Saturday, 15 June 2024

October 1984 AN EARLY MENTION OF SUITCASE NUKES

 The New York Times

October 29, 1984, Monday, Late City Final Edition

REAL SUPERTERRORISTS WOULD PREFER SUITCASE NUKES

SECTION: Section A; Page 22, Column 4; Editorial Desk

LENGTH: 324 words

To the Editor:

In ''Bolt From the Blue'' (Op-Ed, Oct. 15), William Safire argues that we need a space-based defense to defend against future terrorist attacks. His fear is that ''superterrorists'' may one day acquire intercontinental missiles armed with nuclear warheads, and thus set up a confrontation of ''terrorism versus civilization.''

This idea, sometimes bandied about in last-ditch fashion by ardent proponents of Star Wars defenses, should be seen for what it is: a fig leaf for the protection of missiles and command-and-control centers under the rubric of the Strategic Defense Initiative.

When all the rhetoric is stripped away, the Strategic Defense Initiative will in all likelihood never be able, or be designed, to protect population centers, so Mr. Safire's plan will not be implemented. In any event, superterrorists who were so clever as to build or buy long-range weapons will surely be capable of shorter-range delivery (e.g., suitcase bombs or air-delivered weapons, which could not in any case be covered by space-based lasers shooting down into the atmosphere). Finally, the most humorous of Mr. Safire's assertions concerns that related to the President's ''historic'' offer to share space-defense technology with Moscow. Lieut. Gen. James A. Abrahamson of the Air Force, director of the Strategic Defense Initiative, stated in the industry newsletter Defense Daily of Aug, 7 (page 196), ''There is no policy at this time to share S.D.I.-related technology with the Soviet Union.''

I suppose, however, that if you can believe that we're building inordinately expensive and fragile defenses in space to stop terrorists, then you can believe that we'll share state-of- the-art high technology with the Russians.

JONATHAN B. STEIN Washington, Oct. 16, 1984

The writer is a fellow in energy and defense studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies at Georgetown University.

CLINTON WAS HARDBALLING THE RUSSIANS OVER CHECHNYA.

AFX World news summary - Russia will pay 'heavy price' for Chechnya - Clinton

AFX.COM

December 7, 1999 Tuesday

Copyright 1999 AFX News Limited

Section: GENERAL; GOVERNMENT

Length: 387 words

Dateline: RAMALLAH, West Bank

Body


President Bill Clinton said yesterday that Russia would pay a "heavy price" for its actions in Chechnya, saying they are "intensifying extremism" and diminishing Moscow's standing in the world. Russian warplanes have dropped leaflets over Grozny telling all those still there to leave the city via a designated corridor. All people remaining in Grozny on Dec 11 would be "viewed as terrorists and bandits, and will be destroyed by artillery and aviation," the leaflets said, according to Russian television.

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

A schoolboy, reportedly 12 or 13 year old, has been arrested and charged with trying to kill his classmates at an Oklahoma middle school after wounding four students, Agence France-Presse reported, citing a police officer. The boy arrived at Fort Gibson Middle School yesterday carrying a nine-millimeter pistol around 7:45 a.m. and shot one girl in the face and three boys in the arms and legs before he was overpowered by a school security officer , AFP said.

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

The death toll from floods which struck central Vietnam has reached 109 with 21 people still missing, but rains have subsided and water levels are beginning to fall, officials said. "I think we can say the worst is over from the emergency point of view," said John Geoghagen, head of the delegation for the International Federation of Red Cross and Crescent Societies in Vietnam. 

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

Deposed Pakistani premier Nawaz Sharif was flown from a Karachi jail to Islamabad overnight to appear before the country's Supreme Court in a contempt of court case amid heavy security.

Sharif faces a treason and murder conspiracy case relating to the storming of the Supreme Court by a mob reportedly comprising leaders and workers of his Pakistan Muslim League party on Nov 28, 1997. 

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

Palestinians threatened to break off peace talks over Jewish settlements on occupied land, on the eve of U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's visit. The Palestinians are protesting over plans announced Sunday by the Israeli housing ministry to build a further 500 homes for Jews in two West Bank settlements, saying that interim peace agreements call for a halt to such unilateral actions while they are negotiating on a final peace deal.

Monday, 10 June 2024

IRAN'S SUNBURN ANTISHIP MISSILE FROM RENSE 2004. THE US WAS NEVER GOING TO INVADE IRAN.

 Rense.com

The Sunburn - Iran's Awesome

Nuclear Anti-Ship Missile

The Weapon That Could

Defeat The US In The Gulf

By Mark Gaffney

11-2-4

 

A word to the reader: The following paper is so shocking that, after preparing the initial draft, I didn't want to believe it myself, and resolved to disprove it with more research. However, I only succeeded in turning up more evidence in support of my thesis. And I repeated this cycle of discovery and denial several more times before finally deciding to go with the article. I believe that a serious writer must follow the trail of evidence, no matter where it leads, and report back. So here is my story. Don't be surprised if it causes you to squirm. Its purpose is not to make predictions history makes fools of those who claim to know the future but simply to describe the peril that awaits us in the Persian Gulf. By awakening to the extent of that danger, perhaps we can still find a way to save our nation and the world from disaster. If we are very lucky, we might even create an alternative future that holds some promise of resolving the monumental conflicts of our time. --MG

 

Last July, they dubbed it operation Summer Pulse: a simultaneous mustering of US Naval forces, world wide, that was unprecedented. According to the Navy, it was the first exercise of its new Fleet Response Plan (FRP), the purpose of which was to enable the Navy to respond quickly to an international crisis. The Navy wanted to show its increased force readiness, that is, its capacity to rapidly move combat power to any global hot spot. Never in the history of the US Navy had so many carrier battle groups been involved in a single operation. Even the US fleet massed in the Gulf and eastern Mediterranean during operation Desert Storm in 1991, and in the recent invasion of Iraq, never exceeded six battle groups. But last July and August there were seven of them on the move, each battle group consisting of a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier with its full complement of 7-8 supporting ships, and 70 or more assorted aircraft. Most of the activity, according to various reports, was in the Pacific, where the fleet participated in joint exercises with the Taiwanese navy.

