THE NUKE HOAX

Global War deceptions & mass manipulation, fear-mongering terror schemes and propaganda in the Age of the Bomb
Post Reply
Maat
Member
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Unread post by Maat » Mon May 06, 2013 4:29 pm

:lol: Oh geez, and I thought it couldn't get any funnier! So, who woulda thunk that 75,000 kg would be harder to push through air than 53,000 kg through water :wacko: :rolleyes:, just 22,000 kg difference? :P

Well, old George Carlin aptly called the "arms race" idiocy a "dick measuring contest". Silly buggers!

brianv
Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Unread post by brianv » Mon May 06, 2013 4:37 pm

Image

This is awful photoshopping. I guess the crane is analogous to a "nukular" explosion.

Image

lux
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Unread post by lux » Mon May 06, 2013 4:42 pm

Image
Gosh -- I wonder who took this "photo" and where they were located?

Note this 2010-dated video purporting to show "Le Terrible" launching an M51 ...

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5T3Kfd8JIg
...which starts off with a close shot of the sub but then pulls back miles for the alleged launch (which looks fake to me).

----------------

But, this brings up another question: How are missiles launched from a submarine?

The answer is not easy to find on the web but I did find this brief description about Polaris missiles.
Polaris submarines carried each missile in a separate launch tube. Down the street from Lockheed in Sunnyvale, another American corporate icon, Westinghouse became the developer of the launch tube for the Polaris missile. To launch missiles from a submarine under water, Westinghouse had to solve several problems. The launch tube had to keep the missile snug in its tube until firing. It had to eject the missile with sufficient velocity so it would head to the surface for a 100’ feet under water, and it had to protect the submarine when ocean water came rushing in to the now empty launch tube. Oil-filled shock absorbers solved the cushioning problem and compressed air launched the missile out of the tube through a thin diaphragm that separated the missile from the ocean once the missile launch covers were opened.
So, these missiles weighing 10s of thousands of Kgs are shot up to the surface for a distance of as much as 100 feet using compressed air. Huh? :blink:

hoi.polloi
Administrator
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Sat May 11, 2013 5:12 pm

Wow, I just saw this. Hilarious!

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6796
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Unread post by simonshack » Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:38 am

*

OBAMA TO REDUCE NUCLEAR ARSENALS BY ONE THIRD

These "news" reached me today through the major Italian newspaper "LA REPUBBLICA":

http://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2013/06 ... ef=HREC1-3

Image

As I googled for English versions of these "nuclear disarmament" news, I found nothing but some old articles going back to February of this year (2013). Here's one of them:
Obama to Further Disarm US Nuclear Weaponry

"President Barack Obama is expected to soon issue a new directive on his efforts to drastically reduce U.S. nuclear forces. It would be the latest marker in his stated goal of eliminating such weapons worldwide."
(...)

Frank Gaffney, the founder and president of the Center for Security Policy, questions the effectiveness of U.S. nuclear weapons in fulfilling a minimal role.

Gaffney tells Newsmax that the U.S. nuclear-weapons stockpile is quickly becoming obsolete because of platforms dating as far back as the Manhattan Project in the 1940s and an over-reliance on computer modeling instead of real-world testing.

“How on earth do you know that they would actually work?” Gaffney said. “This is one of the dirtiest little secrets in our country, and I think the American people would be horrified if they knew.”
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama- ... /id/492085
Good Heavens! How silly this nuke hoax all is! :rolleyes:

Relax, people! THERE ARE NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS ON THIS PLANET!

icarusinbound
Member
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:49 am

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Unread post by icarusinbound » Mon Jun 24, 2013 7:10 pm

Broken Arrow, Spain 1966

'Accidental' loss of Atomic weapons.... :ph34r:

There have been very-few claimed incidents of this sort over the years. The Palomares and Thule instances may be unique..
The 1966 Palomares B-52 crash or Palomares incident occurred on 17 January 1966, when a B-52G bomber of the USAF Strategic Air Command collided with a KC-135 tanker during mid-air refuelling at 31,000 feet (9,450 m) over the Mediterranean Sea, off the coast of Spain. The KC-135 was completely destroyed when its fuel load ignited, killing all four crew members. The B-52G broke apart, killing three of the seven crew members aboard.

