Thursday, October 28, 2010
*The equivalence was 9 million tons, not 9 million pounds. Note the corrrection at top of article
Fact sheet on Pantex Plant from Nukewatch New Mexico Pantex Plant at LASG.org
The B53 also played a prominent role in Project Chariot, and the book “The Fire Cracker Boys”. In reading what Wikipedia had to say about the book, I need to state That I read the 1995 version, the Wikipedia entry asserts was been reissued in 2007 as The Firecracker Boys: H-Bombs, Inupiat Eskimos, and the Roots of the Environmental Movement). [ I just ordered the 2007 version]
Project Chariot was an attempt by Ed Teller to find a use for his pet project – the second generation thermonuclear high yield weapon, built over the objections of many including J. Robert Oppenheimer to build harbors, settling on “a site at the mouth of the Ogotoruk Creek near Cape Thompson, approximately 30 miles southeast of the Inupiat Eskimo village of Point Hope.”
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
from Steve Clemon's Blog at TWN.:
I had the opportunity tonight to chat with PBS NewsHour Chief Anchor Jim Lehrer and former Afghanistan Interior Minister and National Defense University professor Ali Jalali about the solvency of Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai given the acknowledgment that he is accepting "bags of cash" from Iran. Interestingly, at a press conference Karzai also acknowledged that his government was getting similar bags of cash from the United States -- which White House spokesman Robert Gibbs denied.
I thought that this was a very good exchange -- and was able to surface some of the key themes from the recently released Afghanistan Study Group Report.Nice job Steve. There is also a video clip for those (like me) who missed it live,
Here is the transcript from the exchange as well.
-- Steve Clemons
Until I figure out how to embed a direct video link, i'll have to redirect, in this case here:
Hmm. Folks remember the bags of cash, the biggest cash withdrawal in the Feds history, in three planeloads, to Iraq? I once calculated the equivalence of 10 dumptruck of shrink wrap bricks of $100 bills, each brick $160,00 to $1.6M went to Kirkuk. When the distributing agent was asked who picked it up, he could not remember either the name or what he looked like. He was not even certain that it did not go to those we were fighting.
Remember my letter to then Sen. Bingaman on that one, Steve?
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
"I’ve repeatedly documented that mortgages were pledged multiple times to different buyers. See this, this and this."
Rest here, and the answers from "some of the leading experts on mortgage fraud – L. Randall Wray (economics professor), Christopher Whalen (banking expert with Institutional Risk Analytics), and William K. Black (professor of economics and law, and the senior regulator during the S & L crisis)"
Do read what is required under NEPA Council of Environmental Quality Regulations [CEQ-Regs], especially PART 1502--ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
Sec. 1502.1 Purpose. eg states:
An environmental impact statement is more than a disclosure document. It shall be used by Federal officials in conjunction with other relevant material to plan actions and make decisions.Sec. 1502.14 Alternatives including the proposed action.
This section is the heart of the environmental impact statement. Based on the information and analysis presented in the sections on the Affected Environment (Sec. 1502.15) and the Environmental Consequences (Sec. 1502.16), it should present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decisionmaker and the public. In this section agencies shall:
(a) Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated. (b) Devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail including the proposed action so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits.
(c) Include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.
(d) Include the alternative of no action.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Teaching the Economics of War and Peace
where he stated:
Complaining and whining about government and spending and better leadership is easy -- but actually developing sensible, workable policy frameworks and alternatives is hard. But it's what we have to do.
Be clear and honest in terms of describing what attendees can expect by attending.
And to the SFCIR I suggest:
How about hosting an event where the topic of "eliminating nuclear weapons" is actually discussed, by those that see their elimination as a serious alternative? That have actually worked to eliminate, rather than promote, nuclear weapons? An obvious participant would be Greg Mello, of the Los Alamos Study Group, whose group has filed a lawsuit against DOE, NNSA to force compliance with NEPA, and stop construction of the CMRR until an EIS has actually been performed. I would also like to be on that panel. And unlike the last panel’s insistence on a one sided viewpoint, I would even be willing to include one of the SFCIR panelists, Steve Younger. Other nuclear abolitionists in the Santa Fe area might include Scott Kovacs and Joni Arends.
Though subtitled “Recent Challenges, New Dangers, and the Prospects for a World Without Nuclear Weapons,” Rhodes’s new book doesn’t really deliver on that last phrase…
How do we reduce the number of nuclear states? Will the United States ever commit to unilateral reductions and hope that Russia, and then everyone else, follows? Will weapons eventually have to be handed over to the United Nations? Should the international community centralize authority over all civilian nuclear power, since that is the habitual cover for bomb makers? There are unfortunately few people working on these questions, and the world’s shunning of the topic means that “The Twilight of the Bombs” probably doesn’t actually describe a real twilight.
“The fact is, I see no compelling reason why we should not unilaterally get rid of our nuclear weapons. To maintain them is costly and adds nothing to our security.”
Strange that the panel could not find the path to eliminating nuclear weapons that the once super hawk saw so clearly.
But the composition of the panel and Upton Sinclair’s observation- “"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it” – clears that up.
We should have expected an effort to “sell” a vested interest product- the CMRR- to the public and try to counter the LASG lawsuit.
with the Headline:
"Richard Rhodes and Panel Discuss Elimination of Nuclear Weapons"
The panel reminded me of the story of a drunk looking for his keys on his lit porch, rather than down the dark driveway,where the keys were dropped, "because he can see better there".
from the LANL site:
The panel, consisting of the author and former Director Browne; Damon Giovanelli, former Lab director of Physics Research; Terry Hawkins, acting director of the Lab's Office of Counterintelligence; and Steve Younger, former director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, will discuss the future of nuclear weapons. The discussion, facilitated by Jay Davis, president of the Hertz Foundation and a National Security Fellow at the Center for Global Security Research at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, will address issues, such as:
- the nuclear threat to the U.S.
- vulnerabilities of Western society
- challenges and risks to the U.S. and her allies as the stockpiles declines
- possible international initiatives.
Nothing here about "exploring world without nukes" - but then what do you expect from a panel loaded with those making a living from nuclear weapons, and excluding those that think one needs to look and understand what is in one's heart rather than in one's hidden armory? That is clueless that love is an art, and more about developing the capacity to love others, rather than making yourself "lovable" in the romance market. Are they aware that three of the ten editors in my Erich Fromm Book, the World Perspective Series, were giants in the development of the first atomic weapon- Neils Bohr, I.I. Rabi, and J. Robert Openheimer?
Do they tell the public of the nuclear abolitionists among those early scientists? Of Hans Bethe's admonition, the open letter to weapons scientists, written in 1995:
"I call on all scientists in all countries to cease and desist from work creating, developing, improving and manufacturing further nuclear weapons and, for that matter, other weapons of potential mass destruction such as chemical and biological weapons."
Do these panelists think themselves smarter that Bethe? Than Joe Rotblat? Than Leo Szilard? I.I. Rabi?
At least LANL was honest whereas the Santa Fe Council of International Relations was not. Or was the Council merely duped?
"America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons." was clearly not on the table
I for one would have liked to have known that this was to be a LANL marketing effort for the CMRR before driving down from Taos and spending $20.00