Some Thoughts on the Build up of Strategic Missiles and Missile Bases

[Appollynon]

I have been seeing many, amny articles all over the internet sucha s the one linked to below on the strategic build up of arms, and in particular missiles. I have often also seen articles documenting the rise, and spreading out of the US and the Russian missile defense shield, which now covers much of the northern hemisphere (and large swathes of the southern hemisphere) as far as I'm aware.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Chinese_Leadership_Calls_For_Build_Up_Of_Strategic_Missile_Forces_999.html

I have also seen articles relating to the US defensive shield programme that have detailed its inadequacy and failure so far to perform to specification in any of the testing procedures and missions that have been arranged so far. this made me then wonder...why would they throw billions of dolars at a project which has failed to perform at every stage..unless maybe it wasn't meant to be used in the ways they have told us it is to be used for? This again made me think..."Well what could this programme be used for" (other than funneling funds to the black ops community). Then it hit me. Maybe they are trying to provide a missile shield for the defense of not just the US or any other country, but in fact to protect the entire world...and from what...maybe a cyclical cluster of comets heading our way in the near future.

I didn't want to share this thought until recently when the shield was activated at around the same time as the metoer strike in Norway. Im probably way-off here, but it would make some sense to have such a shield in place for those who may want to avoid destruction when/if the comets come our way, as the trajectories may be on course for some of those neat underground bases that have been built and had so much money spent on them.

I'd appreciate anyone's thoughts on this issue (if they don't think Im running before I can walk with this one).

 

[Cyre2067]

They could prob launch a missile and detour an asteroid without anyone knowing about it, assuming their missiles will actually deflect them.

However if there is a cloud of millions of tiny ones their missiles will be useless.

 

[Appollynon]

However if there is a cloud of millions of tiny ones their missiles will be useless.

I agree. In fact your post just made me think of the Carolina Bays and the destruction that must have taken place to form them. If we are in for a comet shower like that, then it wouldn't matter how many missiles thay had or how potent the warheads.

I also just spoke to a friend of mine over lunch, who recounted to me how she had seen a TV show here in the UK about how missiles would likely be very ineffective against comets or asteroids as it would splinter them up into thousands of smaller bits and rain terror down on a much vaster area of the globe.

I then thought "These psycopaths in power don't care how many they kill, and in fact probably plan to get rid of most of the human population as part of their plan. So maybe this could be part of their game plan, as such a manouver would deflect a main impact form a given site that they didn't want hit and instead destroy a greater area on the surface while they hide underground. Just a thought, although your probably right Cyre2067 that in the end none of it is gonna be enough to really matter and save them.

I'm adding this article below from the Space.com website, as it seems to fit with my thoughts somewhat. Looks like someone is giving serious thought (enough to utilize the worlds fastest Super-cumputer to look into what it takes to Destroy or deflect an asteriod).
Link here: http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/060614_asteroid_computer.html

A super-powerful computer has simulated what it might take to keep Earth safe from a menacing asteroid.

Researchers have utilized the number-crunching brainpower of Red Storm-a supercomputer at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Red Storm, a Cray XT3 supercomputer, is the first computer to surpass the 1 terabyte-per-second performance mark-a measure that indicates the capacity of a network of processors to communicate with each other when dealing with the most complex situations-in both classified and unclassified realms.

The massively parallel computing simulations have modeled how much explosive power it would take to destroy or sidetrack an asteroid that's got Earth in its cross-hairs.

Radar measurements

For the computer runs, asteroid 6489 Golevka was chosen. Golevka isn't going to hit the Earth, explained Mark Boslough, a Sandia scientist and asteroid threat analyst. This particular asteroid was used as a "proxy" because solid geometry data about the object existed, he said.

Since its discovery in May 1991 by astronomer Eleanor Helin, asteroid Golevka has been repeatedly radar-scanned. It is roughly .33 mile (one half-kilometer) across, but tips the scales at about 460 billion pounds (210 billion kilograms), according to asteroid experts at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.

The Golevka asteroid has been a particular object of interest since 2003. That's when NASA scientists discovered its course had changed.

Keeping tabs on Golevka has helped pin down the Yarkovsky Effect-a miniscule amount of force produced as the asteroid absorbs energy from the Sun and re-radiates it into space as heat. Over time-lots of it-that force can have a big effect on an asteroid's orbit.