Of the four Mk28 type hydrogen bombs the B-52G carried, three were found on land near the small fishing village of Palomares in the municipality of Cuevas del Almanzora, Almería, Spain. The non-nuclear explosives in two of the weapons detonated upon impact with the ground, resulting in the contamination of a 2-square-kilometer (490-acre) (0.78 square mile) area by plutonium. The fourth, which fell into the Mediterranean Sea, was recovered intact after a 2½-month-long search.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Palomares_B-52_crash

Image
The recovered hydrogen bomb displayed on the fantail of the submarine rescue ship USS Petrel (ASR-14) after it was located by DSV Alvin at a depth of 2,500 feet (760 m)
Image
http://www.fotoforensics.com/analysis.p ... 68c7.69743

The pixel compression where the warhead is depicted is completely-different from it's claimed surroundings. That's just one strange part of a rather-curious story.
http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects/archive/nucweapons/box7-3 wrote:For three months, 1,700 U.S. personnel and Spanish Civil Guards worked to decontaminate the area. An estimated 1,400 tons of radioactive soil and vegetation was excavated and sent to the United States for disposal (at the Savannah River Plant) and crops of tomatoes were buried or burned. Through all this, U.S. personnel wore protective clothing and underwent regular radiation checks; such measures were not taken for the Spanish workers. (The Air Force commander in charge later stated, "the U.S. Air Force was unprepared to provide adequate detection and monitoring for its personnel when an aircraft accident occurred involving plutonium weapons in a remote area of a foreign country.")

A radiation survey conducted jointly by the Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA) and the Junta de Energia Nuclear (JEN) found that no less than 650 acres (more than 1 square mile [2.59 square kilometers]) of village, crops, and farms were contaminated; however, during the survey winds picked up and scattered the plutonium dust, and the DNA's subsequent report noted: "The total extent of the spread will never be known." Yet there was only sporadic monitoring of villagers and no effort to determine what level of contamination was acceptable. As the DNA's report later noted, "The Spanish government had not established criteria for permissible levels, which is completely understandable because plutonium-producing facilities and nuclear weapons were non-existent in Spain. Significantly, there were no criteria in the United States for accident situations. The available criteria pertained only to plutonium processing plants." Thus, the DNA applied guidelines governing fallout from tests at the Nevada Test Site.
http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects ... ons/box7-3

This may be worthy of further research- ideally from sources other than Wiki. Only recently I had to ditch a whole pile of mouldy aerospace magazines that dated from the mid-1940s, through to the early 1970s- I had no option, as physical storage in my life is a constant challenge. Although I didn't manage to do a total check of every one, I could see no contemporary comments on the Spanish saga.

Does anyone have access to good-old immutable undigitised microfiche? Or is it now all shovelled into the fire??

diagonal2
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Unread post by diagonal2 » Thu Jul 04, 2013 3:07 am

It seems media are calling high yield explosives as "nukes" now - a "nuke" implies it uses "radioactive materials(uranium-235)", I've seen on countless sites calling the tsar bomba a nuke when it is just a simply a scaled up TNT bomb (destructive non-the less). This guy explains it well: http://heiwaco.tripod.com/bomb.htm

diagonal2
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Unread post by diagonal2 » Thu Jul 04, 2013 3:50 am


ElSushi
Member
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:53 am

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Unread post by ElSushi » Mon Aug 05, 2013 6:17 pm

Our dear Nuke Hoaxers never cease to amaze me.

In Hiroshima, there are permanent shadows caused by the intensity of the nuclear blast when the bomb was dropped.
http://imgur.com/gallery/S2YUd

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

And guess who's in Japan right now visiting Hiroshima for the 68th anniversary of the Hiroshima "bombing"?
You got it.Sir Oliver Stone, himself.
U.S. Film Producer Oliver Stone To Meet Hiroshima Survivors

TOKYO, Aug 5 (Bernama) -- U.S. film director Oliver Stone will meet with atomic bomb survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki this week as the two cities commemorate lives lost in the U.S. atomic bombings in 1945, Xinhua news agency reported.

Stone, who arrived in Hiroshima on Sunday, will attend a memorial ceremony Tuesday and visit Nagasaki and Okinawa thereafter, event organisers at the Japan Council against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs said.

A series of events titled "Toward a nuclear weapon-free, peaceful and just world" will be held from Aug 3 to 9 to commemorate the bombings that led to Japan's surrender at the end of World War II.

Stone will join delegations from 18 countries and hundreds of local participants, local media reported Monday.

The film director visited the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum where he took time to speak to an elderly lady who survived the Hiroshima tragedy, and examined pictures and plaques related to the 1945 bombing of the city.

Stone, currently involved in making a documentary that questions the U.S.'s use of nuclear weapons in 1945, was quoted as saying the travesty of the events had "strongly affected him."

