Like Project Blue Book, The AARO Is DoD's UAP Public Affairs And Coverup Office

defensescoop  |  AARO Director Sean Kirkpatrick issued a fiery statement spotlighting “his own personal observations and opinions” — but “not necessarily official DOD and IG positions” — on social media Thursday. The Pentagon authenticated his post Friday. 

In it, Kirkpatrick wrote that he “cannot let yesterday’s hearing pass without sharing how insulting it was to the officers of” the Defense Department and the intelligence community who have been “working diligently, tirelessly, and often in the face of harassment and animosity, to fulfill their Congressionally-mandated mission.”  

Allegations of “retaliation, to include physical assault and hints of murder, are extraordinarily serious, which is why law enforcement is a critical member of the AARO team, specifically to address and take swift action should anyone come forward with such claims. Yet, contrary to assertions made in the hearing, the central source of those allegations has refused to speak with AARO,” Kirkpatrick wrote — pointing at Grusch without directly stating his name. 

He also said AARO has yet to see credible proof regarding allegations of any reverse-engineering programs for non-human technology, and that some information reportedly obtained by Congress has not been shared with his office. 

Pentagon spokesperson Sue Gough declined to weigh in on Kirkpatrick’s statement in an email to DefenseScoop late Friday evening. 

“The department is aware of Dr. Kirkpatrick’s post, which are his personal opinions expressed in his capacity as a private citizen and we won’t comment directly on the contents of the post. We do want to reinforce the department’s unwavering commitment to openness and accountability to the American people and Congress,” she wrote.

Still, Gough’s official Pentagon responses also echoed some of the notions articulated by the AARO director.

“The department has no information that any individual has been harmed or killed as a result of providing information to AARO. Any unsubstantiated claims that individuals have been harmed or killed in the process of providing information to AARO will serve to discourage individuals with relevant information from coming forward to aid in AARO’s efforts,” she wrote.  

“To date, AARO has not discovered any verifiable information to substantiate claims that any programs regarding the possession or reverse-engineering of extraterrestrial materials have existed in the past or exist currently,” she reiterated.

Gough did not respond to follow-up questions from DefenseScoop Monday regarding new or existing channels for service members to flag UAP incidents, and whether or not there’s been an uptick in new reports to AARO — or intensified harassment — since the hearing. 

According to Graves, the former F-18 pilot who testified last week, DOD’s responses reflect “a perfect example of why witnesses are reluctant to come forward.”

“The Pentagon Press Office statement following the hearing was misleading. The disconnect between pilot witness testimony under oath at the Congressional hearing and the Pentagon Press Office’s dismissal is a perfect example of why witnesses are reluctant to come forward. It makes zero sense that our military would undermine its own servicemen and women when they are reporting serious flight risks,” he told DefenseScoop on Monday. 

Based on his own experiences with military-connected UAP, Graves formed and now runs the witness program Americans for Safe Aerospace to provide an entity for the public to safely and securely report observations or encounters. He testified at the hearing that his team estimates roughly only 5% of UAP sightings are currently reported to AARO.

“I hope Congress will hold DOD accountable and push for more support for witnesses and whistleblowers. For example, the [Pentagon] Press Office says AARO welcomes witness accounts — but AARO has not even implemented a public reporting mechanism as required by last year’s [National Defense Authorization Act]. How are witnesses even supposed to get in contact?” Graves told DefenseScoop.

Gen Mark Milley Don't Know Nuffin Dindu Nuffin Bout No UAP's...,

washingtontimes  |   EXIT INTERVIEW: Army Gen. Mark A. Milley has had a momentous — and at times polarizing — four-year run as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Presidents Trump and Biden. In the first of a series of articles ahead of the scheduled end of his tenure in October, Gen. Milley sat down with senior Washington Times military correspondent Ben Wolfgang to discuss some of the achievements and controversies of his time as the Pentagon’s highest-ranking military officer.

Some UFO sightings by military personnel are “difficult to explain,” said Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but the nation’s top general insists he has seen no evidence to back up public allegations that the Pentagon has recovered extraterrestrial beings or has engaged in decades of cover-ups to hide the truth from the American public.

In an exclusive interview with The Washington Times, Gen. Milley acknowledged that some reports of what the government now calls unidentified aerial phenomena, or UAP, lack easy explanations despite serious, ongoing research inside the Pentagon and a growing belief that at least some of the craft could pose national security threats. He made the comments less than two weeks after former U.S. intelligence officer David Grusch told Congress under oath that he is aware of “a multidecade UAP crash retrieval and reverse-engineering program” and even suggested that the Pentagon has been secretly keeping extraterrestrial bodies in storage.

Gen. Milley didn’t address the credibility of Mr. Grusch’s testimony but made clear he has seen no evidence backing up the extraordinary claims.

“The guy was under oath. I’m sure that he was trying to say whatever he thought was true. … I’m not going to doubt his testimony or anything like that,” Gen. Milley told The Times during a wide-ranging interview in his Pentagon office on Friday. “I can tell you, though, that as the chairman, I have been briefed on several different occasions by the [Pentagon’s] UAP office. And I have not seen anything that indicates to me about quote-unquote ‘aliens’ or that there’s some sort of cover-up program. I just haven’t seen it.” 

 

 

The Greatest Military In Human History

tomdispatch  |  In his message to the troops prior to the July 4th weekend, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin offered high praise indeed. “We have the greatest fighting force in human history,” he tweeted, connecting that claim to the U.S. having patriots of all colors, creeds, and backgrounds “who bravely volunteer to defend our country and our values.”

As a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel from a working-class background who volunteered to serve more than four decades ago, who am I to argue with Austin? Shouldn’t I just bask in the glow of his praise for today’s troops, reflecting on my own honorable service near the end of what now must be thought of as the First Cold War?

