Sunday, April 28, 2013

THE ULTIMATE fear: State of Atomic Nuclear Alert, Awareness and Strategy! MANUAL 2

THE ULTIMATE fear: State of Atomic Nuclear Alert, Awareness and Strategy! MANUAL 2
Manual 2 [Manual 1:]

U.S. on alert for nuclear blast overhead
'Space launch vehicle' could put kill electric grid, devastate nation
Published: 04/01/2013 at 8:27 PM

WASHINGTON – U.S. officials quietly are expressing concern that North Korea could use its “space launch vehicle” to explode a high-altitude nuclear device over the United States, creating an electromagnetic pulse that would destroy major portions of the U.S. electrical grid system as well as the nation’s critical infrastructures.

The concern is so great that U.S. officials who watch North Korea closely are continually monitoring the status of the North Korean “space launch vehicle,” whose status could suggest a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the United States.
Ads by Google

    Trade Forex onlineObtain financial independence by trading on financial markets
    Shop Mother's Day JewelryShop Beautiful Jewelry that Says "Thank You Mom for Everything"!

They are aware of the three-stage missile North Korea launched last December that also orbited a “package,” which experts say could be a test to orbit a nuclear weapon that then would be deorbited on command anywhere over the U.S. and exploded at a high altitude, creating an EMP effect.

This concern is in addition to North Korea’s latest threat to strike targets in Hawaii and the continental U.S., as well as possible attacks against U.S. bases in South Korea and Japan.

The 28-year-old North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, has signed an order for North Korea’s strategic rocket forces to be on standby to fire at U.S. targets.

The signing was against a photo backdrop following an emergency meeting of his senior military leaders showing large maps that were labeled “U.S. mainland strike plan, specifically at Hawaii, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles and Austin, Texas.”

One WND reader who traced the targeting to Texas said that it really was aimed at the Dallas/Fort Worth area.

THIS is how an EMP event could bring the world’s remaining superpower to its knees. Read it in “A Nation Forsaken”.

The latest North Korean threats occurred after the U.S. sent two B-2 stealth bombers to strike targets with inert bombs during joint U.S.-South Korean military exercises, which Kim considered a major provocation.

“He finally signed the plan on technical preparations of strategic rockets, ordering them to be on standby to fire so that they may strike any time the U.S. mainland, its military bases in the operational theaters in the Pacific, including Hawaii and Guam, and those in South Korea,” according to a statement by the North Korean news agency, KCNA.

The statement added that the B-2 flights showed Washington’s “hostile” intent, and the “reckless” act had gone “beyond the phase of threat and blackmail.”

In response, U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel condemned North Korea’s actions which to date have included dissolving the 1953 armistice between North and South Korea, severing the military hotline with South Korea and putting its artillery forces on high alert and threatening, once again, nuclear strikes against the U.S.

In recent weeks, North Korea also had released three videos showing a nuclear strike on the U.S.

“We’ve made very clear that we have the capability and willingness to protect our interests and our allies in the region,” according to deputy White House press secretary Josh Earnest. He said that the U.S. military exercises with South Korea should offer “pretty clear evidence” that the U.S. can defend its interests and those of its allies in the region.

Sources say that sending the B-2s was in response to the recent North Korean threats to send a message – a message which Russia and China called a “provocative act.”

Russia and China have asked the U.S. to continue talking to North Korea and not to take military action against North Korea.

In response to North Korea’s initial bellicose rhetoric, Hagel ordered the deployment of additional Aegis anti-missile systems for the U.S. West Coast. They originally were destined for Europe. And a second anti-ballistic missile radar is to be installed in Japan.

However, the Aegis anti-missile systems won’t be operational until 2017, although there are some systems already deployed along the West Coast.

North Korea’s continuing threats of a pre-emptive nuclear strike against U.S. targets suggest to U.S. officials that its military is confident in the capability of its missiles and that its recent nuclear testing for miniaturization of a warhead to be placed on a missile similarly was successful.

These officials are looking at the prospect that upon launch of the missile and a potential nuclear payload, it would take a polar path, clearly out of range of U.S. Aegis anti-missile systems.

The fact that U.S.military officials are expressing quiet but increasing concern that North Korea could launch an EMP attack has raised alarms over the preservation of the U.S. national grid and such critical infrastructures as communications, energy, food and water delivery and space systems.

