Nuclear Citizenry in Motion

I'm updating my blogs as of this writing.....am refreshing photo inserts ect....

http://www.esa.int/images/corv_01810L.jpg

U.S. Response I: Officers Install Radiation Detectors in Washington, at U.S. Border.Since November, the Bush administration has set up hundreds of radiation sensors on U.S. borders and around Washington in response to concerns that al-Qaeda might be close to obtaining a nuclear or radiological weapon, the Washington Post reported.

RADIOLOGICAL WEAPON http://www.agls.uidaho.edu/etoxweb/images/rdd.jpg

The new sensors, called gamma ray and neutron flux detectors, have been installed in layers at some fixed locations and around “national security special events” such as the previous Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.

Previously, the only officials that used portable radiation detectors belonged to Nuclear Emergency Search Teams (NEST), which were dispatched when extremist groups claimed to possess radioactive material.

(More About NEST Later)gamma ray http://www.esa.int/images/corv_01810L.jpg

Because a terrorist group might give no warning before conducting an attack and because NEST scientists are unarmed, U.S. Delta Force commandos have been given the mission to kill or disable anyone with a suspected nuclear device.

The device would then be turned over to NEST scientists to be dismantled. “Clearly … the sense of the urgency has gone up,” said a senior U.S. policymaker on WMD terrorism.“The more you gather information, the more our concerns increased about al-Qaeda’s focus on weapons of mass destruction of all kinds,” said another high-ranking official.

The new sensors do have limitations, however, according to the Post. Those limitations involve detecting radiation at a distance and through shielding. The detectors might also have problems with false positives and false negatives, the Post reported.

http://www.techlib.com/science/images/iononwood.jpg

Researchers at the Los Alamos National Laboratories in New Mexico are working to build new and improved sensors, according to the Post. Some of the new sensor designs would use neutron generators to “interrogate” a suspected object.

http://www.lbl.gov/Tech-Transfer/images/tech_images/1675spherical.gif

Others would conduct long-range detection of alpha particles, the Post reported.There is consensus that al-Qaeda has obtained the low-level radionuclides strontium-90 and cesium-137, of which many thefts have been reported, according to the Post.

These materials could not be used in a nuclear weapon, but they are radioactive enough to be used in a “dirty bomb,” which spreads radioactive contaminants through the use of conventional explosives.The Pakistani nuclear weapons program might also be a source of nuclear or radiological weapons for terrorists, the Post reported.

http://www.jplabs.com/assets/images/Dirty_Bomb.jpg

In October, two Pakistani scientists were arrested and questioned about possible contacts with suspected terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden.A third Pakistani scientist is believed to have attempted the sale of a nuclear weapon design to Libya, according to U.S. sources.

It is unknown what Pakistani nuclear weapon design the scientist attempted to sell, whether the sale was successful or what happened to the scientist once the attempted sale was discovered (Barton Gellman, Washington Post , March 3).

MIRVman

I'm new to the Groups, I'm sure there was allot of previous activity, and as I do more research I'm sure I will get up to speed rather quickly.

.. So......Could these weapons be used against the American Public? In February 2002, the United States put on the most impressive display of precision bombing in the history of warfare and demonstrated the unmatched power of the U.S. military.

But despite this overwhelmingconventional superiority, the Bush administration is pursuing a new era of smaller, less powerful nuclear weapons.

The Senate Armed Services Committee voted to end a 10-year-old ban on the development of small nuclear arms, and the repeal of this ban is expected to pass the full House and Senate as part of the defense authorization bill later this month.

SMALL ? http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,909205,00.html

In addition, the committee approved the administration's request for funds by allotting $46.5 million to conduct further research on advanced nuclear weapons concepts and to allow the Pentagon to recommence nuclear weapons testing.

Despite denials of plans to build such bombs, according to the Nation, the Bush administration is the first since World War II to endorse a policy not based on nuclear arms control .

It's a shocking piece of legislation that shows the Pentagon wants the option to use nuclear weapons not just for deterrence against nuclear states but for war-fighting against non nuclear countries as well.

Its chief goal is the capability to destroy deeply buried bunkers, where it believes rogue states may house weapons of mass destruction. That would indeed be a good capability to have, but nuclear weapons can't provide it.
THE BUNKER BOMB http://www.billustration.com/images/Sc032403.gif

If we wanted to use a nuclear weapon to destroy an underground bunker, we'd need to know precisely where the bunker was located, and we'd need to be very sure that destroying its contents was worth breaking a 58-year taboo against nuclear use, enraging our allies and friends and scaring our enemies into developing their own atomic arsenals. ?

Our recent experience in Iraq shows just how elusive that certainty would be.

Of all the rogue states thought to be pursuing weapons of mass destruction, Iraq should have been the one about which we had the best information.After all, in addition to the work of our own intelligence agencies, which made Iraq a priority, we also had eight years of on-the-ground reports from U.N. weapons inspectors.

And yet 3 years after our forces crossed the Iraqi border, we have yet to find any chemical or biological (let alone nuclear) weapons.

