Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,550 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 496,108
Pageviews Today: 638,644Threads Today: 115Posts Today: 1,850
04:48 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

"Divine Strake" in Nevada on June 2nd *could* be nuclear !

 
neti
User ID: 83837
Australia
04/23/2006 11:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
"Divine Strake" in Nevada on June 2nd *could* be nuclear !
[link to www.democraticunderground.com] Divine Strake was a simulation of a nuclear bomb, they lied again!

They were full of fertilizer (or at least ANFO) after all! I pulled an Emily Litella and thought it was "Divine Strike" not Strake, so when I went to research it I didn't find the following article. This is why the test was postponed. Last week Hans Kristensen of nukestrat.com [link to www.nukestrat.com] found out Congress and the Federation of American Scientists [link to en.wikipedia.org] had been told Divine Strake was a simulation of a nuclear bomb using conventional explosives. Almost certainly a simulation of a modified B61-11 [link to en.wikipedia.org] or 10 (the 10 can actually set its yield to equal the conventional bomb being tested.) What they have probably done is place the warhead from the B61-10 in the B61-11 and called it RNEP [link to en.wikipedia.org] [Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator]. It all fits together quite nicely with Sy Hersh's report this past weekend about some of the Joint Chiefs resigning if the nuclear option is not removed from the table of Iran plans.

Here is the text of Mr. Kristensen's story from nukestrat's [link to www.nukestrat.com] homepage:
The Divine Strake explosion scheduled at the Nevada Test Site in June 2006 will simulate use of a low-yield nuclear weapon against a tunnel. The simulation is "an integral part" of STRATCOM's new Global Strike mission and follows a secret directive signed by President George W. Bush in 2004 that ordered STRATCOM to "extend Global Strike to counter all to include both tactical and strategic adversarial targets."


This explains why the Washington Post story [link to www.washingtonpost.com] was so absurd. They claimed that this bomb was part of research to built a new humongous bunker buster as an alternative to the "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator" proposed by the Bush administration. This simply could not occur because *no *conventional *explosive *is *powerful *enough *to produce *a *593 *ton *of *TNT *explosion *without *being *heavier *than *any *aircraft *in *the *US *arsenal *or *the *bomb *load *they *can *carry. Only a nuclear weapon would be small enough yet produce that size of explosion. This new revelation is just another clue that the Bush administration may actually be considering using a nuclear bunker buster against Iran.




[link to www.floggingthesimian.com] Divine Strake = Pump and Fake?

I've noted a lot of milblogs referring to a recent story carried in the traditional media about Pentagon plans to test a humongous bomb. Here [link to www.chicagotribune.com] is a typical article on the subject:

>>
The Pentagon plans to explode a 700-ton conventional bomb on June 2 at the Nevada atomic test site as part of a military program to develop weapons for destroying underground enemy bunkers.

The blast will be one of the largest bomb tests since the end of the Cold War.

Tegnelia described the ground-level blast--dubbed "Divine Strake"--as an experiment to assess so-called bunker-buster weapons now in development. The test "allows us to be able to predict ... how well they can work against granite, hard structures," he said.
<<

Interestingly enough, this bomb HAS to be exploded on the ground because there is no plane in the entire world that can carry such a huge amount of explosives.

The world's largest cargo plane is the Antonov-225, of which exactly one model is functioning, and it only carries 250 tons [link to www.airfoyle.co.uk] . Even if there more of those planes, it would take 3 of them to hoist that heavy of a bomb. It's just physically impossible to do it with a single plane.

A C-130 only carries 35 tons, a C-5 Galaxy about 54 tons and a C-141 about 60 tons. So how on earth is this conventional bomb going to be dropped? From multiple airplanes simultaneously?

The reason I ask is because if the bomb is instead exploded while it is already on the ground, how on earth could that be used in the future as a "bunker buster" bomb?

The officials quoted in the various stories say the test is to see the results of explosives "in development" against granite and other hardened structures. But the reports all say that TNT will be used, which doesn't make sense. What's the point of exploding 700 tons of TNT when you can't even lift it into the sky, no matter how efficient at "bunker busting" it is?

Russian media [link to en.rian.ru] had a military analyst say the bomb test isn't really about testing new weapons, but a political move:

>>
"It could be a move to threaten Iran, North Korea or any other regimes that the United States is not pleased with," said Anatoly Tsiganok, head of the Center for Military Forecasting, adding that it could be regarded as an attempt to demonstrate U.S. military superiority over Russia and China.