Yet I confess to having doubts. I’ve heard it all before. The hype. The hyperbole. I still remember how, soon after the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush boasted that this country had “the greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known.” I also remember how, in a pep talk given to U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2010, President Barack Obama declared them “the finest fighting force that the world has ever known.” And yet, 15 years ago at TomDispatch, I was already wondering when Americans had first become so proud of, and insistent upon, declaring our military the world’s absolute best, a force beyond compare, and what that meant for a republic that once had viewed large standing armies and constant warfare as anathemas to freedom.

In retrospect, the answer is all too straightforward: we need something to boast about, don’t we? In the once-upon-a-time “exceptional nation,” what else is there to praise to the skies or consider our pride and joy these days except our heroes? After all, this country can no longer boast of having anything like the world’s best educational outcomes, or healthcare system, or the most advanced and safest infrastructure, or the best democratic politics, so we better damn well be able to boast about having “the greatest fighting force” ever.

Leaving that boast aside, Americans could certainly brag about one thing this country has beyond compare: the most expensive military around and possibly ever. No country even comes close to our commitment of funds to wars, weapons (including nuclear ones at the Department of Energy), and global dominance. Indeed, the Pentagon’s budget for “defense” in 2023 exceeds that of the next 10 countries (mostly allies!) combined.

And from all of this, it seems to me, two questions arise: Are we truly getting what we pay so dearly for — the bestest, finest, most exceptional military ever? And even if we are, should a self-proclaimed democracy really want such a thing?

The answer to both those questions is, of course, no. After all, America hasn’t won a war in a convincing fashion since 1945. If this country keeps losing wars routinely and often enough catastrophically, as it has in places like Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, how can we honestly say that we possess the world’s greatest fighting force? And if we nevertheless persist in such a boast, doesn’t that echo the rhetoric of militaristic empires of the past? (Remember when we used to think that only unhinged dictators like Adolf Hitler boasted of having peerless warriors in a megalomaniacal pursuit of global domination?)

Actually, I do believe the United States has the most exceptional military, just not in the way its boosters and cheerleaders like Austin, Bush, and Obama claimed. How is the U.S. military truly “exceptional”? Let me count the ways.

The Pentagon as a Budgetary Black Hole

In so many ways, the U.S. military is indeed exceptional. Let’s begin with its budget. At this very moment, Congress is debating a colossal “defense” budget of $886 billion for FY2024 (and all the debate is about issues that have little to do with the military). That defense spending bill, you may recall, was “only” $740 billion when President Joe Biden took office three years ago. In 2021, Biden withdrew U.S. forces from the disastrous war in Afghanistan, theoretically saving the taxpayer nearly $50 billion a year. Yet, in place of any sort of peace dividend, American taxpayers simply got an even higher bill as the Pentagon budget continued to soar.

Recall that, in his four years in office, Donald Trump increased military spending by 20%. Biden is now poised to achieve a similar 20% increase in just three years in office. And that increase largely doesn’t even include the cost of supporting Ukraine in its war with Russia — so far, somewhere between $120 billion and $200 billion and still rising.

True Facts: The Consequences Of Nuclear War Were Largely Unknown When It Happened

Japan wasn’t making earnest attempts at a reasonable surrender. It was hoping it could get a conditional surrender where it would be able to preserve at least some of its empire (the hyper focus on them supposedly merely wanting assurances they could keep their Emperor is really downplaying what they hoped to negotiate). It was still occupying large portions of East Asia by late 1945. That was simply unacceptable to the Allies, and very understandably so. Russia wouldn’t tolerate a conditional surrender either, and all of Japan’s hopes at such a negotiation were done via a Moscow that it turned out was just leading Japan on while assembling an invasion.

“There is a school of thought, and I don’t know how well accepted it is now, that the reason we dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August despite Japan suing for peace through non-US diplomatic channels since IIRC April 1945 is we wanted to put the Soviets on the back foot by showing how far we had gotten with our nuclear program.”

There’s just no compelling historical evidence for this claim. The paragraph following it contains the actual explanation, and in fact is hard to square with any claims that it was a demonstration for the Soviets. It’s hard to square on the one hand the idea that mass casualties had been normalized, while also implying that the nukes were viewed as a uniquely horrible thing and everyone wanted to avoid personal responsibility while also sending a warning on the other.

The nukes were developed and deployed as an extension of the conventional strategic bombing program. Strategic bombing was the ultimate military fetish of the era. The Manhattan Project wasn’t the most expensive weapons project of the war: the B-29 bomber was, costing at least a third more. The Norden bombsight cost another 2/3 of the total budget for the nuclear bomb, only it never worked well, necessitating the use of mass bombing raids. Nukes were developed and deployed as a way to effect the same level of destruction with far fewer planes and bombs.

You could interpret the eschewing of responsibility as all the players knowing the horror they were unleashing and trying to avoid accountability, but another interpretation is that no one viewed the nuclear bomb as anything other than an especially powerful explosive, so it wasn’t something where anyone agonized over the first deployments. There’s a lot of evidence that the military was very slow to appreciate the uniquely dangerous aspects of nuclear weapons even after Hiroshima, as evidenced by the cavalier attitude towards testing right through the 1950s. When the military talked about how a single atomic bomb was as powerful as X amount of TNT, that’s genuinely how they were viewing and using them: as an easier way to get X amount of high explosive on target.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki (which was a backup target; Kokura was the original objective) were targeted because they were significant military targets that would have been bombed sooner or later anyway as part of the preliminary phase for the invasion of Japan (and contrary to revisionism that invasion was very much in the planning. In fact Japan was counting on it and hoping to bleed it dry on the beaches in order to force the US to agree to a conditional surrender).

Personally, I view the nukes as war crimes, but as sub-components of the overarching war crime that was strategic bombing in general. Ultimately there was a rationale that went into the development of the strategic bombing concept that stretched back to the interwar years. It turned out to be massively, horrifically wrong, but there was a coherent thought process to it.

The Day After Trinity (Watch On Youtube To Access The Whole Playlist)

NYTimes  |  One morning in the 1950s, Jon H. Else’s father pointed toward Nevada from their home in Sacramento. “There was this orange glow that suddenly rose up in the sky, and then shrank back down,” Else recalled.