That does not mean they aren't there, but it does show how difficult it would be to obtain intelligence good enough to sanction a nuclear first strike.
FIRST STRIKE http://hem.passagen.se/replikant/nuclear

Even if our intelligence were good enough, the depth to which a speeding warhead can dig before it disintegrates is limited.

Our current earth-penetrating weapons can dig only a few meters into the ground, and even with further research, physicists believe that the limits of existing materials would prevent weapons from reaching below 50 feet.

The bunkers we're worried about could be buried as deep as 1,000 feet.The Bush administration had wanted to repeal the ban on low-yield nuclear weapons because it thinks they can do the job while limiting collateral damage,making their use more acceptable.

But according to nuclear physicist's , exploding even a 1-kiloton nuclear weapon at a depth of 50feetwould eject 1 million cubic feet of radioactive debris into the air from a crater the size of Ground Zero. And it wouldn't destroy a target 1,000 feet down -- you'd need a weapon hundreds of times larger to do that.
my bunker

http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/diggers/pre-fab-bunkers.jpg

Logistical and technical arguments aside, using a nuclear weapon to destroy a target in a non nuclear country would destroy U.S. nonproliferation efforts. Our nuclear policy already balances on the thin edge of hypocrisy.--

....after all, we have thousands of nuclear weapons but we insist that others do not develop them.

It's a one-sided arrangement that has held only because of a treaty promise we made to work toward nuclear disarmament. That is a distant goal, but moving in the opposite direction is inexcusable and self-defeating.

Building new nuclear weapons would make it nearly impossible to roll back nuclear programs in states such as Iran, India and North Korea.Bush officials who support new nuclear weapons ought to heed an old cliché and put themselves in the shoes of their enemies.

What would they recommend to their leader if faced with a United States that declared a doctrine of preemption, named countries against which it was prepared to use nuclear weapons and sought to build new nuclear weapons whose use would be more "acceptable"?

In that situation, I'd recommend immediately building a nuclear deterrent.What about those bunkers? Well, if we have good enough intelligence, we could probably seal them off by destroying entrances and air ducts.

And, if we needed to destroy a bunker itself, physicists are researching the idea of dropping successive precision-guided munitions on the same spot, digging a deeper hole with each strike until the bunker is reached and breached .Intelligence and creativity are the answers to this problem, not nuclear weapons.

MIRVMAN
see my group: posted by Nuclear Citizens in Motion :

We talk about Agent Orange, and I personally know three men who, in their early sixties, are suffering in Hell for it.

I wonder if Anthrax was used in Vietnam given the contradicting symptoms that took our great government 30 years to even admit it's complicity....Here's Anthrax in summary.

The threat of anthrax as a biological weapon has become a real concern for everyone. Anthrax is a disease caused not by a virus, but rather by bacteria.

There aren't any known cases of anthrax passing from one person to another, so it is considered to be noncontiguous.

It is still a large threat, however, because if it isn't recognized and treated quickly enough it can be deadly. Bacillus anthraces is the bacterium that causes the disease anthrax.

It has historically affected herbivores like cattle, sheep or other grazing herds, but has also been a threat to humans who work with these animals and their by-products.

http://www.prettywitty.com/image/cow.jpg

While in the ground or on a surface, anthrax spores are relatively harmless, but once they come into contact with the right environment they begin to germinate.

They need an environment that is rich in amino acids, nucleosides and glucose -- like those elements found in blood and other tissues in humans or animals.

Once there, a series of changes takes place that can make these bacteria deadly to its host.

In this monologue let’s look at what anthrax is and how it affects the body. We'll also discuss new research and ideas for treatment and prevention of the anthrax disease.

Where Does it Come From?

Anthrax is found all over the world. It contaminates the ground when an affected animal dies. It spreads when grazing animals pick it up from contaminated dirt or through contaminated food sources such as bone meal that may have been made from contaminated carcasses.

There appears to be an increase in the cases of anthrax among grazing animals during droughts, when they tend to graze closer to the ground and consume more dirt with the grass.

http://www.macaulay.ac.uk/images/project_302938_mainpicture.jpg

Anthrax may also spread when carnivorous animals, such as vultures or even insects, feed on affected herbivores. The bacteria are then transferred to other areas by the host and contaminate the ground when that animal dies.

As the animal decays, the bacteria are exposed to oxygen and turn back into the spores that contaminate the soil. The anthrax spores have a very tough outer casing and can remain viable in the ground for decades.

Many diagnostic laboratories around the world have anthrax samples for use in research and for the identification of anthrax. Anthrax can be grown in laboratories from these existing spores.

In the wrong hands, these spores can be grown, dried and milled for use in biological weapons .

Inhalation into the lungs (inhalation anthrax) - The spores can be inhaled in contaminated soil or other particles containing the spores.

The spores have no smell, taste or color, so a person would not notice anything had happened unless the spores had been mixed into a substance that could be readily seen, smelled or tasted.