Similar events and memorial ceremonies will be held from Aug 7 through Aug 9 in Nagasaki, where Stone is also scheduled to meet with survivors.

Stone is well known for a series of films he directed depicting the Vietnam War.

He has received three Academy Awards for his work on the films "Midnight Express", "Platoon", and "Born on the Fourth of July".

Official statistics show that within the first two to four months of the U.S. bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, between 90,000 and 166,000 people lost their lives in Hiroshima and another 60,000 to 80,000 died in Nagasaki.

-- BERNAMA
http://www.bernama.com.my/bernama/v7/wn ... ?id=968449

lux
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Unread post by lux » Tue Aug 13, 2013 11:33 pm

I just had a little thought about the nuclear power hoax. As has already been mentioned, nuke power stations are suspected of being “dump loads,” that is, electrical “loads” (resistance devices) which simply burn up excess electrical current. My thought, which carries this a bit further, is that these loads are specifically heating elements inside the boilers which heat up the water that is supposed to be heated by a nuclear furnace. So, electrical power comes INTO the station (secretly), is directed to the boiler heating elements which heats the water, making the steam which drives the turbines and, in turn, produces electric current which is then directed OUT of the station to the grid. This seems like it makes the scam quite easy to hide since power IS being generated and fed out to the grid but, of course, the net result is a loss of power from the conversion to heat and back to electrical power again. The only thing one would have to hide then would be the INCOMING power and the substitution of the nuke furnace with simple electrical heating elements. Since very, very few if any workers would ever actually enter a nuclear furnace, this makes it rather easy to hide. And, an underground incoming power line would be easy to hide as well. The rest is just a fake control board fed by a computer that simulates the nuke furnace operation parameters.

What they tell us:
Image

What it might really be:
Image

So a nuke power station is just a merry-go-round for electrical power -- it comes in, is converted to heat used to boil water which turns a generator which produces electrical power (with losses from conversion) and then goes back out again.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6796
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Unread post by simonshack » Wed Aug 14, 2013 2:08 am

*

Lux,


Take a look at L3 MAPPS - the "World's leading Simulation Company" - in their own words!
Image

"Providing more than just training devices, our simulator solutions—powered by L-3 MAPPS' unparalleled Orchid® suite of simulation products—will take your engineering team to new heights in approaching plant design issues, procedural deficiencies and reliability improvements."

http://www.mapps.l-3com.com/power-syste ... ation.html
Here's some other stuff that they do:

Space Systems and Simulation
http://www.mapps.l-3com.com/space-syste ... ation.html

Space Vehicle Simulation
http://www.mapps.l-3com.com/space-vehic ... ation.html

Nuff said? <_<

lux
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Unread post by lux » Wed Aug 14, 2013 2:55 am

Wow! Great find, Simon.

They're involved with the ISS too according to their brochures.

But, as for the nuke simulator hardware – yeah, that's what I'M talkin' about!

lux
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Unread post by lux » Sun Aug 18, 2013 1:34 pm

When hoaxes collide.

Image

Q:What's better then a news hoax?
A: Why, two or more news hoaxes combined, of course!

News media now reporting that fake terrorists could pull off fake attacks on fake nuclear plants placing many fake citizens at fake risk! (You know, like 9/11 ... 9/11 ... 9/11 ...9/11 ... )

Here is one example (there are many more) of this story now circulating the MSM:
Report: U.S. nuclear plants remain vulnerable to terrorists
Washington (CNN) -- None of the 107 nuclear facilities in the United States are protected against a high-force terrorist attack, and some are still vulnerable to the theft of bomb-grade nuclear fuel, or sabotage intended to cause a nuclear meltdown, a new report says.
More BS here.

But the story also seems to both support and poo-poo the report -- I guess they just have to include some controversy or it isn't news!

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6796
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Unread post by simonshack » Sun Aug 18, 2013 6:12 pm

lux wrote: Q:What's better then a news hoax?
A: Why, two or more news hoaxes combined, of course!
And it gets even 'better', dear Lux ! :rolleyes:

The very same chap who scolds the US government for not properly protecting their nuclear un-clear facilities - Alan J. Kuperman - wrote this op-ed in the New York Times back in 2009. Here are selected, plum excerpts of it (with my underlinings):

There’s Only One Way to Stop Iran

By ALAN J. KUPERMAN
Published: December 23, 2009 - New York Times

"The United States faces a stark choice: military air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities or acquiescence to Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons."

