making him the first relative of the president to ever attend the commemorations.
A former journalist, Daniel was invited by Japanese anti-nuclear groups.
 "The most impressive thing is that survivors and students and all of us can come together and talk, and they can share their stories," he told Agence France Presse, adding the meetings were "a good first step toward healing old wounds. We are looking at this ... as a good first step to talk and to better understand each other".
Nonetheless, Daniel defended his grandfather’s decision to drop the bombs.
"I can't second-guess my grandfather ... (but) there is no right decision in war," he said. "My grandfather always said that he made that decision to end the war quickly. That's what he believed. (He) was horrified by the destruction caused by those weapons and dedicated the rest of his presidency trying to make sure that it didn't happen again.
I hope that I can do the same, to work to hopefully rid the world of nuclear weapons.”
Up to a quarter of a million people died in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Book to read by J. Samuel Walker in 1997, Prompt And Utter Destruction Truman And The Use Of Atomic Bombs Against Japan

ROOM 307, UC Berkeley Gilman
Plutonium got its creation here-- and there goes the boom...

Plutonium was created (invented) not discovered.
In 1942, the Berkeley campus became quite involved in the war effort of World War II. The top floor, or "attic," of Gilman Hall was fenced off for classified work in nuclear chemistry. Half of the rooms in the attic had small balconies that could be used as outdoor hoods, but the actual hoods in Gilman Hall were not equipped with fans.
They operated only as chimneys, with a burner flame that produced a draft. For the war work, electrically powered fans were finally installed to vent the hoods.
Plutonium research in Gilman Hall was part of the Manhattan Project to develop the atomic bomb.
In 1942, Glenn Seaborg left Berkeley to join the Manhattan Project in Chicago. He returned to Berkeley after the war and directed the university's nuclear chemistry research.
On November 3, 2013 Huntington, WV newspaper brought to light that the Wall Street Journal did a story on the radioactive material surrounding these towns.
A series of articles on America’s  forgotten nuclear legacy has been published in the Wall Street Journal, which , incidentally, first revealed scrutiny of the Social Security disability scheme that allegedly involved a Kentucky attorney and a WV administrative law judge.
The Journal compilation covered over 500 sites in the online database. Cole Street and Altizer Avenue is listed as the location for the facility that utilized nuclear materials.
Specifically, the Journal citing a Report on Residual Radioactive and Beryllium Contamination at Atomic Weapons Employer Facilities and Beryllium Vendor Facilities places the undesignated  Reduction Pilot Plant (a.k.a. Huntington Pilot Plant) in a gray area: “The designation does not mean a health threat exists. It merely means that based on the evidence, a threat (to public health) cannot be ruled out.”
Inconclusive?  Yes, other facilities with the SAME non-listing gray determinations are: Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Savannah River Swamp, and the Mound Laboratory (Miamisburg, Ohio). Similarly, these locations were “considered but eliminated” from the DOE’s Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.
The Journal compilation places the Huntington Alloys, Inc. (formerly International Nickel Company, now Special Metals) in the category despite previously referenced documents from 1981, 1987, and 1994 that based on available evidence at that time, the location was deemed remediated following the removal of the structure and its 1978-1979 burial on the grounds of the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant.
Where has radioactive residue been found?  Thirty six states  have contaminated locations ranging from floors and ceilings of public buildings, hiking trails, vacant lots, and groundwater. The WSJ noted that medical studies have not pinpointed an “exact” relationship to low-level radiation and cancer. But many former workers at the sites have been or are asking for federal compensation for illness, including cancer.
As the forgotten sites article begins, the reporters point to a small room in UC Berkeley Gilman Hall (Room 307) where plutonium was isolated prior to the nation’s entrance into World War II. The university had to rip out an adjacent room in 1957 and 25 years later a dozen rooms were found contaminated.
“We will never know” the exposure levels before the 80s cleanup, reported Carolyn MacKenzie , the UC Berkeley radiation safety officer.
Although federal officials maintain “adequate measures to protect the public health and that the sites do not pose a threat to anyone living or working nearby,” but the WSJ Investigation raises record tracking issues, even at sites that underwent expensive cleanups.
  • At least 20 sites initially declared SAFE have required additional cleanups, sometimes more than once;
  • The government does not have exact addresses for dozens of facilities, including one uranium handling facility for which the state of its location cannot be determined;
  • Spotty record keeping from Department of Energy documentation has left “several dozen sites” where it cannot be decided “whether a cleanup is needed or not.”
Four million people live within a mile of the 300 “forgotten” sites.  260 public schools and 600 public parks are within a half mile, the WSJ stated.
The Department of Energy wrote, in part, to the WSJ about residual radioactive contamination.
“Cleanup does not imply that all hazards will be removed from a given site,” the WSJ reported.  On some sites the federal government imposed “institutional controls,” restricting use of the properties for “centuries , or , in some cases, millennia.”
For instance, two dismantled nuclear reactors used in World War II were dumped and buried in a ditch. Radioactive tritium turned up in ground water in Cook County, and concrete rubble and pipes were exposed in the 1990s. Erosion from bicycle trail use has elevated radiation levels.
Winter visitors to the Forest Preserve District of Cook County walk by oak and maple trees. But, James Phillips, a biologist, told the Journal, that visitors have stated snow does not gather in that plot. That’s  been relegated to urban legend status. There’s a similar statement about radioactive heat at the former Huntington site, too.