 

But why so much naval power underway at the same time? What potential world crisis could possibly require more battle groups than were deployed during the recent invasion of Iraq? In past years, when the US has seen fit to "show the flag" or flex its naval muscle, one or two carrier groups have sufficed. Why this global show of power? The news headlines about the joint-maneuvers in the South China Sea read: "Saber Rattling Unnerves China", and: "Huge Show of Force Worries Chinese." But the reality was quite different, and, as we shall see, has grave ramifications for the continuing US military presence in the Persian Gulf; because operation Summer Pulse reflected a high-level Pentagon decision that an unprecedented show of strength was needed to counter what is viewed as a growing threat in the particular case of China, because of Peking's newest Sovremenny-class destroyers recently acquired from Russia.

 

"Nonsense!" you are probably thinking. That's impossible. How could a few picayune destroyers threaten the US Pacific fleet?" Here is where the story thickens: Summer Pulse amounted to a tacit acknowledgement, obvious to anyone paying attention, that the United States has been eclipsed in an important area of military technology, and that this qualitative edge is now being wielded by others, including the Chinese; because those otherwise very ordinary destroyers were, in fact, launching platforms for Russian-made 3M-82 Moskit anti-ship cruise missiles (NATO designation: SS-N-22 Sunburn), a weapon for which the US Navy currently has no defense. Here I am not suggesting that the US status of lone world Superpower has been surpassed. I am simply saying that a new global balance of power is emerging, in which other individual states may, on occasion, achieve "an asymmetric advantage" over the US. And this, in my view, explains the immense scale of Summer Pulse. The US show last summer of overwhelming strength was calculated to send a message.

 

The Sunburn Missile

 

I was shocked when I learned the facts about these Russian-made cruise missiles. The problem is that so many of us suffer from two common misperceptions. The first follows from our assumption that Russia is militarily weak, as a result of the breakup of the old Soviet system. Actually, this is accurate, but it does not reflect the complexities. Although the Russian navy continues to rust in port, and the Russian army is in disarray, in certain key areas Russian technology is actually superior to our own. And nowhere is this truer than in the vital area of anti-ship cruise missile technology, where the Russians hold at least a ten-year lead over the US. The second misperception has to do with our complacency in general about missiles-as-weapons probably attributable to the pathetic performance of Saddam Hussein's Scuds during the first Gulf war: a dangerous illusion that I will now attempt to rectify.

 

Many years ago, Soviet planners gave up trying to match the US Navy ship for ship, gun for gun, and dollar for dollar. The Soviets simply could not compete with the high levels of US spending required to build up and maintain a huge naval armada. They shrewdly adopted an alternative approach based on strategic defense. They searched for weaknesses, and sought relatively inexpensive ways to exploit those weaknesses. The Soviets succeeded: by developing several supersonic anti-ship missiles, one of which, the SS-N-22 Sunburn, has been called "the most lethal missile in the world today."

 

After the collapse of the Soviet Union the old military establishment fell upon hard times. But in the late1990s Moscow awakened to the under-utilized potential of its missile technology to generate desperately needed foreign exchange. A decision was made to resuscitate selected programs, and, very soon, Russian missile technology became a hot export commodity. Today, Russian missiles are a growth industry generating much-needed cash for Russia, with many billions in combined sales to India, China, Viet Nam, Cuba, and also Iran. In the near future this dissemination of advanced technology is likely to present serious challenges to the US. Some have even warned that the US Navy's largest ships, the massive carriers, have now become floating death traps, and should for this reason be mothballed.

 

The Sunburn missile has never seen use in combat, to my knowledge, which probably explains why its fearsome capabilities are not more widely recognized. Other cruise missiles have been used, of course, on several occasions, and with devastating results. During the Falklands War, French-made Exocet missiles, fired from Argentine fighters, sunk the HMS Sheffield and another ship. And, in 1987, during the Iran-Iraq war, the USS Stark was nearly cut in half by a pair of Exocets while on patrol in the Persian Gulf. On that occasion US Aegis radar picked up the incoming Iraqi fighter (a French-made Mirage), and tracked its approach to within 50 miles. The radar also "saw" the Iraqi plane turn about and return to its base. But radar never detected the pilot launch his weapons. The sea-skimming Exocets came smoking in under radar and were only sighted by human eyes moments before they ripped into the Stark, crippling the ship and killing 37 US sailors.

 

The 1987 surprise attack on the Stark exemplifies the dangers posed by anti-ship cruise missiles. And the dangers are much more serious in the case of the Sunburn, whose specs leave the sub-sonic Exocet in the dust. Not only is the Sunburn much larger and faster, it has far greater range and a superior guidance system. Those who have witnessed its performance trials invariably come away stunned. According to one report, when the Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani visited Moscow in October 2001 he requested a test firing of the Sunburn, which the Russians were only too happy to arrange. So impressed was Ali Shamkhani that he placed an order for an undisclosed number of the missiles.