"We have reached the point where air strikes are the only plausible option with any prospect of preventing Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons."

"...Iran’s atomic sites might need to be bombed more than once :blink: to persuade Tehran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons."

"...because the American military has global reach, air strikes against Iran would be a strong warning to other would-be proliferators."


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/opini ... gewanted=2
What a strange world, huh? The same dude who fears un-clear terror attacks in the US ... wants the US to terrorize other nations by bombing their un-clear plants in multiple air strikes ! :lol:

But the funniest of all is this statement that professor Kuperman utters in a recent TV interview - as he expounds his argumentation as to precisely why the US taxpayers must spend more money protecting their homeland's un-clear plants:

"US civilian nuclear facilities have to defend against the potential attack from .... maybe 5 or 6 attackers - but we KNOW that the maximum credible threat is at least 19 attackers, which is what occured on 9/11."

You may not actually believe that professor Kuperman (the director of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Program at the University of Texas) actually uttered this inane howler - so here it is, at ... 1:11 into this short video. Enjoy !

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0nXDVKjSW0

You will (hopefully) excuse me, but it is at times like these that I just cannot hold back a little rant: as I see such outrageously ridiculous individuals - like this Kuperman clown - I sense the urgency of 'doing something about it' and allow myself to issue statements of my own, for what they're worth. There can only be two possible options as to what this Kuperman fellow is - and only one way to stop such folks from spreading their madness :

OPTION1: The man is a complete idiot - (he seriously believes in the stuff he writes and says) and a dangerous threat to civilized society at that. He urgently needs to be confined in a mental institution.

OPTION2: The man works for the 'Nutwork' (the dangerously sociopathic group that currently controls this planet). He is paid to write and utter recklessly insane stuff - and happily lives with it! He urgently needs to be confined - along with his superiors - in a mental institution.

So there. Now, go ahead and call me a "wacky tinfoil-hatter out of his meds" if you wish. I enjoy the freedom of speech that we still have - and will use it to its full extent as long as it lasts. Rant over. Time for me to put together a staid, 'politically correct' op-ed for the New York Times...

kickstones
Member
Posts: 260
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:15 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Unread post by kickstones » Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:16 pm

simonshack wrote:*

OBAMA TO REDUCE NUCLEAR ARSENALS BY ONE THIRD

These "news" reached me today through the major Italian newspaper "LA REPUBBLICA":

http://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2013/06 ... ef=HREC1-3

Image

As I googled for English versions of these "nuclear disarmament" news, I found nothing but some old articles going back to February of this year (2013). Here's one of them:
Obama to Further Disarm US Nuclear Weaponry

"President Barack Obama is expected to soon issue a new directive on his efforts to drastically reduce U.S. nuclear forces. It would be the latest marker in his stated goal of eliminating such weapons worldwide."
(...)

Frank Gaffney, the founder and president of the Center for Security Policy, questions the effectiveness of U.S. nuclear weapons in fulfilling a minimal role.

Gaffney tells Newsmax that the U.S. nuclear-weapons stockpile is quickly becoming obsolete because of platforms dating as far back as the Manhattan Project in the 1940s and an over-reliance on computer modeling instead of real-world testing.

“How on earth do you know that they would actually work?” Gaffney said. “This is one of the dirtiest little secrets in our country, and I think the American people would be horrified if they knew.”
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama- ... /id/492085
Good Heavens! How silly this nuke hoax all is! :rolleyes:

Relax, people! THERE ARE NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS ON THIS PLANET!

Yes Simon, but like Anders Björkman points out below, what happened to the tax payers money?


"As an atomic bomb doesn't work it is interesting to note the enormous amounts of $ money, missiles, launch pads, war heads and persons involved to keep the US hoax alive. If that money is or was really spent or just another hoax, is another matter. Evidently you need some money/persons to keep the hoax going:

- Except where noted all figures are in constant 1996 dollars -

1. Cost of the Manhattan Project (through August 1945): $20,000,000,000

SOURCE: Richard G. Hewlett and Oscar E. Anderson, Jr., The New World: A History of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, Volume 1, 1939/1946 (Oak Ridge, Tennessee: U.S. AEC Technical Information Center, 1972), pp. 723-724; Condensed AEC Annual Financial Report, FY 1953 (in Fifteenth Semiannual Report of the Atomic Energy Commission, January 1954, p. 73)

2. Total number of nuclear missiles built, 1951-present: 67,500

SOURCE: U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project

3. Estimated construction costs for more than 1,000 ICBM launch pads and silos, and support facilities, from 1957-1964: nearly $14,000,000,000