Deflection and disruption

Boslough said the actual geometry from radar measurements of asteroid Golevka were used in the computer simulations.

"Of course we don't know the internal structure so we had to assume something," Boslough said. He and his colleagues tried both heterogeneous and homogenous simulations, but selected the uniform strength and density for the high-resolution demonstration mainly for simplicity.

The researchers applied the Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS) principle of avoiding unnecessary complications-don't try the hardest thing first, Boslough added.

In general terms, several findings stood out in Red Storm computations that might be useful for future planetary defense systems.

Boslough first noted that there are two "end-member strategies" in the Golevka work:

Deflection: Keeping the asteroid in one piece and changing its trajectory to miss the Earth; and
Disruption: Blowing it to smithereens and making sure all the bits miss the Earth.
"There are a range of in-between options," Boslough told SPACE.com, "but the deflection end of the spectrum is much more realistic." On a kiloton-per-kiloton basis, small, shallow explosions are much more effective for moving the asteroid than large, deep ones.

Bruce Willis: encore coring

One demonstration simulation-10 megatons at the center of mass of the object-is the most spectacular "end member" of the range that the research team explored-but is also the least likely scenario, Boslough explained. "It also neglects a fundamental problem of how you would get the device inside an asteroid."

Unlike Bruce Willis and his team drilling into the core of an asteroid in the 1998 movie Armageddon and planting a nuclear bomb, that scenario just doesn't seem likely, Boslough said.

Playing out Golevka's hypothetical demise even on a super-fast computer took longer than the movie. Sandia's half- second, billion-cell simulation of a 10-megaton explosion at Golevka's center took 12 hours to run on 7,200 processors of Red Storm.

The supercomputer is a product of a partnership between Cray Computers Inc. and Sandia National Laboratories, developed for the Advanced Simulation and Computing program of the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) laboratory.

Low-yield, high payoff

The Red Storm computational output provided useful insights.

In particular, Boslough said, was the realization that using multiple, low-yield, deflecting explosions is much better than using one high-yield device.

"There are many advantages" to this approach, Boslough observed. "For one, you don't need to rendezvous with the asteroid and drill a hole or otherwise place a devise. You can set it off as a surface burst. Contrast the time it takes to 'land' something on the surface of an asteroid-like NASA's Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR) spacecraft-to how long it takes just to get there, like NASA's Deep Impact," he said.

You want to solve the problem quickly, Boslough said, "even if we know about an impact decades in advance-the public perception will be that time is of the essence."

If asteroid deflection is the game plan, there's need to avoid accidental breakage.

A low yield blast lessens the volume of material that is subjected to the highest tensile and shear stress, reducing the likelihood that the object will come apart.

"If you do break the asteroid, you want to make sure none of the big pieces hit the Earth," Boslough said. "Multiple low-yield bursts over an entire hemisphere [of the asteroid] would reduce the likelihood that anything big would get left behind on the impact trajectory."

Backup plan

The fact that you can get a low-yield device to a menacing object fast also means that you are more likely to have a second chance, Boslough noted. That equates to a viable "backup plan", he added, for other, more elaborate, expensive, and time-consuming methods.

"When you are saving the Earth, it's good to have a plan B. I suspect that if a Near Earth Object (NEO) were confirmed to be on an impact trajectory, public opinion would demand fast action and this would become plan A, if it wasn't already," Boslough said.

Boslough said that follow-on work regarding defending Earth from NEOs is slated. Specifically on tap is delving into momentum transfer for a variety of assumed asteroidal and cometary materials and structures.

 

[dant]

Hi all,

One thought came to my mind in regards to using armed missiles
in space to use it to deflect and/or destroy asteroids or objects in
space.

As far as I know, no armed missiles have never been exploded
in space, conventional or otherwise. However, a bomb on a probe
was recently used to blow a "fragment" from a flyby comet and
we have seen the photos (at least the public ones) with the publically
stated reason to gain more insight into the comet's composition.

It seems theoretically possible send nuclear missiles into space
to 'vaporize' or otherwise severely fragment or otherwise deflect
the asteroid/comet clusters into new orbits but then no one knows
if the altered orbits would collide into other objects setting these
into altered orbits likewise and to be realigned into a collision with
earth or other objects. It is possible that we may set into motion
even worst conditions than that of what we started with.