It was, hundreds of miles away, an atomic weapon test: a symbol of the world that was created when a team of Americans led by the physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer exploded the first nuclear bomb a decade earlier on July 16, 1945.

Growing up in the nuclear age left an impression on Else, now 78.

He was later a series producer of the award-winning “Eyes on the Prize,” a program on the civil rights movement, and directed documentaries about the Great Depression and Wagner’s “Ring” cycle. But before all that, in 1981, he made a documentary about Oppenheimer, the scientist whose bony visage graced the covers of midcentury magazines, and the bomb. It was called “The Day After Trinity,” a reference to that inaugural detonation.

Decades later, viewers are flocking to Else’s film, a nominee for the Academy Award for best documentary feature, as a companion to Christopher Nolan’s biopic “Oppenheimer,” which grossed more than $100 million domestically in its opening week this month.

In a phone interview from California last week, Else, a professor emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley, praised Nolan’s film, which he saw last weekend in San Francisco. (A spokeswoman for Nolan said he was not available to comment.)

“These stories have to be retold every generation,” Else said, “and they have to be told by new storytellers.”

Nolan’s three-hour opus, a Universal release shot on IMAX film with a lavish cast of brand-name Hollywood actors, shares much with “The Day After Trinity,” an 88-minute documentary financed by the public television station in San Jose, Calif., and various grants.

 

The Unspeakable Shydte That Oppenheimer Left Out

responsiblestatecraft  |  On July 16, 1945, the world ended. Or at least it seemed that way to residents of the Tularosa Basin in New Mexico.

Unbeknownst to local civilians, J. Robert Oppenheimer had chosen their backyard as the proving ground for the world’s first nuclear weapon. The explosion, which U.S. officials publicly claimed to be an accident at a local ammunition depot, tore through the morning sky, leaving a 40,000-foot-tall cloud of radioactive debris that would cake the surrounding area with dust for days on end.

Tina Cordova, whose hometown of Tularosa lies just 45 miles from ground zero, remembers her grandmother’s stories about wiping that infernal dust off every nook and cranny of her childhood home. No one knew what had happened quite yet, but they figured it must have been something special. After all, a local paper reported that the explosion was so bright that a blind woman had actually seen it.

When the initial shock wore off, the 40,000 locals who lived within 50 miles of ground zero returned to their daily lives. They drank from cisterns full of radioactive debris, ate beef from cattle that had grazed on the dust for weeks on end, and breathed air full of tiny plutonium particles. Only later would the real impact become clear.

Bernice Gutierrez, born just eight days before Oppenheimer’s “Trinity Test,” moved from a small town near the blast site to Albuquerque when she was 2 years old. Cancer followed her like a specter. Her great grandfather died of stomach cancer in the early 1950s. She lost cousins to leukemia and pancreatic cancer. Her oldest son died in 2020 after a bout with a “pre-leukemia” blood disorder. In total, 21 members of Gutierrez’s family have had cancer, and seven have died from it.

“We don’t ask ourselves if we’re gonna get cancer,” Gutierrez told RS. “We ask ourselves when, because it just never ends.”

“Oppenheimer” — the latest film from famed director Christopher Nolan — is a three-hour-long exploration of the “dilettante, womanizer, Communist sympathizer,” and world-historic genius behind the ultimate weapon. The movie, based on the book “American Prometheus,” delves deeply into Oppenheimer’s psyche, from his struggles as a young student at Cambridge to his profound melancholy over the world he helped create.

Yet nowhere in the film will viewers find an acknowledgement of the first victims of the nuclear era. Indeed, the movie repeats the myth that the bomb site was in a desolate area with “nothing for 40 miles in either direction.” This was not for lack of effort, according to Cordova, who leads an activist group called the Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium. (“Downwinders” refers to those who live in the fallout zone of nuclear tests.)

When Nolan’s team got to New Mexico to film, Cordova and her team published an op-ed in the local newspaper that called on the Oppenheimer crew to “grapple with the consequences of confronting the truth of our stories, of our history.” When that didn’t work, she reached out to the production through Kai Bird, the journalist who co-wrote American Prometheus, in an attempt to get a meeting. She received a flat “no.”

Wernher Von Braun's Assistant Dr. Carol Rosin Burst My Whole And Complete UAP Disclosure Bubble...,

sourcewatch  |  "The Founder for the Institute for Security and Cooperation in Outer Space, ISCOS. World Peace Ambassador, International Association of Educators for World Peace, IAEWP (NGO, UN-ECOSOC)

"An educator, international speaker, author, consultant to Space Age technology development projects, a space and missile defense consultant, future manufacturing technology forecasting consultant for sustainable living on earth and in space, Dr. Rosin advises decision makers and others about applications of technology and information services for human needs, environment, new energy, and peace and security, health and prosperity for all on earth and in space.

"Co-authored the Outer Space Security and Development Treaty draft with distinguished colleagues: Apollo Astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell; Commander Will Miller, US Navy (Ret.); Dr, Abe Krieger, 37 year Boeing executive; Dr. C.B. Scott Jones, military/intelligence and Senior Advisor to Sen. Claiborne Pell; supported by the Hon. Paul Hellyer, former Minister of Defense of Canada. This Treaty is posted in several languages with bios on http://www.peaceinspace.com Dr. Rosin is Consultant to the Treaty Project that is A Project of P.E.A.C.E. Inc., the Peace and Emergency Action Coalition for Earth, a 501-C-3 founded by Dr. C.B. Scott Jones. Currently working to get this Treaty signed and ratified into law.

