Jones Beene wrote:
PS As to the phony-baloney story of "why" the missile episode may have
occured, Stephen Lawrence wrote:
I don't think so. They were "advanced" cruise missiles: that was the
_name_. Presumably they were "advanced" when they were designed, but
that was over a decade ago.
The B-52 bomber they were on was designed 60 years ago and is still
operational. The problem is not the age - but why they were armed in the
first place,
Of course. I was just observing that the name "advanced" was
introducing an extra level of confusion here, as it's literally the
/name/ rather than a description.
As a name, it may or may not accurately describe them.
And the B-52 is _not_ an advanced bomber by today's standards, FWIW,
though it is still operational.
and most-of-all - where the "extra" unaccounted-for warhead
is... is it in the hands of "rogue elements" of government?
It now turns out that the B-52 set on the tarmac in La, unguarded for 10
hours before this incident was reported.
Holy S***.
So, who in the world might want to steal one, would have the capacity to
deliver it (i.e., has cruise missile launchers on tap), and doesn't
already have their own home-made (or U.S. provided) nuclear weapons?
And, we should add, who, among that group, might be able to get the
cooperation of the U.S. government to make the theft as easy as possible?
Not Israel -- they've got their own.
Not any European country -- they've already got U.S. nukes on their
soil, no need to go abroad to steal one. (Except France where they've
got their own, of course, and England where they've got their own, and
Germany where they supposedly manufacture nukes for the U.S. -- wish I
could recall where I read that.)
Not Canada -- the U.S. govt would never allow it.
Terrorists? (I mean, real ones, not CIA actors.) This might make
sense, if the govt is trying to arrange for an incident within the U.S.,
said incident to be carried out by "real" terrorists rather than CIA
actors. And we need to ask if terrorists could actually launch a cruise
missile? Or maybe they don't need to -- as dedicated idealists (in
their own cause) they don't have much need to "throw" the thing a good
safe distance before it goes off; in fact they're willing to detonate it
manually.
CIA actors? ... Nah, there has to be a simpler way to arrange an
interdepartmental transfer of a few warheads from DOE to CIA.
Afterwards, there has been the
slight discrepancy of one warhead between the "official" accounts.
As to how or why it could happen -- did you ever wonder whether they
REALLY have nuclear tipped cruise missiles in the arsenal? No, you
didn't? Well, perhaps not. But, did you ever wonder if President
Ahmadinejad has ever wondered if we REALLY have nuclear-tipped cruise
missiles in our current arsenal, I mean, right now, ready to roll, all
set to be put on planes and launched?
He is no fool. Of course he knows this. That was not the purpose of this
episode.
No, probably not -- it had just occurred to me that, in a country which
is fond of rattling its sabers ferociously, this appears to have been,
intentional or not, another rather blatant example of a very loud rattle
of a saber.
No one in the public knows if this was simply an "innocent" f_ _ k-up -
or if there is something more sinister going-on, but given the high
level disregard for the City of New Orleans, already well demonstrated,
hmmm .... doubt if I would be going to a favorite "watering hole": Pat
O'Briens ... even if Dick generously offered a free trip (followed by
bird hunting of course) ....
http://www.patobriens.com/