 

The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or: a 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes "violent end maneuvers" to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder "just in time."

 

The Sunburn's combined supersonic speed and payload size produce tremendous kinetic energy on impact, with devastating consequences for ship and crew. A single one of these missiles can sink a large warship, yet costs considerably less than a fighter jet. Although the Navy has been phasing out the older Phalanx defense system, its replacement, known as the Rolling Action Missile (RAM) has never been tested against the weapon it seems destined to one day face in combat. Implications For US Forces in the Gulf

 

The US Navy's only plausible defense against a robust weapon like the Sunburn missile is to detect the enemy's approach well ahead of time, whether destroyers, subs, or fighter-bombers, and defeat them before they can get in range and launch their deadly cargo. For this purpose US AWACs radar planes assigned to each naval battle group are kept aloft on a rotating schedule. The planes "see" everything within two hundred miles of the fleet, and are complemented with intelligence from orbiting satellites.

 

But US naval commanders operating in the Persian Gulf face serious challenges that are unique to the littoral, i.e., coastal, environment. A glance at a map shows why: The Gulf is nothing but a large lake, with one narrow outlet, and most of its northern shore, i.e., Iran, consists of mountainous terrain that affords a commanding tactical advantage over ships operating in Gulf waters. The rugged northern shore makes for easy concealment of coastal defenses, such as mobile missile launchers, and also makes their detection problematic. Although it was not widely reported, the US actually lost the battle of the Scuds in the first Gulf War termed "the great Scud hunt" and for similar reasons.

 

Saddam Hussein's mobile Scud launchers proved so difficult to detect and destroy over and over again the Iraqis fooled allied reconnaissance with decoys that during the course of Desert Storm the US was unable to confirm even a single kill. This proved such an embarrassment to the Pentagon, afterwards, that the unpleasant stats were buried in official reports. But the blunt fact is that the US failed to stop the Scud attacks. The launches continued until the last few days of the conflict. Luckily, the Scud's inaccuracy made it an almost useless weapon. At one point General Norman Schwarzkopf quipped dismissively to the press that his soldiers had a greater chance of being struck by lightning in Georgia than by a Scud in Kuwait.

 

But that was then, and it would be a grave error to allow the Scud's ineffectiveness to blur the facts concerning this other missile. The Sunburn's amazing accuracy was demonstrated not long ago in a live test staged at sea by the Chinese and observed by US spy planes. Not only did the Sunburn missile destroy the dummy target ship, it scored a perfect bull's eye, hitting the crosshairs of a large "X" mounted on the ship's bridge. The only word that does it justice, awesome, has become a cliché, hackneyed from hyperbolic excess.

 

The US Navy has never faced anything in combat as formidable as the Sunburn missile. But this will surely change if the US and Israel decide to wage a so-called preventive war against Iran to destroy its nuclear infrastructure. Storm clouds have been darkening over the Gulf for many months. In recent years Israel upgraded its air force with a new fleet of long-range F-15 fighter-bombers, and even more recently took delivery of 5,000 bunker-buster bombs from the US weapons that many observers think are intended for use against Iran.

 

The arming for war has been matched by threats. Israeli officials have declared repeatedly that they will not allow the Mullahs to develop nuclear power, not even reactors to generate electricity for peaceful use. Their threats are particularly worrisome, because Israel has a long history of pre-emptive war. (See my 1989 book Dimona: the Third Temple? and also my 2003 article Will Iran Be Next? posted at http://www.InformationClearingHouse.info/article3288.htm )

 

Never mind that such a determination is not Israel's to make, and belongs instead to the international community, as codified in the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). With regard to Iran, the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA's) recent report (September 2004) is well worth a look, as it repudiates facile claims by the US and Israel that Iran is building bombs. While the report is highly critical of Tehran for its ambiguities and its grudging release of documents, it affirms that IAEA inspectors have been admitted to every nuclear site in the country to which they have sought access, without exception. Last year Iran signed the strengthened IAEA inspection protocol, which until then had been voluntary. And the IAEA has found no hard evidence, to date, either that bombs exist or that Iran has made a decision to build them.

 

(The latest IAEA report can be downloaded at: http://www.GlobalSecurity.org)

 

In a talk on October 3, 2004, IAEA Director General Mohamed El Baradei made the clearest statement yet: "Iran has no nuclear weapons program", he said, and then repeated himself for emphasis: "Iran has no nuclear weapons program, but I personally don't rush to conclusions before all the realities are clarified. So far I see nothing that could be called an imminent danger. I have seen no nuclear weapons program in Iran. What I have seen is that Iran is trying to gain access to nuclear enrichment technology, and so far there is no danger from Iran. Therefore, we should make use of political and diplomatic means before thinking of resorting to other alternatives."

 

No one disputes that Tehran is pursuing a dangerous path, but with 200 or more Israeli nukes targeted upon them the Iranians' insistence on keeping their options open is understandable. Clearly, the nuclear nonproliferation regime today hangs by the slenderest of threads. The world has arrived at a fateful crossroads.

 

A Fearful Symmetry?