This concern recently has been reinforced by a little-publicized study by the U.S. Army War College that said a nuclear detonation at altitude above a U.S. city could wipe out the electrical grid for hundreds, possibly thousands of miles around.

The impact would be catastrophic.

“Preparing for months without a commercial source of clean water (city water pressure is often dependent on electric pumping to storage towers) and stoppage of sewage treatment facilities will require net methods of survival particularly in populated areas,” the military study said.

The May 2011 study, titled, “In the Dark: Military Planning for a Catastrophic Critical Infrastructure Event,” concluded that there is “very little” in the way of backup capability to the electric grid upon which the communications infrastructure is vitally dependent.

Analysts say that it is apparent that Kim has ignored any advice from its closest friend, China, to stop any further missile or nuclear testing suggesting, as one official described Kim, as a “loose cannon.”

Kim also has been defiant of any United Nations Security Council resolutions similarly condemning the recent missile and nuclear tests. China had joined in approving those resolutions.

“The time has come to settle accounts with the U.S.,” the KCNA agency declared.

“The Obama administration is either clueless or deceiving the American people with false assurances that North Korea’s recent threats to destroy the United States are merely ‘empty rhetoric’ because they allegedly ‘lack the capability,’” one former U.S. official told WND.

Some regional analysts, however, believe that Kim is seeking to leverage the U.S. for further concessions while attempting to win favor with his own military to show how tough he can be.

These analysts say that until now Kim has not had the support from the military that his father, Kim Jong-Il, had.

His war-like tone may be indicative of attempts to solidify military support within his country.

At the moment, experts are looking at efforts for preparations at known long-range missile launch sites.

Those signs may be appearing.

“North Korea’s launch sites to fire off mid- and long-range missiles have recently shown increased movement of vehicles and forces,” according to one South Korean official who described the activity at the sites as “brisk.”

“We are closely watching possibilities of missile launches,” the official said.

In this connection, officials have seen several vehicles moving to the Tongchang-ri missile site on the western coast, in what appeared to them to be preparations for testing its long-range missiles.

Some observers, however, believe the latest threats of a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the U.S. remain for now just domestic posturing and efforts to establish military credentials on Kim’s part to show that he is more forceful than his father.

In other efforts to determine warnings and indications of an attack, analysts are looking for major troop movements, although none has been detected to date.

Late last week, a North Korean Mig-21 fighter jet flew near South Korea’s front line airspace, known as the Tactical Action Line,but returned to base, according to a South Korean military official. In response, the South Koreans scrambled a KF-16 fighter.

The TAL is the point between 20 and 50 kilometers north of South Korean airspace that will prompt the South Korea to scramble its fighter jets.


Status as of 2006

As of 2006, the United States was believed to maintain an arsenal of around 9,960 intact warheads, of which 5,735 were considered active or operational, and of these only a certain number were deployed at any given time. These broke down into 5,021 "strategic" warheads, 1,050 of which were deployed on land-based missile systems (all on Minuteman ICBMs), 1,955 on bombers (B-52, B-1B, and B-2), and 2,016 on submarines (Ohio class), according to a 2006 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council.[26] Of 500 "tactical" "nonstrategic" weapons, around 100 are Tomahawk cruise missiles and 400 are B61 bombs. A few hundred of the B61 bombs are located at seven bases in six European NATO countries (Belgium,[27] Germany,[27] Italy, the Netherlands,[27] Turkey[27] and the United Kingdom), the only such weapons in forward deployment.[28][29] The United States has considered withdrawing these nuclear weapons.[30] According to one source, the quantity of the B61 nuclear bombs is 200 in five of the six countries (excluding the United Kingdom), including 80 bombs deployed at the Incirlik Air Base in Turkey.[30]

Around 4,225 warheads have been removed from deployment but have remained stockpiled as a "responsible reserve force" on inactive status. Under the May 2002 Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions ("SORT"), the U.S. pledged to reduce its stockpile to 2,200 operationally deployed warheads by 2012, and in June 2004 the Department of Energy announced that "almost half" of these warheads would be retired or dismantled by then.[31]

A 2001 nuclear posture review published by the Bush administration called for a reduction in the amount of time needed to test a nuclear weapon, and for discussion on possible development in new nuclear weapons of a low-yield, "bunker-busting" design (the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator). Work on such a design had been banned by Congress in 1994, but the banning law was repealed in 2003 at the request of the Department of Defense. The Air Force Research Laboratory researched the concept, but the United States Congress canceled funding for the project in October 2005 at the National Nuclear Security Administration's request. According to Fred T. Jane's Information Group, the program could still continue in 2006 under a new name.

