Start Treaty Increase in Nukes – Flashback to 2011

Today, a shocked Washington Times reported that Russia had increased their nukes under the START treaty and now has more nukes than the U.S. – But why do they appear shocked. We knew this was coming…

In the early days of this blog I had taken the time to address the new START treaty that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had put together in a desperate attempt to “Reset” relations with Russia. Before news agencies confirmed my allegations that the new START treaty allowed for an increase in Russia nukes I took to the blog to confidently relay the message myself. The details are available here from May 2011

“New START treaty allows for increase in Russian nuclear¬†warheads”

I actually had to delay the post for nearly 48 hours because there was no verification for this claim. Luckily, I learned that the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists would be releasing a hasty/emergency report on this situation. When they did, the report was cited to back up the claim.

Its interesting that certain publications are trying very hard to keep the PFC woManning story relevant and active. No one needed him, wikileaks, or any other leaks to draw this conclusion 3 years ago. So why is it mentioned in the Washington Times story. All of the data regarding Russian nukes (SECRET, Classified, U/FOUO, etc) was, and still is, easily accessible if you talk to the right people and read the right reports.

Another interesting tidbit is the “retaliatory” clause, which was cited in the original story, and is conveniently left out of every other story on the topic. This has far reaching implications that those in the intel and diplomacy circles have not ignored or forgot about. That clause nicely covers Iran and was done intentionally to stop any preemptive strike against Iran and their nuclear facilities by us or even Israel. It literally paved the way for Iran’s nuclear program by giving Russia 1) more nukes and 2) an agreement from us that says they can nuke us into dust if we arent nice to them and their allies (i.e. Iran)

Time Traveling? Or is Wikileaks Re-Publishing Cables in attempt to stay relevant

Marty, fuck the Libyans! We need to screw with Wikileaks

In December 2010 we published a criticism on Wikileaks publishing secret and confidential cables regarding the Bulgarian organized crime rackets. It had already been documented that nuclear warheads were being sold to the highest bidder; backed up with video and related news articles. The criticism was that Wikileaks chose not release the most important cables regarding black market nukes. So a comparison was made between the cable Wikileaks released and pieces of publicly available intel from Bulgaria. Now Wikileaks has republished the cable with a release date of 7/20/2011. Odd

Watch this: Here is the original post entitled “Wikileaks is a Lie”. Notice the date? December 7, 2010. In the second section the bold link titled “released tonight” takes you to this cable-which now has a release date of July 20, 2011. They may change the release date back so here is a screen cap with the new publish date in case they do

So what happened? Here are a few possibilities:

1) I traveled forward in time, downloaded the cable, came back to 12/10, hacked into Wikileaks, and made a working link. All so I could create this post today

2) Wikileaks is desperately trying to stay relevant and has nothing of use left to publish

3) They are as incompetent and dishonest as the governments they detest

In WordPress you can go back and make changes and the original publish date will stay the same. (I was also tipped off that this would be their defense). Its a good thing I have people like Greg at Your Daddy’s Politics. We tag-teamed this topic and cross-referenced the posts. For posterity you can see him referencing them much early than the new Wikileaks publish date. First on Feb 13, 2011, and the follow up May 2, 2011

Their is one last thing that needs to be said and I will say it directly to the staff of Wikileaks. In my first post one of the sections is labeled “My other house is in Bulgaria” Odd right? Especially since I made no mention of “owning” a house in Bulgaria. One of your trusted staff knows exactly what this is in reference to. It seems that open information advocates are not entirely open.

You dun goofed

Peace Out

DMS

Special thanks to Greg @ Your Daddy’s Politics and Strictly Right host Mr. Simple C. Sense

New START treaty allows for increase in Russian nuclear warheads

Its like a cute little US.

Originally when the New START treaty was drafted critics said it would allow for Russia to increase the amount of nuclear warheads. These critics were labeled as fear-mongers. Now a report from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (May 2011) has confirmed these concerns. The report, authored by old school nuclear pros Hans Kristensen and Robert Norris, draws some interesting conclusions. Kristensen and Norris are such heavy hitters in the nuclear field they should have atomic groupies. But more than likely they own Fleshlights. Click image for report; bullet points below

  • Russia’s total inventory is 11,000 warheads
  • New START does not place any restrictions on stockpile size (stockpile can increase)
  • Only strategically deployed warheads will be withdrawn
  • Reserves the right to use nukes in retaliation according to new doctrine from 2010
  • Retaliatory¬†action can be used if their allies are threatened (Hello Iran)

A reduction of the strategically deployed missiles may be a victory in political circles. But that crowd seems to lack the ability to think beyond their talking points. They (Russia) can increase their “solid state” fueled missiles. Think of the space shuttle; the boosters are solid state fuel. Once that baby is in place and is ignited its gone. Taking some of these off line only pushes back a launch of nukes by an hour or so; to get them in place.

The only saving grace in this whole story has nothing to do with START. The unsuccessful, and slow, development of the new class of submarine deployed nuclear missiles has been the biggest impediment on the arsenal. This is a result of Russia’s poor engineering; not a product of any treaty. As matter of fact we witnessed this failure when President Obama accepted his Nobel Peace Prize. That crazy light show over Oslo was a failed Russian submarine nuke launch from the Barents Sea. It was the new Bulava class missile fired from the Dmitrii Donskoi.