 

If a showdown over Iran develops in the coming months, the man who could hold the outcome in his hands will be thrust upon the world stage. That man, like him or hate him, is Russian President Vladimir Putin. He has been castigated severely in recent months for gathering too much political power to himself. But according to former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, who was interviewed on US television recently by David Brokaw, Putin has not imposed a tyranny upon Russia yet. Gorbachev thinks the jury is still out on Putin.

 

Perhaps, with this in mind, we should be asking whether Vladimir Putin is a serious student of history. If he is, then he surely recognizes that the deepening crisis in the Persian Gulf presents not only manifold dangers, but also opportunities. Be assured that the Russian leader has not forgotten the humiliating defeat Ronald Reagan inflicted upon the old Soviet state. (Have we Americans forgotten?) By the mid-1980s the Soviets were in Kabul, and had all but defeated the Mujahedeen. The Soviet Union appeared secure in its military occupation of Afghanistan. But then, in 1986, the first US Stinger missiles reached the hands of the Afghani resistance; and, quite suddenly, Soviet helicopter gunships and MiGs began dropping out of the skies like flaming stones. The tide swiftly turned, and by 1989 it was all over but the hand wringing and gnashing of teeth in the Kremlin. Defeated, the Soviets slunk back across the frontier. The whole world cheered the American Stingers, which had carried the day.

 

This very night, as he sips his cognac, what is Vladimir Putin thinking? Is he perhaps thinking about the perverse symmetries of history? If so, he may also be wondering (and discussing with his closest aides) how a truly great nation like the United States could be so blind and so stupid as to allow another state, i.e., Israel, to control its foreign policy, especially in a region as vital (and volatile) as the Mid-East.

 

One can almost hear the Russians' animated conversation:

 

"The Americans! What is the matter with them?" "They simply cannot help themselves."

 

"What idiots!"

 

"A nation as foolish as this deserves to be taught a lesson"

 

"Yes! For their own good."

 

"It must be a painful lesson, one they will never forget. "Are we agreed, then, comrades?"

 

"Let us teach our American friends a lesson about the limits of military power..."

 

Does anyone really believe that Vladimir Putin will hesitate to seize a most rare opportunity to change the course of history and, in the bargain, take his sweet revenge? Surely Putin understands the terrible dimensions of the trap into which the US has blundered, thanks to the Israelis and their neo-con supporters in Washington who lobbied so vociferously for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, against all friendly and expert advice, and who even now beat the drums of war against Iran. Would Putin be wrong to conclude that the US will never leave the region unless it is first defeated militarily? Should we blame him for deciding that Iran is "one bridge too far"?

 

If the US and Israel overreach, and the Iranians close the net with Russian anti-ship missiles, it will be a fearful symmetry, indeed.

 

Springing the Trap

 

At the battle of Cannae in 216 BC, the great Carthaginian general, Hannibal, tempted a much larger Roman army into a fateful advance, and then enveloped and annihilated it with a smaller force. Out of a Roman army of 70,000 men, no more than a few thousand escaped. It was said that after many hours of dispatching the Romans, Hannibal's soldiers grew so tired that the fight went out of them. In their weariness they granted the last broken and bedraggled Romans their lives.

 

Let us pray that the US sailors who are unlucky enough to be on duty in the Persian Gulf when the shooting starts can escape the fate of the Roman army at Cannae. The odds will be heavily against them, however, because they will face the same type of danger, tantamount to envelopment. The US ships in the Gulf will already have come within range of the Sunburn missiles and the even more-advanced SS-NX-26 Yakhonts missiles, also Russian-made (speed: Mach 2.9; range: 180 miles) deployed by the Iranians along the Gulf's northern shore. Every US ship will be exposed and vulnerable. When the Iranians spring the trap, the entire lake will become a killing field.

 

Anti-ship cruise missiles are not new, as I've mentioned. Nor have they yet determined the outcome in a conflict. But this is probably only because these horrible weapons have never been deployed in sufficient numbers. At the time of the Falklands war the Argentine air force possessed only five Exocets, yet managed to sink two ships. With enough of them, the Argentineans might have sunk the entire British fleet, and won the war. Although we've never seen a massed attack of cruise missiles, this is exactly what the US Navy could face in the next war in the Gulf.

 

Try and imagine it if you can: barrage after barrage of Exocet-class missiles, which the Iranians are known to possess in the hundreds, as well as the unstoppable Sunburn and Yakhonts missiles. The questions that our purblind government leaders should be asking themselves, today, if they value what historians will one day write about them, are two: how many of the Russian anti-ship missiles has Putin already supplied to Iran? And: How many more are currently in the pipeline?

 

In 2001, Jane's Defense Weekly reported that Iran was attempting to acquire anti-ship missiles from Russia. Ominously, the same report also mentioned that the more advanced Yakhonts missile was "optimized for attacks against carrier task forces." Apparently its guidance system is "able to distinguish an aircraft carrier from its escorts." The numbers were not disclosed.

 

The US Navy will come under fire even if the US does not participate in the first so-called surgical raids on Iran's nuclear sites, that is, even if Israel goes it alone. Israel's brand-new fleet of 25 F-15s (paid for by American taxpayers) has sufficient range to target Iran, but the Israelis cannot mount an attack without crossing US-occupied Iraqi air space. It will hardly matter if Washington gives the green light, or is dragged into the conflict by a recalcitrant Israel. Either way, the result will be the same. The Iranians will interpret US acquiescence as complicity, and, in any event, they will understand that the real fight is with the Americans. The Iranians will be entirely within their rights to counter-attack in self-defense. Most of the world will see it this way, and will support them, not America. The US and Israel will be viewed as the aggressors, even as the unfortunate US sailors in harm's way become cannon fodder. In the Gulf's shallow and confined waters evasive maneuvers will be difficult, at best, and escape impossible. Even if US planes control of the skies over the battlefield, the sailors caught in the net below will be hard-pressed to survive. The Gulf will run red with American blood.