SOURCE: Maj. C.D. Hargreaves, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ballistic Missile Construction Office (CEBMCO), "Introduction to the CEBMCO Historical Report and History of the Command Section, Pre-CEBMCO Thru December 1962," p. 8; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ballistic Missile Construction Office, "U.S. Air Force ICBM Construction Program," undated chart (circa 1965)

4. Total number of nuclear bombers built, 1945-present: 4,680

SOURCE: U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project

5. Peak number of nuclear warheads and bombs in the stockpile/year: 32,193/1966

SOURCE: Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Data book Project

6. Total number and types of nuclear warheads and bombs built, 1945-1990: more than 70,000/65 types

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy; Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Data book Project

7. Number currently in the stockpile (2002): 10,600 (7,982 deployed, 2,700 hedge/contingency stockpile)

SOURCE: Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Data book Project

8. Number of nuclear warheads requested by the Army in 1956 and 1957: 151,000

SOURCE: History of the Custody and Deployment of Nuclear Weapons, July 1945 Through September 1977, Prepared by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Atomic Energy), February 1978, p. 50 (formerly Top Secret)

9. Projected operational U.S. strategic nuclear warheads and bombs after full enactment of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty in 2012: 1,700-2,200

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Defense; Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Data book Project

10. Additional strategic and non-strategic warheads not limited by the treaty that the U.S. military wants to retain as a "hedge" against unforeseen future threats: 4,900

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Defense; Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Data book Project

11. Largest and smallest nuclear bombs ever deployed: B17/B24 (~42,000 lbs., 10-15 megatons); W54 (51 lbs., .01 kilotons, .02 kilotons-1 kiloton)

SOURCE: Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Data book Project

12. Peak number of operating domestic uranium mines (1955): 925

SOURCE: Nineteenth Semiannual Report of the Atomic Energy Commission, January 1956, p. 31

13. Fissile material produced: 104 metric tons of plutonium and 994 metric tons of highly-enriched uranium

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy

14. Amount of plutonium still in weapons: 43 metric tons

SOURCE: Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Data book Project

15. Number of thermometers which could be filled with mercury used to produce lithium-6 at the Oak Ridge Reservation: 11 billion

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy

16. Number of dismantled plutonium "pits" stored at the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas: 12,067 (as of May 6, 1999)

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy

17. States with the largest number of nuclear weapons (in 1999): New Mexico (2,450), Georgia (2,000), Washington (1,685), Nevada (1,350), and North Dakota (1,140)

SOURCE: William M. Arkin, Robert S. Norris, and Joshua Handler, Taking Stock: Worldwide Nuclear Deployments 1998 (Washington, D.C.: Natural Resources Defense Council, March 1998)

18. Total known land area occupied by U.S. nuclear weapons bases and facilities: 15,654 square miles

SOURCE: U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project

19. Total land area of the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and New Jersey: 15,357 square miles

SOURCE: Rand McNally Road Atlas and Travel Guide, 1992

20. Legal fees paid by the Department of Energy to fight lawsuits from workers and private citizens concerning nuclear weapons production and testing activities, from October 1990 through March 1995: $97,000,000

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy

21. Money paid by the State Department to Japan following fallout from the 1954 "Bravo" test: $15,300,000

SOURCE: Barton C. Hacker, Elements of Controversy: The Atomic Energy Commission and Radiation Safety in Nuclear Weapons Testing, 1947-1974, University of California Press, 1994, p. 158

22. Money and non-monetary compensation paid by the United States to Marshallese Islanders since 1956 to redress damages from nuclear testing: at least $759,000,000

SOURCE: U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project

23. Money paid to U.S. citizens under the Radiation Exposure and Compensation Act of 1990, as of January 13, 1998: approximately $225,000,000 (6,336 claims approved; 3,156 denied)

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Torts Branch, Civil Division

24. Total cost of the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion (ANP) program, 1946-1961: $7,000,000,000

SOURCE: "Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Program," Report of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, September 1959, pp. 11-12

25. Total number of nuclear-powered aircraft and airplane hangars built: 0 and 1

SOURCE: Ibid; "American Portrait: ANP," WFAA-TV (Dallas), 1993. Between July 1955 and March 1957, a specially modified B-36 bomber made 47 flights with a three megawatt air-cooled operational test reactor (the reactor, however, did not power the plane).