In 2006, the Bush administration also proposed the Reliable Replacement Warhead program and initiated its design and development. The program, intended to produce a simple, reliable, long-lasting, and low-maintenance future nuclear force for the United States, encountered opposition due to the obligations of the United States under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which the United States has signed, ratified, and is bound by, and which obligates the five nuclear weapons states who are bound by it (of which the United States is such a state) to work in good faith towards nuclear disarmament.

The Reliable Replacement Warhead was designed to replace the aging W76 warhead currently in a life-extension program. It was to incorporate a well-tested and verified primary SKUA9 and a new fusion secondary. The device would be built much much more robustly than its predecessors and should require longer periods between service and replacement. It will use insensitive high explosives, which are virtually impossible to detonate without the right mechanism. The new insensitive explosives can hit a concrete wall at Mach 4 and still not detonate. The device would also use a heavy radiation case for reliability. Since this weapon will supposedly never be tested via detonation, as has every weapon presently in the US arsenal, some fear that either the weapon will not be reliable, or will require testing to confirm its reliability, breaking the moratorium that has been observed by the recognized nuclear powers (the recognized nuclear powers include the US, Russia, the UK, the PRC, and France; they do not include the generally recognized but undeclared Israel, nor the declared but unrecognized India, Pakistan, and North Korea) and was disliked by several elements of the Bush Administration, who believed nuclear tests ought to be conducted routinely; indeed, the Reliable Replacement Warhead was seen as the first step in the implementation of the US nuclear weapons laboratories' plan, called "Complex 2030", to rebuild dismantled nuclear weapons infrastructure so as to ensure that nuclear weapon design continues to be a field of research in the US through the midpoint of the 21st century.

In 2005 the U.S. revised its declared nuclear political strategy, the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, to emphasize the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons preemptively against an adversary possessing weapons of mass destruction or overwhelming conventional forces. Whether the Single Integrated Operational Plan ("SIOP") has been revised accordingly is uncertain, but possible.
Current status
U.S. nuclear warhead stockpile, 1945-2002.
A graph showing the amount of nuclear weapons stockpiled by either country during the nuclear race.

The United States is one of the five recognized nuclear powers under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ("NPT"). As of September 2009 it possessed 5,113 warheads operationally deployed, in active reserve, or held in inactive storage. This figure compares to a peak of 31,225 total warheads in 1967 and 22,217 in 1989, and does not include "several thousand" warheads that have been retired and scheduled for dismantlement.[2]

In 2009 and 2010, the administration of Barack Obama declared policies that would invalidate the Bush-era policy for use of nuclear weapons and its motions to develop new ones. First, in a prominent 2009 speech, U.S. president Barack Obama outlined a goal of "a world without nuclear weapons".[32] To that goal, U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a new START treaty on April 8, 2010, to reduce the number of active nuclear weapons from 2,200 to 1,550.[33][34] That same week Obama also revised U.S. policy on the use of nuclear weapons in a Nuclear Posture Review required of all presidents, declaring for the first time that the U.S. would not use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear, NPT-compliant states. The policy also renounces development of any new nuclear weapons.[35]

The Obama Administration, in its release of the 2012 defense budget, included plans to modernize, as well as maintain, the nation's nuclear weapons arsenal.[36]
United States strategic nuclear weapons arsenal
Operational American strategic nuclear forces, 2009     Delivery Vehicles     Warheads
Minuteman III W78/Mk12A     250     350
Minuteman III W87/Mk21     200     200
ICBM (total)     450     550
UGM-133A Trident II D-5 W76-0/Mk4     288     718
UGM-133A Trident II D-5 W76-1/Mk4A     50
UGM-133A Trident II D-5 W88/Mk5     384
SLBM (total)     288     1,152
B-2     20     na
B-52H     93     na
B61-7     na     150
B61-11     na
B83     na
ALCM/W80-1     na     350
Bomber force (total)     113     500
Strategic forces (total)     851     2,200




At the start of 2012, eight states possessed approximately 4400 operational nuclear weapons. Nearly 2000 of these are kept in a state of high operational alert. If all nuclear warheads are counted—operational warheads, spares, those in both active and inactive storage, and intact warheads scheduled for dismantlement—the USA, Russia, the UK, France, China, India, Pakistan and Israel together possess a total of approximately 19 000 nuclear weapons.