In order to enter the lungs, where they can germinate, the spores have to be very small -- from 1 to 5 microns (millionths of a meter). According to an anthrax report published by the American Medical Association, at least 2,500 spores have to be inhaled to cause an infection

Entry into a cut or opening in the skin (cutaneous or skin anthrax) - Open cuts and scrapes can allow entry of the spores into the body to an environment in which they can germinate. This type of anthrax may also be spread by biting insects that have fed on infected hosts.

http://caes.ucdavis.edu/News/Images/Mosquito.jpg

The head, arms and hands are most often affected. People who handle contaminated animal products such as leather, hair (particularly goat hair) and wool are often exposed to the anthrax bacteria.

Cutaneous anthrax accounts for about 95 percent of cases worldwide. If untreated, it has a fatality rate of five to 20 percent. If treated with, antibiotics it rarely leads to death.

Entry through the gastrointestinal tract (gastrointestinal anthrax) - Eating undercooked meat that is infected with the anthrax bacteria, or drinking unchlorinated water that harbors the spores, can introduce the bacteria into the gastrointestinal tract. Infection can occur in either the upper or lower GI tract.

This form of anthrax is rare.

What Happens When it Enters the Body?
When viewed at the cellular level, an anthrax bacterium looks like a jointed bamboo rod. When it enters the body and finds the environment it needs, it moves to the lymph nodes.

http://cbw.sipri.se/images/intro/anthracis-c.jpg

From there it begins to multiply and produce a toxin that attacks human cells resulting in hemorrhaging, swelling, a drop in blood pressure and ultimately death.

The way it attacks the cells and exactly what it does was in question for many years. Research that began in the mid 1980s has revealed some interesting facts about the behavior of the anthrax bacterium when it finds a host.

Researchers found that there are three proteins that are created by the anthrax bacteria. These proteins are harmless individually, but together can be deadly. These proteins are referred to as:

Protective antigen (PA)
Edema factor (EF)
Lethal factor (LF)

When these proteins are released, the protective antigen binds to the cell surface and forms a type of channel in the cell membrane that allows the edema factor and lethal factor to enter the cell.

The edema factor, when combined with the protective antigen, forms a toxin known as the edema toxin. The lethal factor, when combined with the protective antigen, forms a toxin known as the lethal toxin. It is the lethal toxin that does the most damage within the cell.

Research in 1998, by George Vande Woude at the National Cancer Institute in Frederick, MD, revealed clues to what the lethal toxin does to the cells. He found that the lethal factor cuts enzymes in two --

The enzymes that are responsible for transmitting signals within the cells. He also identified the enzyme in question. He was studying the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway, which helps control cell growth, embryonic development and the way oocytes (eggs) mature.

He was specifically looking for information about what the pathway actually did in the oocyte maturation cycle, so he searched for compounds that blocked the activity of the MAPK.

A database search lead him to the lethal factor.

It is still not completely understood why disrupting the signal transmission within the cell results in the symptoms anthrax generates, but research continues.

http://whyfiles.org/shorties/089anthrax_receptor/images/intoxication.gif

Research is also being done to find ways to alter the protective antigen to disable its ability to allow the entry of the lethal and edema toxins into cells.

The Symptoms of Anthrax

In its bacterial state, anthrax survives outside of a proper host environment for only about 24 hours. But inside the body, where it gets the nutrients it needs to grow, anthrax germinates and spreads rapidly.

Inhalation Anthrax

Inhaled anthrax typically begins showing symptoms in seven to 10 days, although it could be as early as two to three days. It can take as long as 60 days after exposure to the anthrax spores for the disease to surface, however, and once the germination begins, the disease progresses very rapidly. It appears to come in two stages:

It begins with fever, cough, headache, vomiting, chills, weakness, abdominal pain, shortness of breath and chest pain. This first stage may last from a few hours to a few days. Then there may be a brief break in symptoms.

The second stage of the disease lasts anywhere from two to four days. The symptoms for the second stage include fever, difficulty breathing, sweating, a bluish discoloration of the skin, shock, and finally death.

Cutaneous AnthraxCutaneous anthrax, which occurs when the anthrax spore is deposited into a break in the skin, may occur as late as 12 days after exposure. The germination of the bacteria results in local swelling of the skin -- a small papule (bump) will appear.

http://www.drgreene.com/21_828.html

The following day the bump will enlarge into an ulcer and begin discharging a clear fluid. Then, a painless, depressed black scab will form that will dry and fall off within one to two weeks.

Treatment with antibiotics may not change the appearance or formation of the bumps, but they decrease the chances that the disease will become systemic.

Gastrointestinal Anthrax.

The gastrointestinal form of anthrax, which occurs from eating or drinking infected meats or water, brings about symptoms that include nausea, vomiting blood, abdominal pain, bloody diarrhea, and weakness. Death occurs in 25 to 60 percent of these cases.

Diagnosis and Treatment

According to an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, a blood sample is taken from the patient and cultured for six to 24 hours. At this point, a "Gram stain" can be done. The Gram stain highlights the bacteria.

The Gram stain takes about 10 to 15 minutes and can identify whether the bacteria come from the anthrax category. At that point, biochemical testing can be done to find the specific anthrax bacteria, which takes another 12 to 24 hours.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/e/jel5/biofilms/graminstr.jpg

Usually, the specimens have to be sent to national reference laboratories for comparison with stock anthrax samples.