• First woman executive in an aerospace company, Corporate Manager of Fairchild Industries
• With the late Dr. Wernher von Braun, visionary and “father of rocketry,” founded the national award-winning “It’s Your Turn…” program...
• Spokesperson for the late rocket scientist Dr. Wernher von Braun, presenting his peace on earth and in space vision for local through global uses and applications of space age technology and information applied directly to solving urgent and potential challenges of human needs, the environment, and energy as humans evolve and learn from living, working, touring and traveling in space (without space-based weapons). First speech for von Braun was to 18,000 people at a National Education Association conference in 1974 demonstrating LIVE how satellites can be used as teaching tools worldwide
• Founder, Institute for Security and Cooperation in Outer Space, ISCOS, 1983-Present. The original Board included Honorary Chairman, Sir Arthur C. Clarke, Dr. Issac Assimov, Dr. Buckminister (Bucky) Fuller, Attorney Daniel Sheehan, the late Dr. Rashmi Mayur, Advisory Board Chairman, Astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell (sixth man on the moon), and many other respected experts. Brought over 100 people to the UN Second Special Session on the Peaceful Uses and Exploration of Outer Space in 1982 to stand for no space-based weapons. Started the movement to “Stop Star Wars,” the “Leaky Umbrella Campaign,” the “Save Outer Space, SOS Campaign,” involving approximately 50 million people
• Advisor to the New Energy Movement to encourage the research and development of new clean and safe alternative energy sources via project development and management in various countries
• Official Advisor to the Peoples Republic of China on alternatives to missile defense and on applications of space technology in China. China and Russia have proposed a ban on all space-based weapons
• Witness in the Disclosure Project at the National Press Club, May, 2001. Advisor to the Exopolitics Institute
• Started the global movement to prevent the weaponizaton of space, the Stop Star Wars, Leaky Umbrella Campaign, Campaign to Save Outer Space (SOS Campaign), which some estimate to have involved over 50 million people. Appeared on numerous speaking platforms and media productions with members of the military industrial complex discussing feasible alternative technology programs that can replace dangerous, too costly, polluting, destabilizing weapons programs including a new form of missile defense based on cooperative information and technology application sharing for sustainable healthy living on earth as humans evolve into the universes
• Initiated the first USSR-USA military-to-military meeting. Initiated the trip of the first NINE US Senators to the USSR
• Consultant and/or speaker to numerous organizations, industries and military and government agencies including TRW on the Time Management Money system for the Space Shuttle, MX missile and weather satellites, IBM Europe, Walt Disney Productions on the creation of Space and Future Worlds at Disneyworld, General Electric, World Future Society, National Space Institute, Central Intelligence Agency, the US Space Foundation, the US Space Command and many international audiences.
• Space and Conversion Advisor to Presidential Candidate Reverend Jesse Jackson who introduced Rosin’s Space Development Initiative, SDI, to replace the Strategic Defense Initiative, SDI. Advised and briefed other presidential candidates, members of Congress, and other international dignitaries
• Initiated the first legislation to stop anti-satellite (ASAT) testing with Congressman Les AuCoin, created the first legislation to ban all space-based weapons with Congressman Joe Moakley and Sen. Tom Harkin, and initiated the first bill that had a companion Treaty to ban space-based weapons with Congressman Dennis Kucinich and the Hon. Paul Hellyer, former Minister of Defense, in Canada
• Founder of the original World Entrepreneur Association to encourage integrity based new entrepreneurial businesses and training programs. Consults to businesses, government representatives, students, leaders and community organizations about possible new jobs and profits, products and services, technologies and information applied to better life in sustainable communities and regions
• Miscellaneous: Space Consultant to Buckminister Fuller’s World Game, entertainment producer for LeCarpentier Stuart Productions, General in the First Earth Battalion, ski instructor, skating champion
• As an example of a non-space-based weapons business in space, organized the launch into space of Dr. Leary’s cremated remains that flew from US Vandenberg Air Force Base to Madrid then to the Canary Islands, Spain to be launched into space by Celestis, Inc,, (with the ashes of friends: rocket scientist Dr. Kraft Ericke; space physicist Dr. Gerard O'Neill; founder of the International Space University Todd Hawley, and with cremated remains of Star Trek TV series creator Gene Roddenberry ^[1]

Camp Century: What Other Kinds Of Exotic Military Scientific Research Bases Are Out There?

wikipedia  |  Camp Century was an Arctic United States military scientific research base in Greenland.^[1] situated 240 km (150 mi) east of Pituffik Space Base. When built, Camp Century was publicized as a demonstration for affordable ice-cap military outposts and a base for scientific research.^[2][3]

Camp Century was a preliminary camp for Project Iceworm whose end goal was to install a vast network of nuclear missile launch sites that could survive a first strike. This was according to documents declassified in 1996.^[4] The missiles were never fielded and necessary consent from the Danish Government to do so was never broached.

The camp operated from 1959 until 1967. It consisted of 21 tunnels with a total length of 9,800 feet (3.0 km), and was powered by a nuclear reactor. Project Iceworm was aborted after it was realized that the ice sheet was not as stable as originally assessed, and that the missile basing concept would not be feasible. The reactor was removed and Camp Century later abandoned. However, hazardous waste remains buried under the ice and has become an environmental concern.^[5]

Scientific research

Ice core samples from Camp Century were used to create stable isotopes analyses used to develop climate models.^[6][7][8] Analysis of soil contained in the samples suggests that the site was ice-free as recently as 400,000 years ago, indicating a much reduced Greenland ice sheet and therefore much higher sea levels.^[9] Since 2017, the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland has maintained a climate monitoring presence at Camp Century with the Camp Century Climate Monitoring Program.^[10] This monitoring presence includes measuring climate variables, snow and ice temperatures, and ice-penetrating radar surveys of the subsurface debris and contaminant field.

History

The purpose of Camp Century, as explained by the United States Department of Defense to Danish officials in 1960, was to test various construction techniques under Arctic conditions, explore practical problems with the PM-2A semi-mobile nuclear reactor, as well as supporting scientific experiments on the icecap.