Tsiganok said Russia was unlikely to follow the U.S. example, and would not conduct similar tests.

"We have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the use of conventional explosives with yield comparable to that of a small nuclear bomb could be regarded as a violation of the treaty," he said.
<<

So it's sort of like a gigantic version of beating one's chest to show physical prowess? Me America, me have big weapons. You China, you small weapons?

Well all I know is that the tinfoil hat brigade (and even a few industry insiders [link to www.defensetech.org] ) are going nuts on this issue, saying it won't be a conventional weapons test at all but actually some kind of "small nuke" test, otherwise known as the "mini nuke".

The problem with standard nuclear weapons is that billions of dollars have been spent on their design, production and maintenance and yet they've had almost no military impact after the first two were dropped on Japan. Once the Soviet Union had the formula for building one, the U.S., France, Britain, China and the Soviets all armed themselves to the teeth but it did nothing except deter the other side from also using them.

Meanwhile all the wars the United States has been in since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, from Viet Nam to Korea to Panama to Serbia to both Iraqs, nuclear weapons have been absolutely useless. Millions of dollars worth of hardware and the Pentagon can't find a use for it except as "deterrence" and (and even that isn't too effective against North Korea).

The "miniature" nuclear weapon's hottest prospects are to destroy hardened underground facilities. From Serbia to both Iraq wars to the looming conflict with Iran, there's a strong desire (bordering on lust) for the military to have an air-dropped weapon it can use to render every square inch of the planet destroyable on command.

Although there are restrictions on the development of "mini nukes", several Senators [link to www.fas.org] have tried to pass legislation to end these barriers. Indeed there is already a so-called "mini nuke", designated the B61-11, developed in 1997. Ironically many conservative groups opposed the B61-11 and said it was a dangerous project, but of course that was during President Clinton's administration.

The few tests performed on the B61-11 [link to www.brook.edu] unfortunately showed it did a poor job at what the military needs it to do - burrow underground and destroy hardened facilities (bunkers). The military has been working on conventional explosives to do just that, including the Deep Digger [link to www.newscientist.com] , tested just this year. The Deep Digger works essentially by firing a special gun [link to www.defensetech.org] at the target before the main bomb explodes, thus "carving" out a hole before impact.

Probably the best known conventional bunker "buster" is the GBU-43/B [link to en.wikipedia.org] , more commonly referred to as the Mother of all Bombs. Yet the MOAB weighs just 13 tons, in comparison to the 700 tons the Pentagon wants to explode in June.

Many authors including William Arkin have written about the Pentagon's plan to refit Trident [link to www.fas.org] ballistic missiles for a conventional payload. Since these are carried and fired from submarines, it would give the Pentagon to ability to hit almost any target on Earth within a matter of minutes.

The traditional media articles about the June test of 700 tons of TNT all have a variant of this:

>>
Irene Smith, a spokeswoman for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, said it will register between 3.1 and 3.4 on the Richter sale but that "there will be no adverse effects to surrounding facilities either on or off the Nevada Test Site."

The U.S. plans to alert the Russian government beforehand to explain that the seismic activity is not a nuclear test, Tegnelia said.

Any mushroom cloud kicked into the atmosphere by the June explosion would be free of radioactive debris because the bomb is not a nuclear weapon and the ground where the explosion will occur was never used for atomic explosions, Smith added.
<<

So we're going to warn the Russians so they don't think it's a nuclear test. And the public is being told that if they see what looks like a mushroom cloud to "not worry" because it's not a nuclear weapon. But my question is, if it actually IS the testing of a small-yield "mini" nuclear weapon, who will know? It's being done at an extremely remote military site in the Nevada desert and they're not going to let journalists or the public in close enough to wave a Geiger counter around.

The United States has signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty [link to www.ctbto.org] but not ratified it, meaning the U.S. is not bound by this treaty at all! And when did the U.S. sign it? In 1996, during Clinton's administration. Russia has signed and ratified the treaty however. Which means the U.S. would be perfectly within its international rights if it exploded a small-yield nuclear weapon in June.

Could the tinfoil hatters be right? There's no way to know. But I wouldn't trust the government to tell me the time of day, much less accurately inform me on the nature of a military experiment. The fact that they've been pushing this test so much to the press is ominous enough unto itself.