Treatment

Anthrax is treated with the antibiotics penicillin, ciprofloxacin or doxycylcine. The antibiotic most often used is ciprofloxacin, partly because of rumors that the Soviet Union had developed a penicillin-resistant form of anthrax for use in biological warfare.

It is also specifically recommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in treating anthrax.

Treatment of inhaled anthrax has to start very early in the progression of symptoms. If treatment is begun after the symptoms have progressed too far, then the bacteria may be killed but the toxins remain in the body.

Vaccine and Treatment Research

The vaccine that was developed in the 1950s (licensed in 1970), is currently only given to military personnel, people who work directly with anthrax in research labs, and those who work with animals and animal by-products that may be infected with anthrax.

The vaccine uses the anthrax protective antigen to make the body create immunity to the disease. It is created from a strain of anthrax that does not cause the disease, and doesn't use any live or dead whole bacteria. There is a separate vaccine for use in animals. (That vaccine can't be used in humans.)

The side effects of the anthrax vaccine include:

Mild local reactions at the site of the injection (like with many other vaccinations)

Occasional, moderate local reactions that include redness, swelling and tenderness, often at the site of the injection and extending up to 5 inches (13 cm) across the area

Large local reactions larger than 5 inches, including swelling of the forearm and at the injection site

Muscle aches, joint aches, headaches, rash, chills, fever, nausea, loss of appetite, and weakness for a few days after the vaccination (experienced in up to 35 percent of people who get the vaccine)

A severe allergic reaction (appears once in every 100,000 doses)

A severe reaction that requires hospitalization (appears once in every 200,000 doses)

Research

Studies by R. John Collier and his colleagues at the Harvard Medical School have uncovered a possible therapy that can be used both as a vaccine and as a treatment for anthrax after the fact (particularly when antibiotics were not administered quickly enough).

This research was based on the previous findings by George Vande Woude and others at the National Cancer Institute in Frederick, MD, that identified the role of the protective antigen in allowing the lethal factor and the edema factor to enter the cell and begin wreaking havoc.

Collier's research involved mutating the protective antigen to prevent this transfer. Experiments have suggested that even a single protective antigen mutant can disrupt the entire process.

This treatment has worked in rats exposed to anthrax, but it is still not known how long after exposure the treatment could be given and still be effective in stopping the disease.

Because mutant protective antigen also appears to bring about an immune response (at least in rats), it has the potential to be a vaccine as well as a treatment. If successful, this approach could also be used for other diseases.

Armed with information, we can fight back......Peace to all of you
:)
MIRVman

During the gulf war, the threat of Iraqi chemical and biological weapons felt very real, because it was known that Iraq had done extensive research on these weapons.

BIOLOGICAL WAR
http://www.rotten.com/library/history/war/wmd/biological-weapons/bioweap_delivery.jpg

In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the threat feels very real again. A chemical or biological weapon used in a large city would kill thousands of people

In this Discussion I will discuss how chemical and biological weapons really work, how they might be deployed and what the actual threats are.

Understanding Warfare

There is an interesting paradox when it comes to war in the modern world. Anyone who has experienced war knows that it is about death and destruction on a massive scale.

People die one at a time because of bullets, bayonets, hand grenades and landmines, and they die in large groups because of cannons, bombs and missiles Buildings, factories or entire cities get destroyed.

Despite the appearance of anarchy, warfare between modern nations does have rules. These rules, for example, tend to discourage the wholesale destruction of civilians, and they govern the treatment of prisoners of war.

The rules are not always followed to the letter, and many times are broken completely, but they do exist.

Chemical weapons were first used in World War I, and the nations of the world quickly and uniformly decided that these weapons went too far. Apparently, killing people with flying metal and explosives was one thing, but launching a cloud of deadly chemicals -- the effects of which could neither be predicted nor controlled -- was another.

Significant treaties prohibiting biological and chemical weapons, starting as early as the
1925 Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare

have been signed by most nations of the world.

The unfortunate problem is that terrorists, and rogue nations like Iraq, don't pay attention to significant international treaties. That is where the threat of chemical and biological weapons used in random attacks on innocent civilian populations comes from.

The Basics of Chemical and Biological Weapons

Like a nuclear bomb a chemical or biological weapon is a weapon of mass destruction. An effective attack using a chemical or biological agent can easily kill thousands of people.

Chemical Weapons

A chemical weapon is any weapon that uses a manufactured chemical to kill people. The first chemical weapon used effectively in battle was chlorine gas, which burns and destroys lung tissue.

Chlorine is not an exotic chemical. Most municipal water systems use it today to kill bacteria. It is easy to manufacture from common table salt. In World War I, the German army released tons of the gas to create a cloud that the wind carried toward the enemy
.
Modern chemical weapons tend to focus on agents with much greater killing power, meaning that it takes a lot less of the chemical to kill the same number of people.

Many of them use the sorts of chemicals found in insecticides.
When you spray your lawn or garden with a chemical to control aphids, you are, in essence, waging a chemical war on aphids.

Many of us tend to imagine a chemical weapon as a bomb or missile that releases highly toxic chemicals over a city. (For example, the movie "The Rock" featured a scenario in which terrorists tried to launch a missile loaded with the chemical VX, a nerve toxin.)