Construction on the camp and the sub-glacial nuclear reactor began without explicit permission from the government of Denmark, leading to a political dilemma for Prime Minister H. C. Hansen.^[11]

The camp ran until 1967, when shifting icecaps made habitation impossible. The camp was subsequently abandoned and the facility's remains were buried by the icecaps and ultimately crushed.^[12]

Camp Century was designed as an arctic subsurface camp and constructed by use of the cut-and-cover trenching technique. The layout of the camp consisted of a series of parallel main trenches in which buildings and other structures were housed. The camp had a design life span of 10 years with appropriate maintenance. It was permanently manned for 5 years and abandoned after 8 years.^[13]

The trenches constructed in 1959 had compressed both vertically and horizontally to the extent that many had reached their design margins within 4 years. After that, extensive snow trimming was required to maintain the trenches.^[14] The trenches were covered with a steel arch and the longest trench had a length of 1,100 feet (340 m), while its width and height were both 26 feet.^[12]

The subsurface camp provided good protection from the elements and had modern bathroom, dining, and medical facilities. Prefabricated buildings were placed inside the trenches.^[2] The camp maintained a number of vehicles and had plenty of storage for fuel and food. The reactor provided plenty of power and proved it could be installed, operated, and removed in such a remote location. It powered the base for over 3 years but was shut down due to the unexpected accelerated compression of the reactor trenches, in part due to the residual heat in the reactor area required to maintain the feed water pools.

Do You Believe That These Special Access Programs Are Answerable To Elected Officials?

intelligence.senate.gov  |  What ever happened to the folks from the Senate Intelligence Committee? The House yokels are not nearly as important as Rubio, Gillibrand etc.

So, I went looking, and if you look at their calendar, you'll see they have a classified closed briefing the same day as the Burchett hearing. Which makes sense because you don't invite witnesses to Congress and then waste their time. So when the hearing ends, you'll know what is happening at 2pm. 

Tin foil hat time:

https//web.archive.org/web/20230708115954/https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/

It wasn't on the calendar on the 11th. The date came out just a couple days ago. Was it scheduled after the date was announced? https

More fuel for the fire.

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/

Google's cache, from July 18 also had nothing scheduled. So, that just got scheduled like today I think.

Google cache header with date of cache

Calendar of that cache

https://www.congress.gov/event/118th-congress/senate-event/333869?s=1&r=16

That is the meeting on their schedule.

"Closed business meeting to consider pending intelligence matters; to be immediately followed by a closed briefing on certain intelligence matters."

Lukashenko Very Excited To Restore Belarus Former Status As A Russian Nuclear Speartip

AP  |  Lukashenko said Tuesday that “everything is ready” for the Russian nuclear weapons’ deployment, adding that “it could take just a few days for us to get what we had asked for and even a bit more.”

Asked later by a Russian state TV host whether Belarus had already received some of the weapons, Lukashenko responded coyly by saying: “Not all of them, little by little.”

“We have got the missiles and bombs from Russia,” he said, adding that the Russian nuclear weapons to be deployed to Belarus are three times more powerful than the U.S. atomic bombs that were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

“God forbid I have to make a decision to use those weapons today, but there would be no hesitation if we face an aggression,” Lukashenko, known for his blustering statements, said in comments released by his office earlier Tuesday.

Speaking later Tuesday in remarks broadcast by Russian state TV, he clarified that he would consult with Putin before using any of the weapons.

“Listen, if a war starts, do you think I will look around?” he said. “I pick up the phone, and wherever he is, he picks it up,” Lukashenko said in a reference to Putin. “If he calls, I pick it up any time. It’s no problem at all to coordinate launching a strike.”

Russian officials had no immediate comment on Lukashenko’s remarks.

Lukashenko emphasized that it was he who had asked Putin to deploy Russian nuclear weapons to Belarus. He argued that the move was necessary to deter a potential aggression. 

“I believe no one would be willing to fight a country that has those weapons,” Lukashenko said. “Those are weapons of deterrence.”

Tactical nuclear weapons are intended to destroy enemy troops and weapons on the battlefield. They have a relatively short range and a much lower yield than nuclear warheads fitted to intercontinental ballistic missiles that are capable of obliterating whole cities.

Lukashenko said that Belarus didn’t need the deployment of Russia’s strategic nuclear weapons to its territory. “Am I going to fight America? No,” he said.

He added, however, that Belarus was readying facilities for intercontinental nuclear-tipped missiles as well, just in case.

Along with Ukraine and Kazakhstan, Belarus hosted a significant share of Soviet nuclear arsenals when they were all part of the Soviet Union. Those weapons were withdrawn to Russia after the 1991 Soviet collapse under a deal sponsored by the U.S.

 

Patriarch Kirill's Epiphany Sermon "Fuck Around And Find Out!!!"

theatlantic |  This Russian propaganda has been amplified and endorsed by an unusual assortment of people in the United States, including the Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Democratic Socialists of America, and the Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs. The propaganda absolves Russia, blames the United States for the war, and has four main tenets: first, that a long-standing American effort to bring Ukraine into NATO poses a grave threat to Russian security. Second, that American shipments of weapons to Ukraine have prolonged the fighting and caused needless suffering among civilians. Third, that American support for Ukraine is just a pretext for seeking the destruction of Russia. And, finally, that American policies could soon prove responsible for causing an all-out nuclear war.

Those arguments are based on lies. They are being spread to justify Russia’s unprecedented use of nuclear blackmail to seize territory from a neighboring state. Concerns about a possible nuclear exchange have thus far deterred the United States and NATO from providing Ukraine with the tanks, aircraft, and long-range missiles that might change the course of the war. If nuclear threats or the actual use of nuclear weapons leads to the defeat of Ukraine, Russia may use them to coerce other states. Tactics once considered immoral and unthinkable might become commonplace. Nuclear weapons would no longer be regarded solely as a deterrent of last resort; the nine countries that possess them would gain even greater influence; countries that lack them would seek to obtain them; and the global risk of devastating wars would increase exponentially.

That is why the greatest nuclear threat we face is a Russian victory in Ukraine.