Divine Strike [link to technorati.com] MOAB [link to technorati.com] bunker buster [link to technorati.com]

peace
neti (OP)
User ID: 83837
Australia
04/23/2006 12:20 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Divine Strake" in Nevada on June 2nd *could* be nuclear !
Do any of you have more information about it, that you can share?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 696
Netherlands
04/23/2006 12:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Divine Strake" in Nevada on June 2nd *could* be nuclear !
Maybe it's a cover to try and test a new "sub-critical" nuclear explosion device...

If it works and can keep it quiet the may be deploying one of them in one of the US cities...
yass
User ID: 84794
United States
04/23/2006 12:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Divine Strake" in Nevada on June 2nd *could* be nuclear !
it is my sincere wish that this will not happen, rather heads will roll in hopi land...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 84793
United States
04/23/2006 12:49 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Divine Strake" in Nevada on June 2nd *could* be nuclear !
Ah yes, just as I suspected, another thread with lots of information, all linked to a variety of sources and nothing but one star votes. Again the Bush trolls are running around trying to give single stars to anything that displays the corruption of this detestible regime. Again, none of them have an opinion that merits posting, much less a rational discussion of what is including. So, I am not going to give a higher rating because I think people should be made to notice the slime that is here today.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 58646
United States
04/23/2006 12:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Divine Strake" in Nevada on June 2nd *could* be nuclear !
MAYBE IT WILL SET OFF A BIG ONE IN CALI AN THEN THE SHEEPLE WILL FINALLY RISE UP AN KICK SUM ARS LOL
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 84801
United States
04/23/2006 01:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Divine Strake" in Nevada on June 2nd *could* be nuclear !
What is so 'Divine' about a 700 ton bomb?
neti (OP)
User ID: 83837
Australia
04/23/2006 01:32 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Divine Strake" in Nevada on June 2nd *could* be nuclear !
That's just what's it's called, AC 84801, just like tptb have taken over the ancient wisdom/religion and turned it around..
D. BunkerModerator
Forum Administrator

User ID: 82298
United States
04/23/2006 02:21 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Divine Strake" in Nevada on June 2nd *could* be nuclear !
DIVINE STRAKE

Divine: Superhuman; godlike. Supremely good or beautiful; magnificent

Strake: A strake is a part of a boat or ship. It is a strip of planking in a wooden vessel or of plating in a metal one, running longitudinally along the vessel's side, its bottom or between them on the turn of the bilge.

Godlike 'perfect' Penetration

This is a test of a conventional bombs effectiveness on hardened underground bunkers.

From globalsecurity.org:

"The explosive yield (700 tons (635 metric tons) of ANFO emulsion) was selected based on modeling predictions of the amount of ANFO that would be needed to cause the appropriate extent of damage to the underground facility, and on information gained from the small and intermediate scale tests. A larger amount of ANFO emulsion is not needed for the Proposed Action, and a smaller amount would not be adequate to significantly damage the full scale tunnel facility."
savetata


Favorite Quote - "I just fucking love outer space, it has all those planets and stars and shit." - Mister Obvious 2009
Askakido

User ID: 72558
United States
04/23/2006 06:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Divine Strake" in Nevada on June 2nd *could* be nuclear !
Sort of reminds me of the tons of dynamite placed under the wall of some Confederate Fort during the US Civil War.

This is not a test of some air borne weapon. Tons and Tons of TNT etc, can be trucked in once the area is secure on the ground. You would still have to get to the underground bunkers somehow to take those bunkers out.

Before the Trinity July 16th, 1945 A-bomb test, there was a hugh pile of TNT set off for the scientists to just get a clearer idea of what the atomic blast might be like, to give them something to expect so the shock on them wouldn't be quite as great. I can't remember how many tons of TNT were used in that test. But it was the largest amount of TNT that had been set off piled in one spot up to that time.

ANFO, I wonder why not TNT?

The smallest publically known Nuclear blast was the equvilant of 10 Tons of TNT. That's right, a .01 Kiloton blast. I believe it was a test of a W54 warhead .
[link to en.wikipedia.org] [link to nuclearweaponarchive.org]



[link to www.lcnp.org]

"Used a stockpile W-54 Davy Crockett warhead suspended above the ground. The plutonium warhead had a diameter of 10.9 inches, a length of 15.7 inches, and weighed 50 lb. "

Weighed 50 pounds. Can you imagine the destructiveness of a B-52 flying at high attitude carpet bombing with these things?

If the USA had manufactured these in the quantities that we have manufactured 250 pounders and 500 pounders... oh, well.. nightmare stuff. Picture for scale [link to nuclearweaponarchive.org] how many of these could have been planted in the WTC towers? How many would it have taken to bring them down? Look at how small it is.

News