But in 1995, the group Aum Shinrikyo released sarin gas a nerve gas, in the Tokyo subway. Thousands were wounded and 12 people were killed. No giant bombs or missiles were involved -- the terrorists used small exploding cannisters to release the gas in the subway.

Biological Weapons

A biological weapon uses a bacteria or virus, or in some cases toxins that come directly from bacteria, to kill people. If you were to dump a load of manure or human waste into a town's well, that would be a simple form or biological warfare -- human and animal manure contain bacteria that are deadly in a variety of ways. In the 19th century, American Indians were infected with smallpox through donated blankets.

A modern biological weapon would use a strain of bacteria or a virus that would kill thousands of people. Tom Clancy has explored the idea of biological terrorism in two books: "Executive Orders" and "Rainbow Six."

In both books, the source of infection is the Ebola virus. In these plot lines, the infection is spread through small aerosol cans (like those used by insecticide products to create "bug bombs") released at conventions, or through misting systems used to cool sports venues.

Feared Chemical Agents

An effective chemical attack would use chemicals that are extremely toxic to people in small quantities. The most commonly feared agents include:

Sarin - Sarin is a nerve agent. This means that, once inside your body, it affects the signaling mechanism that nerve cells use to communicate with one another.

Sarin is a cholinesterase inhibitor --

It gums up the cholinesterase enzyme which your nerve cells use to clear themselves of acetylcholine. When a nerve cell needs to send a message to another nerve cell (for example, to cause a muscle to contract), it sends the message with the acetylcholine.

Without cholinesterase to clear the acetylcholine, muscles start to contract uncontrollably, which eventually causes death by suffocation (since the diaphragm is a muscle).

http://www.voicetuition.co.uk/image6.gif

Sarin is probably the most feared chemical agent because it has actually been used by terrorists to kill people. In 1995, the group Aum Shinrikyo released sarin gas in the Tokyo subway, wounding thousands and killing 12 people.

http://theartoftheblog.com/blog/images/other/sarin%20effects.jpg

It is not particularly difficult to manufacture, and about 1 milligram in the lungs will kill a person.

VX - VX is very similar to Sarin. It works in the same way, but is more toxic. One milligram on the skin will kill a person.

http://www.health24.co.za/news/images/vx_gas.jpg

Mustard Gas - Mustard gas has been around since World War I. It blisters the skin and destroys lung tissue. About 10 milligrams in the lungs will kill a person.
Lewisite - Lewis

http://www.we-make-money-not-art.com/yyy/mustard_gas_sm.jpg

ite, like mustard gas, is a blistering agent, and has also been around since World War I.

One of the problems with these chemical agents is that there is no easy way to protect yourself. On the battlefield, soldiers wear gas masks and complete skin covering when chemical or biological attack is deemed possible.

If a city were to experience a large-scale VX attack, people would have to be wearing a waterproof and airtight suit and a gas mask at the time of the attack in order to be protected.

Feared Biological Agents

There are many ways to implement a biological attack, but these are some of the most feared agents:

Anthrax - Anthrax is a bacteria, but it has a spore form that is very durable. If the spores or bacteria get into your lungs, they reproduce and create a toxin that can be fatal.

Smallpox - Smallpox is a virus It was a major killer until it was controlled with vaccinations in the 20th century. It has been eradicated world-wide, but the fear is that terrorists could release new strains.

The main problem with smallpox, unlike with anthrax, is that it is highly contagious. It spreads and kills very quickly. Up to 40 percent of people who catch the virus die from it in about two weeks, and there is no good treatment for the disease.

Vaccinations are the main protection, but they must be given prior to infection in order to work.

Botulin toxin - Botulin bacteria produce the botulin toxin, and this toxin is deadly to people in incredibly small quantities (as little as a billionth of a gram). The toxin inhibits the release of the chemicals in nerve cells that cause muscle contractions, so it causes paralysis.

Ebola virus - The Ebola virus was popularized as a biological warfare agent by two books written by Tom Clancy. The virus takes about a week to kill the victim, and spreads through direct contact.

It would also be possible to cause significant problems by targeting the food supply. For example, foot-and-mouth disease has recently been a huge problem in Europe. Spreading the disease to the United States would be relatively easy and very disruptive.

The Spread

The previous sections listed eight of the most-feared chemical and biological agents. There are dozens of others that are less well known, either because they are not as toxic or not as easy to spread.

There are three ways to spread a chemical or biological agent so that it would infect a large number of people:

Through the air
Through a municipal water supply
Through the food supply

The most-feared scenario is through the air. Here are the techniques most commonly discussed:

A bomb or a missile explodes, spreading the chemical or biological agent over a wide area.

A crop-duster or other aircraft sprays the agent over a city.
A car or truck drives through the city spraying a fine mist along city streets in crowded areas.

Small bombs or aerosol canisters are released in crowded areas like subways, sports arenas or convention centers.

All available information, and the word "preventative" should be used in context..which is why the War On Terror must succeed !