 

From here, it only gets worse. Armed with their Russian-supplied cruise missiles, the Iranians will close the lake's only outlet, the strategic Strait of Hormuz, cutting off the trapped and dying Americans from help and rescue. The US fleet massing in the Indian Ocean will stand by helplessly, unable to enter the Gulf to assist the survivors or bring logistical support to the other US forces on duty in Iraq. Couple this with a major new ground offensive by the Iraqi insurgents, and, quite suddenly, the tables could turn against the Americans in Baghdad. As supplies and ammunition begin to run out, the status of US forces in the region will become precarious. The occupiers will become the besieged.

 

With enough anti-ship missiles, the Iranians can halt tanker traffic through Hormuz for weeks, even months. With the flow of oil from the Gulf curtailed, the price of a barrel of crude will skyrocket on the world market. Within days the global economy will begin to grind to a halt. Tempers at an emergency round-the-clock session of the UN Security Council will flare and likely explode into shouting and recriminations as French, German, Chinese and even British ambassadors angrily accuse the US of allowing Israel to threaten world order. But, as always, because of the US veto the world body will be powerless to act... America will stand alone, completely isolated.

 

Yet, despite the increasingly hostile international mood, elements of the US media will spin the crisis very differently here at home, in a way that is sympathetic to Israel. Members of Congress will rise to speak in the House and Senate, and rally to Israel's defense, while blaming the victim of the attack, Iran. Fundamentalist Christian talk show hosts will proclaim the historic fulfillment of biblical prophecy in our time, and will call upon the Jews of Israel to accept Jesus into their hearts; meanwhile, urging the president to nuke the evil empire of Islam. From across America will be heard histrionic cries for fresh reinforcements, even a military draft. Patriots will demand victory at any cost. Pundits will scream for an escalation of the conflict.

 

A war that ostensibly began as an attempt to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons will teeter on the brink of their use.

 

Conclusion

 

Friends, we must work together to prevent such a catastrophe. We must stop the next Middle East war before it starts. The US government must turn over to the United Nations the primary responsibility for resolving the deepening crisis in Iraq, and, immediately thereafter, withdraw US forces from the country. We must also prevail upon the Israelis to sign the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and open all of their nuclear sites to IAEA inspectors. Only then can serious talks begin with Iran and other states to establish a nuclear weapon free zone (NWFZ) in the Mid East so essential to the region's long-term peace and security. 10/26/04 "ICH"

 

*Mark Gaffney's first book, Dimona the Third Temple? (1989), was a pioneering study of Israel's nuclear weapons program. He has since published numerous important articles about the Mid-East with emphasis on nuclear proliferation issues.

 

 



Monday, 20 May 2024

ARCHIVE OF JOHN KIMBER'S CRITIQUE OF HOFFMAN'S DUST CLOUD ANALYSIS

 FRIDAY, JULY 22, 2005

Critique of Jim Hoffman's Analyses--Part I

Jim Hoffman’s Faulty Analyses of WTC Dust Clouds Clouds Understanding

One of the most widely quoted 9/11 "truth researchers" is Jim Hoffman, a prominent computer graphics programmer. David Ray Griffin, Dean of America's 9/11 conspiracy theory popularizers, quotes him extensively, and Hoffman's critiques of the conventional wisdom on how the WTC buildings collapsed are widely accepted in the 9/11 "truth" movment.

A timeline on Hoffman's 9/11 calculations and speculations follows:

VERSION 1 OF HOFFMAN’S DUST CLOUD ANALYIS

On June 13, 2003 Hoffman published his first article on energy analysis of the collapse of the North Tower. ("The North Tower’s Dust Cloud, Version 1" which can be viewed at

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev1.html.)

Attempting to apply Boyle’s Ideal Gas Law to the dust cloud which arose from the WTC 1 collapse, he "calculates" that more than 60,000,000 kilowatt hours of energy had to have been dissipated in order to produce what the visual evidence demonstrated. Hoffman erroneously assumed that the available potential energy of WTC 1 was 400,000 KWH, and his conclusion was:

"The amount of energy required to expand the North Tower's dust cloud was many times the entire potential energy of the tower's elevated mass due to gravity. The over 100-fold disparity between this estimate and the gravitational energy is not easily dismissed as reflecting uncertainties in quantitative assessments. The official explanation that the Twin Tower collapses were gravity-driven events appears insufficient to account for the documented energy flows."

It can easily be found in energy tables that 1 KWH of energy is produced by 0.78 Kg of TNT, so the 60,000,000 KWH Hoffman "calculates" were dissipated has the TNT equivalent of 60,000,000 X 0.78 = 46,800,000 Kg or 46,800 tonnes (metric tons) of TNT. This is a lot of shiploads of TNT—a lot more power than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs produced. Apparently Hoffman never gave any consideration to who would be carrying 46,800 tonnes of TNT to the various floors of a 1,386 foot building.