We have all seen nuclear bombs exploded on earth and so far our
atmosphere and planet has absorbed the energy and radiation but
with consequences. Keep in mind that we have never tried nor should
we ever attempt to explode a nuclear bomb under water because the
consequences would be extremely grave as I have have been told.

With this in mind, we have no idea what would happen if a nuclear
bomb were to be exploded in space. We do not know how space,
the vacuum medium would be able to handle the release of the bomb's
energy and it's by-products (radiation). We do not know what the
consequences would be because it has never been done AFAIK.

I will never forget story surrounding the discussions the scientists
had, working on the first A-bomb. The fundamental question was,
what limits the bomb's destructive power? What will stop the bomb's
chain-reaction? Since they did not know, they took a chance anyway
and exploded the bomb. The rest is history.

 

[tschai]

Nuclear weapons HAVE been detonated underwater-by the U.S. in Operation Crossroads

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossroads

and 3 by the Soviet Union

http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=mj96norris

found by Google for underwater nuclear tests

Why would the vacuum of space be adversley affected by nuclear detonantion? Stars and super nova and other spacial phenomenon put out many times as much radiation as a nuclear weapon (granted these are NATURAL not deliberate) I am not saying it WOULD not (I do not know enough about such things to say for certain)

Perhaps one of the readers may enlighten us in this regard - it has been my thought (again I do not know) that such weapons affect much more than our reality-that the effects from these devices may in some fashion "tear" through dimensional boundaries and actually bleed over into other dimensions (have I said this correctly?) I do not recall reading anything that the C's may have said on this but something may be on the site that I am unaware of where such was discussed?

 

[Cyre2067]

I'm relatively certain detonating a nuke or other weapon in space would function just the same as it does on earth, however there's no atmosphere, ergo no fire, no BOOM. Any remains of the fissile material would simply float out into space, anything that got stuck in earths gravity well would burn up in the atmosphere or be deflected/absorped by the ozone/magnetosphere.

Perhaps our resident physicist could correct me if im mistaken?

 

[paulnotbilly]

The idea of exploding nukes in space is about EMP (Electro-Magnetic Pulse) and using it to destroy comms prior to further use of nukes.

 

[dant]

Keep in mind that we have never tried nor should
we ever attempt to explode a nuclear bomb under water because the
consequences would be extremely grave as I have have been told.

The devil is in the details. I think if you exploded a fission device
as the dates show, the danger is not present. Otherwise if you exploded
a fusion device, the danger might be greatly exaberated OSIT. The A-bomb
is a fission device and the H-bomb is a fusion device.

I don't think C's said anything about nuclear bombs AFAIK. Please
correct me it was ever discussed.

As far as supernova's and stars, are these nuclear-fusion system as
opposed to a nuclear fisson system? See below:

Definitions:
=======

Fission:
--------
A nuclear reaction in which a single large nucleus splits into two or more
smaller nuclei. In some cases, for example with uranium, energy is released
in this process.

The fission of uranium 235, an isotope of uranium, supplies energy for nuclear
reactors and atomic bombs.


Fusion:
--------
The combining of two small atomic nuclei to form a larger nucleus, sometimes
with the release of energy. (Compare nuclear fission.)


The fusion of hydrogen into helium releases huge amounts of energy and is the
main energy source of stars, including the sun. Hydrogen bombs use the energy
of fusion. The use of fusion as a controllable energy source on Earth is still in its
experimental stages.

So, imagine if you will that it *might* be possible that a fusion device might accidently
fuse helium with the hydrogen in water...

 

[tschai]

Hopefully they would detonate the thing far enough away from Earth that EMP would not be a problem-wouldn't the effect dissipate over distance? Dunno much about this.

If the asteroid / comet is that close maybe EMP would be an acceptable side effect (although from what I understand in limited way-EMP affects not only communications but ALL electrical devices-including automobiles starting,computers and so on-it literally fries all electrical circuits-so NOTHING would work.)

Better keep a space shuttle and Bruce Willis on hand just in case... ;)

 

[tschai]

So Dant...you are saying a fusion bomb (Hydrogen bomb) detonated in water might set off a chain reaction and literally use the hydrogen in the ocean / water as fuel for a sustained reaction? Is that possible?

I did not read all the way through the articles-where the bombs the Soviets set off fission or fusion? I did read the Crossroads article and the US scubbed another underwater detonantion because the radioactivity from the first one was way more than they expected...hmm-maybe it would be worse if they DID shoot off a fusion weapon in water. Maybe they know what would happen and haven't done that because of this-have to read up on this and see if there is any published data on it...I suspect if that were the case it might not be "public"-they wouldn't want us to know.