MIRVman

SEE THE BOMB
http://universe-review.ca/I14-06-abomb.jpg

Nixon Considered Nuclear Weapons in Vietnam

Former U.S. President Richard Nixon suggested dropping a nuclear bomb on North Vietnam in 1972, an idea rejected by then-National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger.

Nixon made the suggestion while discussing ideas with Kissinger to expand the war effort against North Vietnam. Kissinger had suggested such options as attacking North Vietnamese power plants and docks, according to tapes of the conversation released at the National Archives.

“I’d rather use the nuclear bomb,” Nixon said, in response to Kissinger’s suggestions.

“That, I think, would just be too much,” Kissinger said.

“The nuclear bomb. Does that bother you?” Nixon asked. “I just want you to think big.”

In May, a month after the conversation, Nixon ordered the largest escalation of the Vietnam War since 1968, according to the AP.

During an interview with Time in 1985, Nixon said he had considered but rejected using nuclear weapons against North Vietnam, saying, “I rejected the bombing of the dikes, which would have drowned 1 million people, for the same reason that I rejected the nuclear option,” Nixon told Time. “Because the targets presented were not military targets.”

In a recorded June 1972 conversation with domestic advisor Charles Colson, however, Nixon said, “We want to decimate that goddamned place,” in reference to North Vietnam.

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:GN_luz_2XkCf0M:universe-review.ca/I14-06-abomb.jpg

“North Vietnam is going to get reordered,” Nixon told Colson. “It’s about time, it’s what should have been done long ago” (Associated Press/Baltimore SUN).

In a recorded May 1972 conversation with Kissinger, Nixon said civilian casualties are a result of all wars.

“The only place where you and I disagree … is with regard to the bombing,” Nixon said. “You’re so goddamned concerned about the civilians and I don’t give a damn. I don’t care.”

“I’m concerned about the civilians because I don’t want the world to be mobilized against you as a butcher,” Kissinger said.

Nixon’s suggestion to use nuclear weapons against North Vietnam could have been only a reflection of his frustration with the war, said Vietnam historian Stanley Karnow.

“It was politically unacceptable,” Karnow said. “Just because he said it doesn’t mean it was really an option” (Deb Richmann, Associated Press/Philadelphia Inquirer).

International Response

The world condemnation of the United States for using a nuclear weapon against North Vietnam could have led to an earlier U.S. withdrawal and a faster North Vietnamese victory, said Bui Quang Tha

NUCLEAR BUSH
http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2004-01-16/cover_big.jpg

the North Vietnamese solider who raised the North Vietnamese flag over South Vietnam’s presidential palace in 1975.

“It’s difficult to know, but peace-loving people around the world would have opposed the use of nuclear bombs, so maybe the war would have ended sooner,” Than said.

The use of nuclear weapons during the Vietnam War “could have escalated the conflict and touched off another world war,” said Seo Byung-chul, president of the Korea Institute of National Unification.

“Nuclear weapons are a tool to prevent war, not a tool to start or escalate a war,” Seo said.

If the United States had used nuclear weapons, it would have angered Japan into re-examining its military alliance with the United States, which allowed U.S. forces to use Okinawa Island as a staging ground, said Makoto Saito of Tokyo University.

“Japan has firsthand experience with the effects of an atomic bomb, so the reaction from the Japanese people would have been severe,” Saito said (David Thurber, Associated Press/Yahoo.com.)

The Bottom line is, Nixon determined that subtrafuge was the "Effect"that the Paris Paeace talks were mandated.

COMMENTS?

In the mid-1960s during the height of the Vietnam War the Department of Defense commissioned a study to determine the feasibility and advisability of the use of tactical nuclear weapons in that conflict.

A copy of that 1967 study, “Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Southeast Asia“, was declassified in February 2003, and lays out in terrifying detail what might have happened if the United States had used tactical nuclear weapons during the Vietnam War.

The bottom line of the study is that the use of nuclear weapons in Vietnam - to block the Ho Chi Minh trail, kill large numbers of enemy soldiers or destroy North Vietnamese air bases and seaports.

The study generally states that the use of these weapons would have offered no decisive military advantages to the United States, but would have had grave repercussions for US soldiers in the field and US interests around the world.

We all talk about Tactical big bomb weaponry, however this disclosure reinforces the possibility of Nuclear “Devices” being in place during the conflict “IF” the order were given.


This is where the MIRVman comes in the picture.
Greetings from Vietnam...!

The MIRVman in his Glory,#5 in line...
http://www.remember.gov/history/images/vietnam/vietnam_march.jpg

The study was prepared by four physicists associated with the Jason Division of the Institute of Defense Analyses, a group of scientists who met frequently to provide classified advice to defense officials. The study's conclusions were presented to then-Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara.

“The political effects of US first use of TNW (tactical nuclear weapons) in Vietnam would be uniformly bad and could be catastrophic,” the scientists wrote. They warned that US first-use of tactical nuclear weapons could lead China or the Soviet Union to provide similar weapons to the Viet Cong and North Vietnam, raising the possibility that US forces in Vietnam “would be essentially annihilated” in retaliatory raids by nuclear-armed guerrilla forces.

