Under the cloak of secrecy imparted by use of
military code names, the American administration has been taking a big - and
dangerous - step that will lead to the transformation of the nuclear bomb
into a legitimate weapon for waging war.
Ever since the terror attack of September 11, 2001,
the Bush administration has gradually done away with all the nuclear brakes
that characterized American policy during the Cold War. No longer are
nuclear bombs considered "the weapon of last resort." No longer is
the nuclear bomb the ultimate means of deterrence against nuclear powers,
which the United States would never be the first to employ.
In the era of a single, ruthless superpower, whose
leadership intends to shape the world according to its own forceful world
view, nuclear weapons have become a attractive instrument for waging wars,
even against enemies that do not possess nuclear arms.
Remember the code name "CONPLAN 8022."
As in "Neo Con" as in Hassidic Chabad
Lubavitch "Plan"
Last week, the Washington Post reported that this
unintelligible nickname masks a military program whose implementation could
drag the world into nuclear war.
CONPLAN 8022 is a series of operational plans
prepared by Startcom, the U.S. Army's Strategic Command, which calls for preemptive
nuclear strikes against Iran and North Korea. One of the plan's major
components is the use of nuclear weapons to destroy the underground
facilities where North Korea and Iran are developing their nuclear weapons.
The standard ordnance deployed by the Americans is not capable of destroying
these facilities.
After the war in Afghanistan, it became clear that
despite the widespread use of huge conventional bombs,
"bunker-busters," some of the bunkers dug by Al-Qaida remained
untouched. This discovery soon led to a decision to develop nuclear weapons
that would be able to penetrate and destroy the underground shelters in
which the two member states of the "axis of evil" are developing
weapons of mass destruction.
those Aginst Bushkevik and his
Hassidim" of Sanhedrin and hala Moshiach ben hoo haha
The explanation given by administration experts
calls these "small" bombs, which would have a moderate effect on
the environment.
suitcase Nukes?
The effect of the bomb would not be discernible
above ground, the radioactive fallout would be negligible, and the
"collateral damage" caused to civilians would be minimal.
Accordingly, America's deterrent credibility against
the "rogue states" would grow,
because it is clear that the U.S. would allow itself to make use of these
"small bombs" - as they would destroy the weapon sites but not
cause the death of many civilians.
do not be deceived, there will be
"Collective Punishment on all who oppose their Hoodlum hoo haha
shemborg collective Noahide laws
The war in Iraq, whose purpose was the destruction
of Saddam Hussein's development facilities and stockpiles of weapons of mass
destruction, but which led to America's miring in the Iraqi swamp, has
increased the attraction of nuclear weapons. After all, it would have been
much simpler and more logical to destroy Saddam's facilities with a few
"small bombs," which would not have caused any real damage to the
civilian population, than to become entangled in a ground war that has
resulted in 150,000 American soldiers treading water in the Iraqi swamp.
see Hiroshima
The problem with this argument is that it is
hopeless. To understand this, one may analyze the effect of a nuclear attack
of the sort posited by American military strategists in CONPLAN 8022.
Chassidic Neo Con Plan 8022
Obviously, the U.S. would not use less than
five to ten "small bombs" were it to attack Iran or North Korea,
since, considering the number of relevant targets in the two countries,
anything less would fail to achieve the goal of deterrence and prevention.
According to the plan, each bomb would have a 10-kiloton yield - about
two-thirds of that of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Neo Con Plans 1 & II
Each detonation of a bomb a few meters underground
would destroy most of the buildings on the surface to a range of two
kilometers. After the explosion, there would be a need to quickly evacuate
civilians from an area of 100 square kilometers, to avoid the deadly effects
of the radioactive fallout; buildings, agricultural crops and livestock
would be affected in an area of thousands of square
kilometers, and depending on wind direction and velocity, there could
be a need to evacuate more people from thousands of additional square
kilometers.
By Peace they shall destroy
wonderfully
None of this takes into account the political and
psychological repercussions of using nuclear weapons for the first time in
more than 60 years. The Bush administration regards all this as
"limited collateral damage."
Their will be no Limit on that Day
of Great wrath of Jesus the Christ the LORD.....no Collateral
The nuclear policy that the Bush administration
continues to formulate, including plans for a
preemptive nuclear strike against states that do not possess such
weapons and the development of new nuclear weapons - is a recipe for
disaster. It is a policy that blurs the line between conventional and
nuclear war. This blurring could undermine the relative strategic stability
that has set in since the Cold War.
WWIII of the Neo Con Hassidic Chabad
Lubavitch Plan to usher in the Shemborg Collective of haha Moshiach ben
satan of their Sanhedrin beast
In addition, the Bush administration's approach
contains a message that is liable to encourage Iran and North Korea to
reassess the contribution such a weapon would make to their own nuclear
policies, possibly providing the incentive that would accelerate such
development.
Herein lies an inherent contradiction in the
American approach that on the one hand acts with commendable determination
to prevent the proliferation of nuclear arms, but on the other hand,
contributes toward it by adopting an irresponsible
nuclear policy.
of the Neo Con Shem
Sham collective
Military strikes would not stop Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons but could
effectively delay it, a former Israeli air force chief said.
“You cannot eliminate an idea, a national will. But you can delay
progress on a nuclear program with the appropriate military action,” David
Ivry, who masterminded Israel’s 1981 air strike on the Iraqi reactor at
Osirak, told Reuters on Monday. Some have speculated that Israel or the United
States could take similar action against Iran if it doesn’t stop its nuclear
program, but some analysts believe the Iranian reactors are too dispersed and
well-defended to tackle militarily. Ivry argued that limited air strikes would
be sufficient.
“It is enough to hit the key component of the production cycle to put the
whole operation out of action,” he said. “When Israel struck Osirak, the
intention was never to get rid of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear plans. We wanted
to buy time, and we succeeded in doing that.”