I have never heard of this before though-scary if possible. MAN that is really scary...

 

[dant]

Hi tschai,

I know first hand that there are computer chips that are designed
specifically against the threat of EMP generators and these chips are
actively used by our military services. This was back in 1985 when
I worked for a large electronics manufacturer.

Nuclear bomb based EMP devices generates extremely high power energy
pulses and affects/destroys all electronic devices that are not specifically
protected against these EMP pulses. There are other non-nuclear based
devices that generate EMP pulses but at much lower power level. I have
seen these devices both military and amateur and in fact, one of Oregon's
representative knew about this technology and wanted to have these military
EMP devices given legally to our police force so they can stop cars dead in its
tracks. The rep wanted to transfer military technology devices to the police
and if the local police don't already have these devices, it will only be a matter
of time when they do, just like tasers.

As for H-bombs (fusion bombs) in water, I did not discover this myself but
found this information in a story relating to Hammel (I think) and how
Hammel said this information was given to him by "visitors" who told him
they were very worried of man's utter ignorance of setting off a nuclear
devices in/near/around water (lakes,oceans,rivers) thereby setting off
an unstoppable chain reaction which will affect them as well and the
rest of the Universe. Well, personally I really do not know if this is
true or not but thinking about how nuclear fusion works, it seems quite
plausible perhaps given the right set of circumstances OSIT.

It would be interesting if anyone with knowledge in this area can really
explain to us if this is even remotely possible.

As for the test data regarding nuclear devices, the answer is all nuclear data
is very highly classified and they obviously will not provide this information
to anyone except those "in the need to know" and have security clearances.

I should know because I was involved with building/making oscillocopes
that have special circuits and software in them so as to satinize and flush all
memory devices within it so that all nuclear bomb data signals are completely
and throughly erased and satinized before being removed from the multiple
vault systems and taken out for service or repair.

 

[Appollynon]

Perhaps one of the readers may enlighten us in this regard - it has been my thought (again I do not know) that such weapons affect much more than our reality-that the effects from these devices may in some fashion "tear" through dimensional boundaries and actually bleed over into other dimensions (have I said this correctly?) I do not recall reading anything that the C's may have said on this but something may be on the site that I am unaware of where such was discussed?

Fantastic point tschai. I do seem to remeber reading through the C's material and that they do refer to something rather ominous about nucler weapons. I hope I'm remembering right here, but as far as I remeber the C's seemed to suggest that when a human is caught in a Nuclear blast, then there is no returning to the normal cycle of reincarnation as would normally happen in most ways we humans die. I think they said that Nuclear weapons have the ability to either turn beings of any sort back into primordial atoms (and start the whole cycle of life and lessons all over again from the first density) or that the nuclear power somehow seperates the soul from returning to the natural order of cyles into the fifth density (basically ripping things up real bad between our natural cycle and journey through the normal routes of reincarnation). They do seem to suggest as you were thinking that they can somehow cause more damage than simply the damage seen in this density level. Thanks for reminding me of that C's session, if I have a little time early tommorow morning (As im about to fall asleep at the keyboard lol) I will have a look through the C's sessions I've got access to and try and find a direct quote from them about the nature of nukes.

As for attemting to explode a nuke underwater, I had never heard of the theory of nuking all the water in the process of a fusion test. However I do remeber that the French I think had tested many Nukes (Not sure which type) in the Pacific Ocean (or maybe underneath the Pacific seabed) in the ninties and can clearly remember the pitcures that were in the news of the the ocean surface lighting up in a large bright whitish-yellow glow when the nukes were detonated. I don't think that the scientists in the know about nuclear weapons would risk the type of scenario you have suggested (although anything is possible) and I believe this type of technology is childsplay (we've had it for over 50years from nazi-era research) compared to some of the technology that has been researched in the field of electromagnetics and other types of fusion/fission in Sandia labs and other places regarding gravitional/electromagnetic fields.

I would also think that the Powers in control of this world (STS forces/antichrist/lizzies) would also not like to risk this type of chain reaction you have suggested as the results of such a chain reaction may be so unpredictable it may effect them in a detrimental way, or end up wiping them out (and I'm fairly sure they don't take those kind of chances with their own mortality in any circumstances..what would be the point?). But thanks for putting the thought in my head, I'll mull over your suggestions and try and do some further research as time permits and hope to come to a clearer understanding of the processes involved.