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Affects on Children downwind

Gravestones of Robin Bush, and will be George and Barbara Bush
Last year I went to the George Bush Library in College Station, TX and quickly (less than an hour before closing) walked through reading his life.  A must do if you are into US history at all.  After exiting we walked around the pond and up a trail through the woods.  There we saw what will be the final resting sites of Barbara and George Bush, but next to them was Pauline Robinson "Robin" Bush's Gravesite who died at a few months from her fourth birthday.  I remember hearing about another daughter before, but never knew the details.  Tears filled my eyes and I could not speak, since I thought that was so sweet that they had moved her here to be next to them.

Why is this relevant to the nuclear explosions?

Robin died quickly from Leukemia in 1953 while living in Midland, TX (east of the Trinity Bomb site and southeast of multiple bomb tests in Nevada).   Is there a correlation?  Is there an unbias research institute or party who has actively sought out this data?  Positive or negative?

Did Bush ever see a connection because he was so instrumental as VP and President in setting forth the START treaty with Russia to remove nuclear weapons?
On 17 September 1991, President George H.W. Bush announced that the United States would eliminate its entire, worldwide inventory of ground-launched tactical nuclear weapons and would remove tactical nuclear weapons from all U.S. Navy surface ships, attack submarines, and land-based naval aircraft base.
Robin's body was donated to science to try and prevent this from happening to another child.   So the gravestone was given as a memorial for Robin after her death and recently moved to College Station from Connecticut.

Saturday, April 28, 2012

Bikini Island meets the Fashion World

"July 1, 1946 - US begins a nuclear weapons testing programme called Operation Crossroads on Bikini Atoll (with Able).  Chief Juda of Bikini agrees to evacuate the 167 islanders to Rongerik Atoll, 125 miles east of Bikini Atoll, on the understanding that they will be able to return once the tests are over."

So what happened to those 167 islanders, because they could never go back after that after five nuclear bombs from 1946-1948...?  (34 are still alive, 123 have died), moved from Rongerik Atoll to Kili Island.  In fact the first 2 were  "copies of the plutonium-implosion Fat Man bomb dropped on Nagasaki."  Since these 2 bombs were nicknamed with women's names (Gilda and Helen), then it seems only fair that we show the aftermath of what some men have created.

Five days later Louis Réard changed women's fashion with the first Bikini swimsuit with fabric showing newspaper accounts of the bombs worn Micheline Bernardini, a french ecdysiast.  I hope that we could reproduce the pattern on fabric to remember what had happened.

Sunday, October 16, 2011

Fort Worth Paper covers the Atomic Soldiers' stories- Oct 9, 2011

New Article comes out in the Fort Worth Star-Telegraph.

Marine Veteran is free to tell the story of America's nuclear test subjects.

James D. Tyler stuffed cotton balls into his ears and waited for the announcement.

He was kneeling at the bottom of a 6-foot-deep ditch, bearing every piece of his combat gear, too young at 18 to even consider that this might be the end of his life. If it was going to be, he wouldn't be alone. No one in Company F had any better odds.

Except that Tyler, then a grunt in 2nd Battalion, 5th Marines, would not go over the ditch into the teeth of the enemy.

He and everyone else knew their orders -- hug the side of the ditch, close your eyes, put your face in the crook of your arm. Do not raise your head, under any circumstances.

"It was just before dawn," said Tyler, 72, of Burleson. "We assumed that the people in charge knew what they were doing."

The countdown began, and then everything went blindingly white.