Russia has about 6,000 nuclear weapons, more than any other country, and for years Putin has portrayed them as a source of national pride. His warnings about their possible use during the war in Ukraine have been coy and often contradictory. “If the territorial integrity of our country is threatened,” Putin said in September, “we will without doubt use all available means to protect Russia and our people—this is not a bluff.” His vow to rely on nuclear weapons only as a defensive measure conveys an underlying threat: An attempt to regain Ukrainian land annexed by Russia and deemed by Putin to be part of “our country” might prompt a nuclear response. He also asserted that the United States and NATO are the ones engaging in “nuclear blackmail,” and that “those who try to blackmail us with nuclear weapons should know that the weathervane can turn and point towards them.” In October, he claimed that Ukraine was planning to launch a nuclear strike on itself—by detonating a warhead filled with radioactive waste—as part of a false-flag operation to make Russia seem responsible. In December, Putin said that the risk of a nuclear war was increasing but suggested once again that the real danger did not come from Russia. “We have not gone crazy,” he said. “We are aware what nuclear weapons are … We are not going to brandish these weapons like a razor, running around the world.”

Although Putin’s comments have been subtle and open to multiple interpretations, the propaganda outlets that he controls have been neither. For almost a year, they have continually threatened and celebrated the possibility of nuclear war. This division of labor allows Putin to appear statesmanlike while his underlings stoke fear and normalize the idea of using nuclear weapons to commit the mass murder of civilians. Julia Davis, a columnist for The Daily Beast, and Francis Scarr, a BBC correspondent, have performed an immense public service: supplying translations of the vicious, apocalyptic, often unhinged rants that have become the norm on Russian television. “Either we lose in Ukraine, or the Third World War starts,” Margarita Simonyan, the editor in chief of Russia Today and a close ally of Putin’s, said in April. “I think World War III is more realistic, knowing us, knowing our leader … That all this will end with a nuclear strike seems more probable to me.” At various times, Simonyan has discussed nuclear attacks on Ukraine, Poland, the United Kingdom, and the United States, arguing that death would be better than succumbing to “the monstrous organism known as the collective Western world.”

Vladimir Solovyov, another popular broadcaster who is close to Putin, routinely expresses a preference for nuclear annihilation over a Russian defeat. The invitation of Volodymyr Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, to the White House and the U.S. Capitol in December made Solovyov especially angry. “We’ll either win, or humanity will cease to exist, because the Lord won’t stand for the triumph of warriors of the Antichrist,” he said, repeating the new propaganda line that Ukrainians aren’t just Nazis; they’re satanists. “We are Russians. God is with us,” he concluded. Despite his professed hatred for ungodly Western decadence, before the invasion of Ukraine Solovyov owned villas overlooking Lake Como, in Italy.

Why Did An Ohio Class SSBN Break Protocol To Stunt In The Arabian Sea Last Thursday?

navy.mil  |  OMAN - On October 19th, General Michael “Erik” Kurilla, commander of CENTCOM, conducted a visit aboard the USS West Virginia, a U.S. Navy Ohio-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine at an undisclosed location at sea in international waters in the Arabian Sea.

Kurilla was joined on the USS West Virginia by Vice Admiral Brad Cooper, commander of the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet and NAVCENT.

During his visit on board the submarine, General Kurilla received a hands-on demonstration of the capabilities of the vessel, which operates globally under U.S. Strategic Command.

“I was thoroughly impressed with the crew of the USS West Virginia; these sailors represent the highest level of professionalism, expertise, and discipline across the U.S. military,” said Kurilla. “These submarines are the crown jewel of the nuclear triad, and the West Virginia demonstrates the flexibility, survivability, readiness, and capability of USCENTCOM and USSTRATCOM forces at sea.”

USSTRATCOM forces are on watch 24/7 globally, operating in all domains, while supporting other commands, to defend the nation and our allies. West Virginia is one of six ballistic-missile submarines stationed at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Georgia, and is capable of carrying up to 20 submarine-launched ballistic missiles with multiple warheads.

The Day Of Four Calls: When Sergei Shoigu Called Turkish, French, UK, And U.S Defense Secretaries

sonar21  |  There is an uptick in the panicked speculation about Ukraine using a dirty bomb in order to fabricate a pretext that would justify NATO’s intervention in Ukraine. Reminds me a lot of the previous efforts by the Brits and the Yanks to manufacture a crisis in Syria in August 2013 that would compel the United States and the Brits to send their troops to aid Islamic rebels seeking to overthrown Syrian leader Assad. Barack Obama had vowed in August of 2012 that any use of chemical weapons by Assad’s government would represent crossing a red line that would be followed by retaliation by the West. Why did Obama balk at responding to this alleged crime against humanity by Syria? Sy Hersh provided the answer:

The answer lies in a clash between those in the administration who were committed to enforcing the red line, and military leaders who thought that going to war was both unjustified and potentially disastrous.

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v36/n08/seymour-m.-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

We may be on the cusp of a new fabricated provocation–this one involving a dirty nuke. The Russian General Staff are taking this threat seriously and are on the phone to Turkey, France and China to warn about this plot to detonate a dirty bomb and blame Moscow. The Russians clearly learned the lessons from Syria and sarin. Remains to be seen if the current U.S. military leadership has the backbone their predecessors displayed in August 2013.

Let me take you back 9 years to August 2013. Washington’s political class had Syrian fever–i.e., they were hot and anxious to overthrow Syria’s Bashir Assad and the news channels were peppered with dire predictions of Assad’s imminent demise. Then came word of an alleged “sarin” gas attack on Syrian civilians by Assad’s military. At least that this the story the media was pushing.

I was working inside a SCIF at Fort Bragg at the time and had access to the intelligence reports about the attack at Ghouta. General Michael Flynn was the head of DIA at the time. In contrast to the propaganda being spun by State Department’s INR, the CIA and the media–i.e., that the Syrian rebels were steamrolling the Syrian government and, wait for it, Syrian President Assad was on the ropes–DIA did a great job of honestly reporting the combat activity and the order of battle. The DIA reports told an entirely different story–the Syrian Army was making progress in containing the rebel uprising and the combat effectiveness of the rebels was waning.