 

[dant]

...snip...
But thanks for putting the thought in my head, I'll mull over your suggestions and try and do some further research as time permits and hope to come to a clearer understanding of the processes involved.

Have you researched this and found anything new at this point yet, Appollynon?

 

[Appollynon]

Have you researched this and found anything new at this point yet, Appollynon?

No Im afraid not Dant. In between trying to work my way through Gurdjieff and Ouspensky's Fourth Way, dealing with personal problems related to work, and trying to keep up with daily reading of the Signs Page and the forum regarding psychopathy and COINTELPRO, I'm left very little time to research many of the topics I would like to. I digress that I have no more of a laymans understanding of the process of Nuclear Fusion & Fission and it would likely take quite some time to do the reseacrch needed to refute or back-up your own hypothesis.

May I ask from what source you have been researching to form your opinion? Also have you have done any more research to confirm or back up you hypothesis? It would help me out if you could provide the name or link to a source on good solid material regarding you hypothesis so that when I do get some free time, (hopefully soon or at least when I finish reading the Fourth Way) I can check it out.

Thanks for your contribution though.
:D

 

[dant]

Hi Appollynon,

My statement regarding 'Vistors' warning about exploding Nuclear
bombs in water comes from the no-longer-in-print book:
"The Graniteman and the Butterfly". This book is available
in the Yahoo group: 'Hameltech'

Link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hameltech/files/
File: The granite man and the butterfly.doc

I have provided part of an excerpt at the end of this message.

As for exploding a true-fusion device in water, it appears that
the soviets had done it, but I am not totally sure. Below are
LOTS of links with the google search of: 'nuclear fusion bomb water'

Selected Links of Interest:
==================
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/Sovwpnprog.html [did they expode a true fusion bomb in water?]
http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_9.htm [Good at explaining details of fission and fusion]
http://library.thinkquest.org/3471/past_body.html [Interesting comment: "The H-bomb, in fact, is not a fusion bomb per se, but a fission-fusion-fission bomb" -- oh! Perhaps the "devil is in the details"!]
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7047/full/436025a.html
[Another comment: "... compressed the heavy water so intensely that it started a fusion reaction. ..."]

Note, many of the sites have stated that fusion bombs were exploded NEAR or ABOVE all
surfaces, land, water, etc., but does not state that it has been exploded IN water or if
a TRUE FUSION bomb was used.

So far - it appears that the "visitors" are perhaps correct that mankind is "playing with fire" in their
totally ignorant experiments...

Excerpt from pg 109: "The Granite man and the Butterfly"
====================================
By Jeane Manning co-authored by Pierre Sinclaire

Published by:

Pierre Sinclaire,
Project Magnet
Box 839, 9037 Royal Street,
Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada ViM 2S2

Original cover artwork, book design and typesetting by:

Janet Perrier-Schwartz, Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Printed and bound in Canada
(c) Pierre Sinclaire 1995

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATOMIC ENERGY. PLANETARY GAMBLING
One of the papers left by W.B. Smith raises the question about what threshold has been crossed with the development of atomic energy. He titled it "Are We Entering- Or Leaving?" It warns that an atomic explosion - either fission or fusion - in a large body of fresh water such as the Great Lakes would convert the hydrogen in the water into a hydrogen bomb. "There could result a blast of such intensity that it would envelope the entire planet in a few seconds, vaporizing everything on its surface..."
Smith said the scenario is "not idle speculation. It is based on the same data, calculations and measurements as produced the atom bomb."
What did the extraterrestrial visitors tell him about dangers of nuclear technology? In a separate paper on Binding Forces, Smith wrote, "They also passed off a few uncomplimentary remarks about our propensity for shooting off atom bombs which actually created a pair of such 'vortices' with each explosion."
These deadly vortices are areas where the binding force in matter has been weakened. Smith and associates learned about this horrifying concept after asking "the people from elsewhere", through contacts, if a series of airplane crashes was caused by flying too close to extraterrestrial craft.
The visitors told the Earth-bound researchers that, while a very few airplanes had flown too close to UFOs, the saucer pilots had become so careful that this cause was nearly eliminated.
"We were informed, however, that our pilots flew around in complete disregard of the regions of reduced binding (force in physical materials) with which this planet is afflicted."