Apparently also, in his critique of the May, 2002 FEMA report on WTC 1 and 2, Hoffman didn’t even read the first sentence of the second chapter:

"Chapter 2: WTC1 & WTC2

"2.2.1.5 Progression of Collapses

"Construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than [400,000,000,000] joules of potential energy over the 1,368-foot height of the structure."

This potential energy converted to KWH equals 111,111 KWH, whereas Hoffman estimated the potential energy of WTC 1 to be 400,000 KWH—almost four times the FEMA estimate.

The reason this observation is important is that the common practice of Hoffman and Griffin and most other proponents of the planted-explosive WTC theory is to ignore the work done by both FEMA in its hurried preliminary study and by NIST in its ongoing study. (The FEMA reports on the 9/11 attacks were meant only as quick tentative analyses because the definitive analyses are the responsibility of NIST. FEMA is the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and NIST is the National Institute of Standards and Technology.)

VERSION 2 OF HOFFMAN’S DUST CLOUD ANALYIS

On July 23, 2003 Hoffman published his first revision of his June 13 energy analysis of the collapse of the North Tower. ("The North Tower’s Dust Cloud, Version 2" which can be viewed at

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev1.html.)

This time he accepted the FEMA estimate of the available WTC 1 potential energy, 111,000 KWH, he and re-did his earlier calculations, coming up with 11,835,000 KWH dissipated during the collapse. The TNT equivalent of this is 9,231 tonnes of TNT. This is a lot less than the 46,000 tonnes of TNT in his June 13 calculations, and now down to less than the Hiroshima magnitude, but still too much for humans to carry up to the various floors of WTC 1. The wording of Hoffman’s concluding summary remains unchanged from his June 13 summary:

"The amount of energy required to expand the North Tower's dust cloud was many times the entire potential energy of the tower's elevated mass due to gravity. The over 100-fold disparity between this estimate and the gravitational energy is not easily dismissed as reflecting uncertainties in quantitative assessments. The official explanation that the Twin Tower collapses were gravity-driven events appears insufficient to account for the documented energy flows."

VERSION 3 OF HOFFMAN’S DUST CLOUD ANALYIS

On October 16, 2003 Hoffman published his second revision of his energy analysis of the collapse of the North Tower. ("The North Tower’s Dust Cloud, Version 3" which can be viewed at

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev1.html.)

This time he makes a different assumption of how the energy was dissipated, bringing in the change-of-state of water in the building, including water in the concrete. Again he accepts the FEMA estimate of 111,000 KWH of available potential energy, and calculates that the total amount of energy dissipated had to be approximately 2,817,000 KWH, which is 25.38 times the available potential energy. This time in his conclusions he conservatively reduces this 25 times to 10 times available potential energy in his concluding summary:

"The amount of energy required to expand the North Tower's dust cloud was many times the entire potential energy of the tower's elevated mass due to gravity. The over 10-fold disparity between the most conservative estimate and the gravitational energy is not easily dismissed as reflecting uncertainties in quantitative assessments. The official explanation that the Twin Tower collapses were gravity-driven events appears insufficient to account for the documented energy flows."

Ten times the 111,000 KWH of available potential energy, minus the 111,000, comes out to be 999,000 KWH, or 799 tonnes of TNT the minimum amount of explosive power needed to fit the observed evidence. But 799 tonnes of TNT is still more than could be expected of human beings to covertly carry up to the various floors of WTC 1. Considering that this 799 tonnes of explosives would all have to have been wired up carefully so that the explosives on the various floors are detonated by a computer in a manner coordinated with the building collapse, it remains, even after his drastic reduction in energy calculations, that Hoffman’s theory of controlled demolition of WTC 1 and 2 is not at all plausible.

VERSION 4 OF HOFFMAN’S DUST CLOUD ANALYIS

On an undisclosed date a person going by the pseudonym "TRUTH" tried to rescue Hoffman’s controlled-demolition theory, with a fourth version (third revision) of the June 13 analysis. This is given version 3.0 (as opposed to version 3 above), and is posted on various websites, including on the forum:

http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=318.

In this version the complete title has been changed and for the first time 14 tons of explosives is claimed to be sufficient to fit the observed evidence, but this tonnage is mentioned only in a new section inserted by TRUTH, who indicates that his revision was made in two steps, the last editing being on April 17, 2005. The complete heading and title in the globalresearch forum are:

"Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2004 3:54 am Post subject: CALCULATIONS SAY 14 TONS OF EXPLOSIVE TO BRING DOWN EACH WTC.

"The North Towers Dust Cloud: Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center by Jim Hoffman, October 16th, 2003 (Version 3.0)" [Note the 3.0 instead of 3 as the version number of the third revision (fourth version).]

At the end of his posting, TRUTH states that "The comment in red has been added to the original article." Since there is much text in TRUTH’s posting in red font (color)—some commentary and one whole new section, all of which is in addition to Hoffman’s Version 3 of October 16—it seems evident that TRUTH meant to say "commentary" instead of "comment".

In TRUTH’s commentary as well as in the whole new section, he refers to Hoffman by name, indicating that Hoffman did not participate in the revision which got the tonnage of explosives down to 14 from the 799 in Hoffman’s Version 3. TRUTH suggests that: "This article by J. Hoffman is a deliberate attempt to divert your attention from the fact that explosives were used to bring down the WTC towers. By presenting a possible explanation for the debris cloud without considering explosives, he is implicitly stating that he, as an expert in the field, does not consider explosives an option, so why should you? He is deliberately pointing you in the wrong direction."

