Re: [cia-drugs] Atomic Obsession
Homepulse, Sorry, when I get to this stuff I am so tired and dont express myself well. It is a complex subject not because of the logic but because of the programming. I am stating that John Mueller is incorrect : wrong. There were two days between Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In that period http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Robert_Oppenheimer Oppenheimer made a speech at Los Alamos. At first he was very upset noting that the bomb was so easy to make. Then he became very upbeat stated that the device would put an end to war. When you think about this it is very true. What would happen if even a nuke was threatened? So secret agreements were made between the nuke nations and those who soon would be. This started a serious game of lying. First the secret agreements were covered over by the nuke nations continually holding meetings as to how agreements could be made without ever an intention of making an open agreement. (Richard Pearl was even quoted joking as to this.) We need be clear about the difference between counter value targets and counter force targets. Value targets are those that are psychological images to the enemy such as targeting an icon such as Statue of Liberty or simply civilians themselves as we did in bombing raids over Germany leaving the British Air Force to take the higher casualties as their counter force targets, (gun factories such), had to be flown in daylight. Almost always, even when much of the target is counter force, the greater impact with nukes is counter value. (Up to a point counter value targets can have the reverse of the intended effect. This has often been noted with simple bombing. The use of a nuke would have the correct counter value effect as public would do anything to stop this.) This might even simply be a problem with definitions. The greatest threat is now from groups that would want to use nukes to destroy an ideology such as capitalism. (Target Wall Street, etc.) They would want the masses to see that under any circumstances the state attacked should change. They would not want to use a weapon that could be stated as not being a weapon such as scalar or biological. You cant say a mushroom cloud and massive fallout was some sort of accident. These groups would need to have the wherewithal to obtain uranium on their own. They would not be so foolish as to even test the black market in this area. Obtaining uranium is far easier than the mainstream media allows. The most common tool for mining is the simply jackhammer and can be hidden in some construction type projects such as road or bridge building. Because the West controls much of the world with simple bribery and labor is cheap, there are many areas where this could be done. However, I am defining State terrorism as that where the heads of states are aware of the specifics. Here some with enough bribe money on their own, of own initiative, would be smart enough to keep the state out of the loop. Refining uranium is also simpler than media allows public to understand, a centrifuge is a centrifuge is a centrifuge. More confusing is that much of media defines terrorist groups or non state aligned terrorist groups as those groups that are inside intel known anyway. The greatest threat is from the unknown. And with those unknown groups both the means and motive are available. Hope this makes it clearer. Again the background play is: http://www.midcoast.com/~michael1/aspyintime.htm Hello Michael, so that I may better understand learn, would you please help to clarify the following: are you expressing that John Mueller is correct regarding: the likelihood of a terrorist obtaining a nuclear device and using it against the U.S. is far smaller than most people think. Yes, regarding the 'terrorist' referenced by the Media for the 'usual-suspect' false-flag patsy propaganda agenda, But No, regarding The State 'Terrorists' (whom present a Larger likelihood of obtaining a nuclear device) Which are not the 'terrorist' John Mueller is referencing, and the Media do not reference as such, but in fact misdirect from via 'referencing'/blaming those patsy 'terrorist' / usual-suspects, that John Mueller must be obviously referencing . Do I understand you correctly? Thanks - Original Message - From: micha...@midcoast.com To: cia-drugs@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 11:26:47 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: Re: [cia-drugs] Atomic Obsession It has been admitted that real nuclear attack is becoming more probable than ever before. During most of the Cold War there were secret agreements. Most 'terrorists' are major intel groups concocted. 'Rogue states' would be dumped on in a heartbeat if they even thought of a nuke. But real terrorists who would be 1- smart enough not to identify with any particular state, 2- would obtain the uranium themselves not try to buy on black market (most common tool is the jackhammer and can
Re: [cia-drugs] Atomic Obsession