Then came the alleged sarin attack by the Syrian government at Ghouta. Turns out this was a lie. Sy Hersh got the story and did, as always, first rate reporting:

Obama’s change of mind had its origins at Porton Down, the defence laboratory in Wiltshire. British intelligence had obtained a sample of the sarin used in the 21 August attack and analysis demonstrated that the gas used didn’t match the batches known to exist in the Syrian army’s chemical weapons arsenal. The message that the case against Syria wouldn’t hold up was quickly relayed to the US joint chiefs of staff. The British report heightened doubts inside the Pentagon; the joint chiefs were already preparing to warn Obama that his plans for a far-reaching bomb and missile attack on Syria’s infrastructure could lead to a wider war in the Middle East. As a consequence the American officers delivered a last-minute caution to the president, which, in their view, eventually led to his cancelling the attack. . . .

The joint chiefs also knew that the Obama administration’s public claims that only the Syrian army had access to sarin were wrong. The American and British intelligence communities had been aware since the spring of 2013 that some rebel units in Syria were developing chemical weapons. On 20 June analysts for the US Defense Intelligence Agency issued a highly classified five-page ‘talking points’ briefing for the DIA’s deputy director, David Shedd, which stated that al-Nusra maintained a sarin production cell: its programme, the paper said, was ‘the most advanced sarin plot since al-Qaida’s pre-9/11 effort’. (According to a Defense Department consultant, US intelligence has long known that al-Qaida experimented with chemical weapons, and has a video of one of its gas experiments with dogs.) The DIA paper went on: ‘Previous IC [intelligence community] focus had been almost entirely on Syrian CW [chemical weapons] stockpiles; now we see ANF attempting to make its own CW … Al-Nusrah Front’s relative freedom of operation within Syria leads us to assess the group’s CW aspirations will be difficult to disrupt in the future.’ The paper drew on classified intelligence from numerous agencies: ‘Turkey and Saudi-based chemical facilitators,’ it said, ‘were attempting to obtain sarin precursors in bulk, tens of kilograms, likely for the anticipated large scale production effort in Syria.’ (Asked about the DIA paper, a spokesperson for the director of national intelligence said: ‘No such paper was ever requested or produced by intelligence community analysts.’)

When the first reports surfaced about the attack in Ghouta I immediately started looking at the intelligence briefs to the Joint Chiefs of Staff that were published in the days prior to the attack. I reasoned that if the Syrian military was the culprit then the United States intelligence community would have detected the Syrian chemical weapons units standing up and making preparations for the attack. Why? Because the United States was part of warning system for Israel. There was the fear that Syria might use chemical weapons against Israel and the United States was using its technical means to monitor the activity of the Syrian military units that would carry out such an attack. The Syrians used a binary chemical weapon system. This means that two chemicals had to be mixed together in order to create a deadly brew. That type of activity can be detected by intelligence technical measures. Oddly, there was no prior intelligence indicating any activity by the Syrian military in the days preceding Ghouta. Nothing. Nada. Zero. Zip.

Would you be surprised to learn that British and CIA intelligence officers may have been involved in the Ghouta plot with the mission of manufacturing a casus belli that would allow the United States and the United Kingdom to intervene militarily in Syria?

Which brings us back to Ukraine. There is serious concern that the West is once again trying to concoct a false flag that can be used to rally a reluctant public to go to war with Russia. Instead of chemical weapons, the current scheme reportedly involves detonating a dirty nuke in territory ostensibly under the control of Russia. The Ukrainian military is suffering catastrophic casualties and, western propaganda notwithstanding, will have great difficulty sustaining any offensive. The United States and its NATO allies realize this and are searching for a pretext to send NATO forces to the rescue. It appears that the West is considering using the threat of defeating a nuclear attack as the justification for sending its own forces into the Ukrainian maelstrom.

I think the Ukraine situation is far more dangerous than what transpired in Syria. Russia’s national security is at stake and the West is panicked at the prospect of Ukraine being beaten into submission. At least Russia is doing the right thing–moving preemptively to warn relevant countries that it knows what is being plotted and that it will take appropriate actions to counter such an attack if it occurs. We are sitting on a nuclear powder keg. Pray that cooler heads prevail.

Briefing On Ukrainian Dirty Bomb By Russian Chemical Defense Chief Igor Kirillov

aftershock |  The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation has information about the Kyiv regime planning a provocation related to the detonation of the so-called "dirty bomb" or low-yield nuclear weapons.

The purpose of the provocation is to accuse Russia of using weapons of mass destruction in the Ukrainian theater of operations and thereby launch a powerful anti-Russian campaign in the world aimed at undermining confidence in Moscow.

Recall that at the Munich Security Conference on February 19 this year. President Zelensky announced his intention to restore the nuclear status of Ukraine.

It should also be noted that during the course of the special military operation, Zelensky repeatedly called on NATO countries to strike at the Russian Federation. QUOTE: “What should NATO do? Preemptive strikes so they know what will happen to them if they use it. And not vice versa - wait for Russia's nuclear strikes ... ".

More recently, on October 22, in an interview with Canadian TV channels, Zelensky called on the world to strike at the Kremlin if Russia strikes at the “decision-making center” on Bankova Street, where the Office of the President of Ukraine is located.

I would like to recall the likelihood of a complex radiation situation that may develop around the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant, the largest nuclear power plant in Europe.

From February 24 to the present, the territory of the Zaporozhye power plant has been subjected to 39 fire strikes by the armed forces of Ukraine, 10 of them using unmanned aerial vehicles and 29 using various artillery systems.

At first, the shelling of the station by the Armed Forces of Ukraine did not cause concern among the world community, since, according to the conclusion of a number of American experts, the risk of radiation spread when large-caliber artillery shells hit spent nuclear fuel containers would be insignificant, and nuclear reactors withstand the fall of a civilian aircraft.

However, the forecast of the development of the radiation situation carried out by our specialists, subsequently confirmed by relevant European scientific organizations, showed that the release of radioactive substances would affect almost all of Europe.