The whole new section apparently written and inserted into Hoffman’s Version 3 of October 16, 2003 begins with:

"The Unexplored Option -- Explosives."

[For some reason TRUTH prefers to use the explosive amatol (80:20)—80% ammonium nitrate and 20 % TNT—instead of the more standard TNT when discussing energy equivalents of explosive tonnage and kilowatt hours. He goes through a lot of chemical calculations which are totally unnecessary because energy conversion between Kg of TNT and KWH are easily found on the Internet, as is the approximation that amatol is 26% more powerful than TNT by weight.] (TRUTH’s relating "hot gasses" to a 200,000,000 liter air expansion seems to me to be lacking validity, but that is not important in this current critique.) TRUTH’s conclusion is that

"Hence the 200,000,000 liter expansion calculated by Hoffman can be explained by the detonation of 200,000,000/16,068 = 12,447 kg = 12.5 tonnes (14 tons) of the high explosive amatol. "Summary "The 200,000,000 liter expansion calculated by Hoffman can be explained by the detonation of 12.5 tonnes (14 tons) of the high explosive amatol." [This ends TRUTH’s inserted section which began with the heading, "The Unexplored Option -- Explosives."]

[Then following this long inserted section, the text of Hoffman’s October 16, 2003 Version 3 resumes with:]

"The dominant energy source assumed to be in play during the leveling of each of the Twin Towers was the gravitational energy due to its elevated mass, whereas the energy sinks included the pulverization of it's concrete, the vaporization of water, and the heating of the concrete and air in the ensuing dust cloud. . . . "Conclusion "The amount of energy required to expand the North Towers dust cloud was many times the entire potential energy of the towers elevated mass due to gravity. The over 10-fold disparity between the most conservative estimate and the gravitational energy is not easily dismissed as reflecting uncertainties in quantitative assessments. The official explanation that the Twin Tower collapses were gravity-driven events appears insufficient to account for the documented energy flows." [The following was in red color—one of TRUTH’s many short inserted comments:] "However, the use of explosives explains all the observed facts, and is thus probably the correct explanation."

[NOTE THAT NOWHERE DOES HOFFMAN HIMSELF REFER TO 14 TONS OF ANYTHING. THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT HE COLLABORATED IN THE THIRD REVISION (FOURTH VERSION) GOING FROM VERSION 3 TO 3.0. In order to realize the significance of TRUTH’s revision of Version 3, it is necessary to go to

http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=318

where the text in red color is clearly set off from the earlier text by Hoffman.]

Jim Hoffman on "Guns and Butter", KPFA, 1/24/04 and 1/28/04

The transcript of these two interviews is found on:

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/radio/youreyesdontlie/index.html

Edited Transcript of Your Eyes Don't Lie: Common Sense, Physics, and the World Trade Center Collapses

Originally broadcast on KPFA in two parts:Part 1: 1/21/04, 2-3PMPart 2: 1/28/04, 2-3PM

Due to time and space considerations, in this posting it only will be mentioned that Hoffman, perhaps for the first time, referred to a low tonnage of explosives—he used 16 tons instead of TRUTH’s 14 tons above. But in Part 2 of the interview Hoffman states that he doesn’t believe any explosives were used because of the visible evidence, He expounds instead on his new theory that giant masers created the energy which collapsed WTC 1 and 2.

Popular Mechanics Attacks Its"9/11 LIES" Straw Man by Jim Hoffman Version 1.2, February 9, 2005

Is on

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

Here Hoffman returns to defend the planted explosives and controlled demolition theory, following his abandonment of that theory in his Guns and Butter KPFA interviews above.

Future postings to groups.yahoo.com/group/the911debate and the911debate.blogspot.com will develop further Hoffman’s current views and examine his critique of the Popular Mechanics article debunking major 9/11 conspiracy theories.

posted by John Kimber | 2:50 PM 


3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi John,


You seem to have a lot of understanding of the web and of the 9/11 movement for someone almost 80 years old.


I congratulate you. I know of few people your age reading anarchist websites. But I guess since there's a picture of you holding a sign on the front page, you must be a real activist!


Here's a comment from the 'groups' list which I appreciated:


From: "tierce_de_picardie"

Date: Tue Jul 19, 2005 3:03 pm

Subject: Debate? tierce_de_pi...


Seems to me it ain't going to be much of a debate if the list owner

has already made up his mind that direct government complicity is

preposterous.


Doug


Just a comment - using center justifiction makes your stuff almost unreadable.


- reader


2:56 PM

Blogger John Kimber said...

I appreciate the tip about center justification. Actually, on my most recent long posting I intended to have only the heading center-justified. I used copy and paste from Word, but the left justification of the body of text was stripped. In future long postings I will always have EVERYTHING left justified.


10:18 AM

Blogger dwaingibson36604909 said...

i thought your blog was cool and i think you may like this cool Website. now just Click Here


2:41 PM

Post a Comment


<< Home


 

Tuesday, 12 March 2024

BARBARA OLSON



One of 911's mysteries - Why was there no security on Flight 77 guarding Barbara Olson wife of 42nd Solicitor General of the United States Theodore Olson? Barbara Olson was a high profile target. She is a VIP, a somebody who would have made a valuable hostage. She also could have been used in a media coup. The supposed hijackers could have had Olson call the media. She could have been put on the air giving viewers a live play by play. She could have let the World know what the hijackers demands were. US Special Forces "Delta Force" sometime play the role of "sky marshal." They are men of many badges.