If that happened, they wrote, “insurgent groups everywhere in the world would take note and would try by all available means to acquire TNW for themselves.”

First-use of nuclear weapons in Southeast Asia, the scientists warned, was 'likely to result in greatly increased long-term risk of nuclear guerrilla operations in other parts of the world,' including attacks on the Panama Canal, oil pipelines and storage facilities in Venezuela and the Israeli capital of Tel Aviv.

“US security would be gravely endangered if the use of TNW by guerrilla forces should become widespread,” they concluded.

The possibility of the enemy disseminating radioactive materials in an ARVN occupied area, in an attempt to offer it’s “Discovery” as proof of US nuclear possession In Country, is an interesting hypothetical synopsis.

What if we masterminded the same scenario in reverse? Would world attention then be directed in support of South Vietnamese Independence ?

Thirty-nine years later some American officials are, according to press reports, once again contemplating the use of nuclear weapons, and seeking to repeal US authorization on the developments of smaller nuclear weapons, including so-called 'low-yield' bombs and deep-penetration 'bunker-busters.'

Writing in February 2003, Los Angeles Times, military analysts disclosed the US Strategic Command in Omaha and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were secretly drawing up nuclear target lists for Iraq. “Target lists are being scrutinized, options are being pondered and procedures are being tested to give nuclear armaments a role in the new U.S. doctrine of preemption, “they reported.

US TARGETS
http://members.aol.com/rafleet/hazmaps/fallout.jpg

There have also been reports that tactical nuclear weapons, particularly 'bunker busters,'

MY GOOGLE GROUPS (See other topics!)
http://groups.google.com/group/Nuclear-Citizenry-in-Motion/browse_frm/thread/935da5fd8f34d1e2/#

have been considered by Pentagon planners in the context of the escalating nuclear crisis with North Korea. Moreover, many US analysts believe there is a great danger that North Korea, if its survival was at stake, would be willing to sell its nuclear arsenal to the highest bidder!

North Korea itself apparently believes the United States may be planning nuclear strikes of its own, and on March 1, 2003 warned that a war on the Korean peninsula would quickly 'escalate into a nuclear war.'

I sincerely believe that any first use of nuclear weapons by the United States can not and should not be sanctioned. As the Jason scientists argued in the 1960s, US nuclear planning could serve as a pretext for other countries and, worse, terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda, to build or acquire their own bombs.

If we are not careful, our own nuclear posture could provoke the very nuclear-proliferation activities we are seeking to prevent!

This study, 'Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Southeast Asia', was released February 17, 2003 by the Nautilus Institute of Berkeley, California, and I would urge those with an interest in reading it in full to contact them directly.

READ HERE
http://www.nautilus.org/VietnamFOIA/report/report.html

The conclusions of the Jason report are as valid, realistic and frightening today as they were in 1967. As we contemplate the future course of our nation's national security policy, I believe that it is important to look at past events, to learn from them, and to benefit from the counsel of history.

There were "Search and Carry them out" missions during the last 2 years of the Vietnam War. The targets were Undetonated "Special weapons" of which one such device could have been an E" or EMP" type.

I have kept up on the technology these many years past and to be honest, firmly believe that this weapon will be utilized indiscriminately during WWIII. As I will discuss there are Nuclear versions and Conventional technology more readily available to the neighborhood terrorist.

Anyone who's been through a prolonged power outage knows that it's an extremely trying experience. Within an hour of losing electricity, you develop a healthy appreciation of all the electrical devices you rely on in life.

A couple hours later, you start pacing around your house. After a few days without lights, electric heat or TV, your stress level shoots through the roof.

The United States' HPM e-bombs aren't really bombs at all.

They're more like super powerful microwave ovens that can generate a concentrated beam of microwave energy. One configuration is the HPM device is mounted to a cruise missile, disrupting ground targets from above.

NUCLEAR CRUISE MISSLE
http://www.mosnews.com/files/8632/x551.jpg

This technology is advanced and expensive and so would be inaccessible to military forces without considerable resources. But that's only one piece of the e-bomb story.

Using inexpensive supplies and rudimentary engineering knowledge, a terrorist organization could easily construct a dangerous e-bomb device.

In late September 2001, Popular Mechanics published an article outlining this possibility. The article focused on flux compression generator bombs (FCGs), which date back to the 1950s. This sort of e-bomb has a fairly simple, potentially inexpensive design.

FLUX GENERATOR BOMB
http://www.energypulse.net/images/articles/Gordes1.gif

This conceptual bomb design comes from a report written by Carlo KOPP, a defense analyst. The design concept has been widely available to the public for some time. Nobody would be able to construct a functioning e-bomb from this description alone.

The bomb consists of a metal cylinder (called the armature), which is surrounded by a coil of wire (the stator winding). The armature cylinder is filled with high explosive, and a sturdy jacket surrounds the entire device.

The stator winding and the armature cylinder are separated by empty space. The bomb also has a power source, such as a bank of capacitors which can be connected to the stator.

Here's the sequence of events when the bomb goes off:

1) A switch connects the capacitors to the stator, sending an electrical current through the wires. This generates an intense magnetic field.

2) A fuse mechanism ignites the explosive material. The explosion travels as a wave through the middle of the armature cylinder.