The availability of reliable information about the nuclear weapon states’ arsenals varies considerably. France, the UK and the USA have recently disclosed important information about their nuclear capabilities. In contrast, transparency in Russia has decreased as a result of its decision not to publicly release detailed data about its strategic nuclear forces under the 2010 Russia–USA New START treaty, even though it shares the information with the USA. China remains highly non-transparent as part of its long-standing deterrence strategy, and little information is publicly available about its nuclear forces and weapon production complex.

Reliable information on the operational status of the nuclear arsenals and capabilities of the three states that have never been party to the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)—India, Israel and Pakistan—is especially difficult to find. In the absence of official declarations, the publicly available information is often contradictory or incorrect.

World nuclear forces, 2012

USA     2 150
    5 850

~8 500
Russia     1 800
    8 200
    10 000
UK     160
France     290
China     . .
India     . .
Pakistan     . .
Israel     . .
North Korea     . .
    . .
Total     ~4 400
    ~14 600
    ~19 000
All estimates are approximate and are as of January 2012.
The legally recognized nuclear weapon states

All five legally recognized nuclear weapon states, as defined by the NPT—China, France, Russia, the UK and the USA—appear determined to remain nuclear powers for the indefinite future.

Russia and the USA have major modernization programmes under way for nuclear delivery systems, warheads and production facilities. At the same time, they continue to reduce their nuclear forces through the implementation of New START, which entered into force in 2011, as well as through unilateral force cuts. Since Russia and the USA possess by far the two largest nuclear weapon arsenals, one result has been that the total number of nuclear weapons in the world continues to decline.

The nuclear arsenals of China, France and the UK are considerably smaller, but all are either developing new weapons or have plans to do so. China is the only one of these states that appears to be expanding the size of its nuclear forces, albeit slowly.



Manual 2 - Ultimate Atomic Nuclear
State of Alert, Awareness & Strategy

Due to the non-compliance to
rules of engagement of Rouge

The ultimate fear of one or a few
atomic missiles delivered to explode
high over the USA, that could impair
a lot, most of all electronics. Such
explosions would create an electro-
magnetic pulse that would destroy
major portions of the U.S. electrical
grid system as well as the nation’s
critical infrastructures.

(1) The ultimate strategic response
makes the theory of "wait to
verify damages if any", of
MANUAL 1, to have to be over
rid and surpassed, by the theory
of immediate deterrence launches,
and immediate response attach(s)!

(2) We could not declare as a
correct response in MANUAL 1,
to completely obliterate and flatten,
the source and origin(s). Even if
the aftermath, might envelope
innocent Countries and major
excessive damages!

(3) The first ultimate strategy is
thus emphatically determined to be,
to: Establish World maximum
alert, immediate as fast as possible
response in deterrents and attach(s),
and the final decision to be made
in less than 1 hour, to completely
"flatten" all sources and origins!

(4) The second ultimate strategy
of alert & awareness, is to
ensure, that USA still could not
loose to any additional attach(s)
from another source! Establishing
this the number case scenario,
of usage and backup!

If USA under the first major
response, did not have enough
replacement missile weapons,
to ensure its supremacy before
all others! It could jeopardize it's
existence! Because of it being
a different continent!

(5) The third major ultimate strategy
could be, that the disarmament
of USA, be never considered a
viable option! As it opens the
door the a all set World attach
to the North American Continent!
With a complete destruction!



This theory is merely the theory
of all others that are not as
good as USA, wanting to or
awaiting to, do the ultimate
against something better, and far
away from them!

COULD USA RISK not being
the major benign deterrent force
of the World?

(6) The fourth Strategy is the
ultimate of ALWAYS FULL &

Only 100, 200, Nukes, is not
enough for a Complete defense
and survival of USA, and of
no one else! 

IF 30,000 OR 10,000 NUKES
were available in the USA for
defense! They should be available
again or in the equal capabilities!



OUT-GUNNED! And out-gunned,
be it, by whatever means!




Does anybody think Obama and Democrats
have all strategy in their "minds"...?

Or are they dis-arming the only real
World Atomic Nuclear Weapons
deterrent ??? 

OR THEIR Theory is true, that things are
getting "better" in their Capitalistic
economies, of the survival of the fittest!