If Flight 77 had truly been hijacked by human beings, they all would have been shot dead by Barbara Olson's security detail. She might not even knew they were on the plane. But since she was on the plane "sky marshals" would have been there to protect her. 

The US took hijacking seriously. They wanted to protect the revenue stream of the airlines. Special Forces were trained to take out airline hijackers. The best strategy is to have a crack shot SF guy on the plane. We are being lied to about there being no security to protect Olson on Flight 77. 

The strangest thing about the 911 hijackers myth is no demands were made. Like "release the prisoners or we kill the hostages." Terrorism are acts of violence for political ends. The story that Bin Laden did it for revenge also makes no sense. Because the attacks minimized the casualties. Only 3000 people were killed on 911, when if the hijackings had been timed for noon time impacts the death toll could have been much higher. He did not wait for the time the WTC would be at maximum occupancy. If he really wanted maximum death toll. He would have set the bombs off at noon and killed 50,000 people. Back to Olson she most definitely had security on the plane. If there had been hijackers they would have been confronted by Special Forces. The 911 hijacker story is a lie.

Saturday, 9 March 2024

COLD WAR CONJECTURE (THIS IS AN IDEA DUMP TO BE CLEANED UP LATER)

The USSR collapsed because of constant psychological warfare (overflight) and military pressure in the form of guerrilla warfare inside and on their borders. The US Ruling Class controlled Soviet airspace. All through the Cold War, the US violated Soviet airspace with Bombers cloaked as reconnaissance planes. The Canberra, U2, Blackbirds, and AURORA. All of them flew into Soviet airspace. The US has planes flying today doing it. The Russians do not control their airspace. The US can overfly the Russia with their space planes. In the 1952 while the Korean War was raging there was a "UFO flap." UFOs were sighted over Washington DC. It was in all the newspapers. UFOs in the form of modified to high altitude specifications Canberra bombers were also flying at this time over the USSR. The US was threatening the USSR with nuclear annihilation. The Soviet jets could not intercept the Canberra. Many pilots were killed when their planes stalled out in the climb to intercept the Canberra. The US constantly probed Soviet defenses flying C130s and other ELINT planes along Soviet borders often penetrating their airspace. Many US airmen were killed conducting these missions.   

I conjecture. This constant pressure during the 50s led to Nikita Khrushchev assassinating Stalin and then repudiating Stalin in his famous speech. Khrushchev also brain drained the Soviet Union. He released German scientists who had been captured after the war [1]. Many of them migrated to the USA. This decision set back the Soviet Military Industrial complex. All during the Cold War, the US Ruling Class maintained a first strike capability the Soviets could not match. The US whose ruling class had wholeheartedly supported Hitler's rise to power before the war, made a separate peace with the Nazi's at the end of the war. As a result of that peace the US inherited the Gehlen Org which had a network of spies and partisan stay behinds to wage guerrilla warfare inside the Warsaw Pact and USSR. One of these stay behinds was Gorbachev. The US conquered the USSR using psychological and unconventional warfare.

This idea that Cold War was won because the USSR was forced to "choose guns over butter" alone is just not true. The Soviet system worked. It worked too good to the chagrin of Western plutocrats. They had tried to strangle the Soviet Union in the cradle by invading in 1918. The war lasted two years. A failure it ended in 1920. The failure led to the collapse of The Treaty of Versailles. The Western Powers rearmed Germany and set her loose on the USSR.

Then after WW2 the US initiated the Cold War against a severely weakened Soviet Union. 

TBC   

During the 1950's the Soviets were fighting an insurgency in Ukraine and dealing with a psychological warfare campaign in their skies that made them fear an American surprise attack. This prodded Khrushchev lead a coup against Stalin, brain drain the country and denounce Stalin in his famous speech.    

   


SOURCES:

1. Operation Osoaviakhim

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Osoaviakhim

2. Putin vows to perfect mystery rocket after engine blast

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50514306

Tuesday, 20 February 2024

PUTIN SURRENDERS

 

Putin backs down. He knows he's cornered. Putin is a moderate. He represses the hawks The US already has nukes in space. That's why the US is so aggressive on Russia's borders and why Russia does nothing about it. Well, the Soviets countered by smuggling nukes & bioweapons into the USA.

The space race was all about putting nukes in space. The US developed the Nuclear Thermal Rocket to lower the cost or deploying Space Weapons. The Nazis had a plan to put a large mirror in space to deploy as a weapon. That's what sold the US on bring Von Braun into the fold.


Responding to the US space weapons the Soviets attempted to put a one megawatt laser Polyus into space. The traitor Gorbachev destroyed it after launch it is said. So, Putin it seems has shot down the RU hawks.

Defeating an opponent from the guard position.


People should never forget that RU and China are not out to disrupt the status quo. Hell Putin is not even seeking parity with the USA when it comes to space weaponry. He's like Gorbachev when it comes to that. Putin is a judo master. It is possible to defeat someone above you.

The problem anyone wanting to take on the US in the space realm is - the US got there first. That's why it was called the space race. There could be only one winner. The US had a 1 megawatt laser in the 1960's. The Soviets were 20 years behind when they attempted Polyus. Anyway interesting - Putin surrenders. Putin is not the warmonger Western propagandists paint him to be. Putin a a moderate who keeps Russia's hawks in check. When Putin is replaced with a real Hawk the US/NATO will be in for a rude awakening, wishing Putin was still in power.