Ok, Thanks mucho, michael1 Will give careful read ponder later when get time. Thanks again, and have a great weekend ;-) - Original Message - From: micha...@midcoast.com To: cia-drugs@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 6:04:40 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: Re: [cia-drugs] Atomic Obsession Homepulse, Sorry, when I get to this stuff I am so tired and don’t express myself well. It is a complex subject not because of the logic but because of the programming. continues here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs/message/48468
Re: [cia-drugs] Atomic Obsession
Hello Michael, so that I may better understand learn, would you please help to clarify the following: are you expressing that John Mueller is correct regarding: the likelihood of a terrorist obtaining a nuclear device and using it against the U.S. is far smaller than most people think. Yes, regarding the 'terrorist' referenced by the Media for the 'usual-suspect' false-flag patsy propaganda agenda, But No, regarding The State 'Terrorists' (whom present a Larger likelihood of obtaining a nuclear device) Which are not the 'terrorist' John Mueller is referencing, and the Media do not reference as such, but in fact misdirect from via 'referencing'/blaming those patsy 'terrorist' / usual-suspects, that John Mueller must be obviously referencing . Do I understand you correctly? Thanks - Original Message - From: micha...@midcoast.com To: cia-drugs@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 11:26:47 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: Re: [cia-drugs] Atomic Obsession It has been admitted that real nuclear attack is becoming more probable than ever before. During most of the Cold War there were secret agreements. Most 'terrorists' are major intel groups concocted. 'Rogue states' would be dumped on in a heartbeat if they even thought of a nuke. But real terrorists who would be 1- smart enough not to identify with any particular state, 2- would obtain the uranium themselves not try to buy on black market (most common tool is the jackhammer and can be disguised in simple projects like roads or bridge work, 3- the 'hard-to-process' bull is just for the public i.e. a centrifuge is a centrifuge. Here: http://www.midcoast.com/~michael1/webnukeletter.htm Notice as per first paragraph that Adm. Keeting called off terrorist nuke exercise shortly after the letter (as it was posted on Rumor Mill News) had 14,000 readers within a few days. Why? He was giving away too much. My understanding is that there was a 'terrorist nuke exercise' eventually held but 99% under cover. Atomic Obsession video 09.11.11: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/216291 John Mueller argues that our decades-long fear of a nuclear attack has been unwarranted and that the likelihood of a terrorist obtaining a nuclear device and using it against the U.S. is far smaller than most people think. Professor Mueller took up these topics in his latest book, Atomic Obsession. He spoke about the book at the University of Missouri in St. Louis. Complete archives at http://www.sitbot.net/ Please let us stay on topic and be civil. OM Yahoo! Groups Links
[cia-drugs] Atomic Obsession
Atomic Obsession video 09.11.11: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/216291 John Mueller argues that our decades-long fear of a nuclear attack has been unwarranted and that the likelihood of a terrorist obtaining a nuclear device and using it against the U.S. is far smaller than most people think. Professor Mueller took up these topics in his latest book, Atomic Obsession. He spoke about the book at the University of Missouri in St. Louis.
Re: [cia-drugs] Atomic Obsession
It has been admitted that real nuclear attack is becoming more probable than ever before. During most of the Cold War there were secret agreements. Most 'terrorists' are major intel groups concocted. 'Rogue states' would be dumped on in a heartbeat if they even thought of a nuke. But real terrorists who would be 1- smart enough not to identify with any particular state, 2- would obtain the uranium themselves not try to buy on black market (most common tool is the jackhammer and can be disguised in simple projects like roads or bridge work, 3- the 'hard-to-process' bull is just for the public i.e. a centrifuge is a centrifuge. Here: http://www.midcoast.com/~michael1/webnukeletter.htm Notice as per first paragraph that Adm. Keeting called off terrorist nuke exercise shortly after the letter (as it was posted on Rumor Mill News) had 14,000 readers within a few days. Why? He was giving away too much. My understanding is that there was a 'terrorist nuke exercise' eventually held but 99% under cover. Atomic Obsession video 09.11.11: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/216291 John Mueller argues that our decades-long fear of a nuclear attack has been unwarranted and that the likelihood of a terrorist obtaining a nuclear device and using it against the U.S. is far smaller than most people think. Professor Mueller took up these topics in his latest book, Atomic Obsession. He spoke about the book at the University of Missouri in St. Louis.