26. Number of secret Presidential Emergency Facilities built for use during and after a nuclear war: more than 75

SOURCE: Bill Gulley with Mary Ellen Reese, Breaking Cover, Simon and Schuster, 1980, pp. 34- 36

27. Currency stored until 1988 by the Federal Reserve at its Mount Pony facility for use after a nuclear war: more than 2,000,000,000

SOURCE: Edward Zuckerman, The Day After World War III, The Viking Press, 1984, pp. 287-88

28. Amount of silver in tons once used at the Oak Ridge, TN, Y-12 Plant for electrical magnet coils: 14,700

SOURCE: Vincent C. Jones, Manhattan: The Army and the Bomb, U.S. Army Center for Military History, 1985, pp. 66-7

29. Total number of U.S. nuclear weapons tests, 1945-1992: 1,030 (1,125 nuclear devices detonated; 24 additional joint tests with Great Britain)

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy

30. First and last test: July 16, 1945 ("Trinity") and September 23, 1992 ("Divider")

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy

31. Estimated amount spent between October 1, 1992 and October 1, 1995 on nuclear testing activities: $1,200,000,000 (0 tests)

SOURCE: U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project

32. Cost of 1946 Operation Crossroads weapons tests ("Able" and "Baker") at Bikini Atoll: $1,300,000,000

SOURCE: Weisgall, Operation Crossroads, pp. 294, 371

33. Largest U.S. atomic explosion/date: 15 Megatons/March 1, 1954 ("Bravo")

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy

34. Number of islands in Enewetak atoll vaporized by the November 1, 1952 "Mike" H-bomb test: 1

SOURCE: Chuck Hansen, U.S. Nuclear Weapons: The Secret History, Orion Books, 1988, pp. 58-59, 95

35. Number of nuclear tests in the Pacific: 106

SOURCE: Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Data book Project

36. Number of U.S. nuclear tests in Nevada: 911

SOURCE: Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Data book Project

37. Number of nuclear weapons tests in Alaska [1, 2, and 3], Colorado [1 and 2], Mississippi and New Mexico [1, 2 and 3]: 10

SOURCE: Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Data book Project

38. Operational naval nuclear propulsion reactors vs. operational commercial power reactors (in 1999): 129 vs. 108

SOURCE: Adm. Bruce De Mars, Deputy Assistant Director for Naval Reactors, U.S. Navy; Nuclear Regulatory Commission

39. Number of attack (SSN) and ballistic missile (SSBN) submarines (2002): 53 SSNs and 18 SSBNs

SOURCE: Adm. Bruce De Mars, Deputy Assistant Director for Naval Reactors, U.S. Navy

40. Number of high level radioactive waste tanks in Washington, Idaho and South Carolina: 239

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy

41. Volume in cubic meters of radioactive waste resulting from weapons activities: 104,000,000

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy; Institute for Energy and Environmental Research

42. Number of designated targets for U.S. weapons in the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) in 1976, 1986, and 1995: 25,000 (1976), 16,000 (1986) and 2,500 (1995)

SOURCE: Bruce Blair, Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution

43. Cost of January 17, 1966 nuclear weapons accident over Palomares, Spain (including two lost planes, an extended search and recovery effort, waste disposal in the U.S. and settlement claims): $182,000,000

SOURCE: Joint Committee on Atomic Energy Interoffice Memorandum, February 15, 1968; Center for Defense Information

44. Number of U.S. nuclear bombs lost in accidents and never recovered: 11

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Defense; Center for Defense Information; Greenpeace; "Lost Bombs," Atwood-Keeney Productions, Inc., 1997

45. Number of Department of Energy federal employees (in 1996): 18,608

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Worker and Community Transition

46. Number of Department of Energy contractor employees (in 1996): 109,242

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Worker and Community Transition

47. Minimum number of classified pages estimated to be in the Department of Energy's possession (1995): 280 million

SOURCE: A Review of the Department of Energy Classification Policy and Practice, Committee on Declassification of Information for the Department of Energy Environmental Remediation and Related Programs, National Research Council, 1995, pp. 7-8, 68.

48. Ballistic missile defense spending in 1965 vs. 1995: $2,200,000,000 vs. $2,600,000,000

SOURCE: U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project

49. Average cost per warhead to the U.S. to help Kazakhstan dismantle 104 SS-18 ICBMs carrying more than 1,000 warheads: $70,000

SOURCE: U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project; Arms Control Association

50. Estimated 1998 spending on all U.S. nuclear weapons and weapons-related programs: $35,100,000,000

SOURCE: U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project"


http://heiwaco.tripod.com/bomb.htm

Post Reply