In addition, despite the visit of the IAEA Director General Grossi, the Armed Forces of Ukraine do not stop attempts to seize the station by sabotage. So, on September 1, 15 and 30, as well as on October 17, special units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine tried to land troops across the Kakhovka reservoir and take control of the nuclear power plant.

According to the information we have, two organizations in Ukraine have specific instructions to create the so-called "dirty bomb". The works are at the final stage.

In addition, we have information about the contacts of the office of the President of Ukraine with representatives of the UK on the issue of possible obtaining technology for creating nuclear weapons.

For this, Ukraine has an appropriate production base and scientific potential.

So, in Ukraine there are nuclear industry enterprises that have stocks of radioactive substances that can be used to create a "dirty bomb" - these are three operating nuclear power plants: South-Ukrainian, Khmelnitsky and Rivne with 9 pools of spent nuclear fuel, which contain up to one and a half thousand tons of uranium oxide enriched to 1.5%.

At the decommissioned Chernobyl nuclear power plant with storage facilities for radioactive waste, 22,000 spent fuel assemblies containing uranium-238 are stored, as well as products associated with operation - uranium-235 and plutonium-239, which are the main component of the nuclear charge.

At the recently created enterprise for the processing of radioactive waste "Vector", at the Prydneprovsky chemical plant, at the disposal sites for radioactive waste "Buryakovka", "Podlesny", "Rossokha" can accommodate more than 50 thousand cubic meters. m. of radioactive waste, which can also be used as components for a "dirty bomb".

In addition, the Vostochny Mining and Processing Plant produces uranium ore at two mines out of three with a capacity of up to 1 thousand tons per year.

It should also be emphasized that there is a scientific base in Ukraine - this is the Kharkov Institute of Physics and Technology, whose scientists took part in the nuclear program of the USSR, where various experimental facilities are currently operating, including the Uragan thermonuclear facilities, as well as the Institute for Nuclear Research at the National Academy of Sciences in Kyiv, where research is being carried out at the WWR-M reactor using high-level radioactive materials.

I want to remind you that a "dirty bomb" is a container with radioactive isotopes and an explosive charge. When the charge is detonated, the container is destroyed, and the radioactive substance is sprayed by a shock wave, while creating radioactive contamination of the area over large areas, and can also lead to radiation sickness.

As a radioactive substance, uranium oxide can be used, which is in the composition of spent fuel elements stored in spent nuclear fuel storage facilities and spent fuel pools of nuclear power plants. In addition, radioactive substances from the spent nuclear fuel storage facilities of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant can be used.

According to the plans of the Kyiv regime, the explosion of such a munition can be disguised as an abnormal operation of a low-yield Russian nuclear munition, in which highly enriched uranium is used as a charge. The presence of radioactive isotopes in the air will later be recorded by the sensors of the International Monitoring System installed in Europe, with the subsequent accusation of the Russian Federation of using tactical nuclear weapons.

It is worth noting that similar information warfare technologies have already been used by the West in Syria, when the White Helmets filmed propaganda videos there about the use of chemical weapons by government forces.

One of the most resonant and widely replicated episodes is the provocation organized by the specified non-governmental organization on April 4, 2017 in the city of Khan Sheikhoun.

Pay your attention to the photo in which people taking soil samples are without personal protective equipment. But it doesn't seem to bother anyone! Especially those who made the decision to use a missile attack on the territory of a sovereign country - Syria.

The Americans, using this provocation as a pretext, without waiting for the beginning of the investigation and, moreover, the decision of the UN Security Council, launched a missile attack on the Shayrat airbase, grossly violating the norms of international law.

It is highly likely that a similar scenario will be used in this case as well.

The detonation of a radiological explosive device will inevitably lead to radioactive contamination of the area over an area of ​​up to several thousand square meters.

Thus, in Ukraine there is a motive for the use of a "dirty bomb", as well as the scientific, technical and industrial potential for its creation.

As a result of the “dirty bomb” provocation, Ukraine expects to intimidate the local population, increase the flow of refugees across Europe and expose the Russian Federation as a nuclear terrorist.

The Ministry of Defense has organized work to counter possible provocations from Ukraine: forces and means have been put in readiness to perform tasks in conditions of radioactive contamination.

 

Missile Defense Fantasies: AKA That Above Top Secret Green Gas BeeDee Was Talm'bout....,

undark |  century now, governments and their military forces have enlisted the aid of scientists and engineers to invent weapons, devise defenses, and advise on their use and deployment.

Unfortunately, scientific and technological realities don’t always conform to the preferred policies of politicians and generals. Back in the 1950s, some U.S. officials liked to proclaim that scientists should be “on tap, not on top”: in other words, ready to provide handy advice when needed, but not offering advice that contradicted the official line. That attitude has persisted into the present, but scientists have steadfastly refused to play along.

One of the best-known leaders of this resistance is Theodore “Ted” Postol, professor emeritus of science, technology, and national security policy at MIT. Trained as a physicist and nuclear engineer, Postol has spent a career immersed in the details of military and defense technology. He worked for Congress in the now-defunct Office of Technology Assessment, then in the Pentagon as an adviser to the Chief of Naval Operations before joining academia, first at Stanford University and then returning to his alma mater, MIT.

Throughout, he has been an outspoken critic of unworkable concepts, impractical ideas, and failed technological fantasies, including Ronald Reagan’s “Star Wars” system, the vaunted Patriot missile of the first Gulf War, and more recent intercontinental ballistic missile defense concepts tested by the U.S. His investigations and analyses have repeatedly revealed self-deception, misrepresentation, flawed research, and outright fraud from the Pentagon, academic and private laboratories, and Congress.

When we contacted him, we found that, far from being retired at age 70, he was preparing to travel to Germany to consult with the German Foreign Ministry on European-Russian relations. His work exemplifies the eternal verity that if something sounds too good to be true, it usually is. In the exchange below, his responses have been edited for length and clarity.