3) As the explosion makes its way through the cylinder, the cylinder comes in contact with the stator winding. This creates a short circuit, cutting the stator off from its power supply.

4) The moving short circuit compresses the magnetic field, generating an intense electromagnetic burst.

Most likely, this type of weapon will affect a relatively small area -- nothing on the order of a nuclear EMP attack -- but it could do some serious damage

Here’s some possible effects of an EMP attack

E-Bomb Effects

The United States is drawn to EMP technology because it is potentially non-lethal, but is still highly destructive. An E-bomb attack would leave buildings standing and spare lives, but it could destroy a sizable military.

There is a range of possible attack scenarios. Low-level electromagnetic pulses would temporarily jam electronics systems, more intense pulses would corrupt important computer data and very powerful bursts would completely fry electric and electronic equipment.

In modern warfare, the various levels of attack could accomplish a number of important combat missions without racking up many casualties. For example, an e-bomb could effectively neutralize:

a) vehicle control systems
b) targeting systems, on the ground and on missiles and bombs
c) communications systems
d) navigation systems
e) long and short-range sensor systems

EMP weapons could be especially useful in an invasion because a pulse might effectively neutralize underground bunkers.

MY GOOGLE GROUPS
http://groups.google.com/group/Nuclear-Citizenry-in-Motion/browse_frm/thread/935da5fd8f34d1e2/?hl=en#

Most underground bunkers are hard to reach with conventional bombs and missiles.( See my other Blogs)

A nuclear blast could effectively demolish many of these bunkers, but this would take a devastating toll on surrounding areas.

An electromagnetic pulse could pass through the ground, knocking out the bunker's lights, ventilation systems, communications -- even electric doors. The bunker would be completely uninhabitable.

U.S. forces are also highly vulnerable to EMP attack, however. In recent years, the U.S. military has added sophisticated electronics to the full range of its arsenal. This electronic technology is largely built around consumer-grade semiconductor devices, which are highly sensitive to any power surge.

More rudimentary vacuum tube technology would actually stand a better chance of surviving an e-bomb attack.

A widespread EMP attack in any country would compromise a military's ability to organize itself. Ground troops might have perfectly functioning non-electric weapons (like machine guns), but they wouldn't have the equipment to plan an attack or locate the enemy.

Effectively, an EMP attack could reduce any military unit into a guerilla-type army.

While EMP weapons are generally considered non-lethal, they could easily kill people if they were directed towards particular targets. If an EMP knocked out a hospital's electricity, for example, any patient on life support would die immediately.

An EMP weapon could also neutralize vehicles, including aircraft, causing catastrophic accidents.

In the end, the most far-reaching effect of an e-bomb could be psychological.

A full-scale EMP attack in a developed country would instantly bring modern life to a screeching halt. There would be plenty of survivors, but they would find themselves in a very different world.
MIRVman

SEE MY GROUP DISCUSSIONS AT;
http://groups.google.com/group/Nuclear-Citizenry-in-Motion?lnk=li&hl=en

……Finally I get to voice my opinion's after 30 years of abstinence....I personally disassembled the Air to Air, Air to ground ABM Nuclear missiles for a VERY Strategic Nuclear Base, I was at Fort Campbell Kentucky when the "Kinetic" weapons were tested with the Abrams A-1.., I disassembled “HOT” Nuclear Weapons at every broken Arrow/Bent Spear 1973-1978.…..

……I spent 30 years in the "Public sector Bomb:" business. and now I have a conscious....I disqualified myself under the CNWDI Human Reliability program as a consciousness objector...could not handle the stress's of "Signing Off" the assembly of Mass destruction Devices...I'm probably going to be punished for talking about these issues, but my PTSD is overwhelming.….

PTSD
http://www.vva.org/benefits/ptsd.htm

….Before I ramble on….Keep up the dialog people, let's make our republic stronger.....The devastation of September 11th is inexcusable, the criminals should be caught and tried and punished. Yet does this mean we as a nation should expect our own everyday personal freedoms to be lessened because of a minority of fanatical individuals in the world?.......

.....It worries me as an American citizen when the government has decided to use resources to investigate our personal tastes in what we do with our minds..
...
Recently our FBI has been allowed to investigate public library and internet records. We can all sleep well now that the Chinese communists have MIRV and BUS technology thanks to Clinton and the #1 contributor to the Democratic National Committee Bernie Schwartz and his company Loral.

Now China has the MIRV and BUS technology plus the advanced nuclear war head plans thanks to their little Chinese spy there.

HOW BIG IS CHINA?
http://www.mybeijingchina.com/map/images/map_china.jpg

MIRV: Multiple Independently-targeted Re-entry Vehicle. The ballistic missile carries a number of warheads that can be targeted at separate targets. The warheads sit on a "bus", basically a flat plate at the top of the missile and protected by the nose cone , until out of the atmosphere(Remember this term ). During descent the bus releases the warheads in sequence.

MIRV'S , 3 EACH MM12A INDEPENDANTLY TARGETED
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/wiki/images/thumb/e/e9/250px-MMIII_MIRV.jpg