SIX ESCALATION SCENARIOS
SPIRALING TO WORLD NUCLEAR WAR
URGENT: Scenario 3 – Israel Bombs Iranian Nuclear Plants
By Carol Moore
A world nuclear war is one that involves most or all nuclear powers releasing a large proportion of their nuclear weapons at targets in nuclear, and perhaps non-nuclear, states. Such a war could be initiated accidentally, aggressively or pre-emptively and could continue and spread through these means or by retaliation by a party attacked by nuclear weapons. While some speak of “limited nuclear war,” it is likely that any nuclear war will quickly escalate and spiral out of control because of the “use them or loose them” strategy. If you don’t use all your nuclear weapons you are likely to have them destroyed by the enemy’s nuclear weapons.
Such a war could start through a reaction to terrorist attacks, or through the need to protect against overwhelming military opposition, or through the use of small battle field tactical nuclear weapons meant to destroy hardened targets. It might quickly move on to the use of strategic nuclear weapons delivered by short-range or inter-continental missile or long-range bomber. These could deliver high altitude bursts whose electromagnetic pulse knocks out electrical circuits for hundreds of square miles. Or they could deliver nuclear bombs to destroys nuclear and/or non-nuclear military facilities, nuclear power plants, important industrial sites and cities. Or it could skip all those steps and start through the accidental or reckless use of strategic weapons.
Below are seven scenarios by which world nuclear war could come about. While these are some of the major scenarios and combination of attacks and retaliations, they are hardly exhaustive. U.S., Russian and other nuclear nations’ weapons strategizers deal with these scenarios every day but rarely let mere citizens in on their grizzly thinking. Citizens must end their denial and become aware of such scenarios.
Accidental: Since the United States and Russia have “launch on warning” systems that send off rockets before it is confirmed a nuclear attack is underway, any tensions between them can lead to massive nuclear war within thirty minutes of a warning — no matter how false the warning may be.
Aggressive: One or more nations decides to use weapons against nuclear or non-nuclear nations in order to promote an economic, political or military goal, as part of an ongoing war or as a first strike nuclear attack. (The state , of course, may claim it is a pre-emptive, retaliatory or even accidental attack.)
Pre-emptive: One or more nations believes (correctly or incorrectly) or claims to believe that another nuclear nation is about to use nuclear weapons against its nuclear, military, industrial or civilian targets and pre-emptively attacks that nation. May result from political or military “brinkmanship.”
Retaliatory: Use of nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack — or even a conventional, chemical or biological attack by a non-nuclear nation.
ASSUMPTIONS OF THESE SCENARIOS
There is a whole body of knowledge and assumptions that is taken into account when putting together scenarios like the below. My bottom line assumption is that any nuclear exchange has an excellent chance of resulting in a series of escalations that will spiral out of control, setting off a round of exchanges among various enemies under a “use it or lose it” philosophy, as well as among the treaty allies of the relevant nuclear powers and their allies. This continues until most of the planets’ 20,000 odd nuclear weapons are exhausted. In making “limited nuclear war” calculations all nations should assume “whatever can go wrong, will go wrong.” Unfortunately, too many strategizers assume they can conduct limited strikes and keep them limited.
Related assumptions include:
** Any nuclear attack on a primary Russian target like Moscow, St. Petersburg, or nuclear command headquarters, by any nation or group, known or unknown, could lead to a commander turning on “The Dead Hand” strategy and/or prompt one or more of Russia’s semi-autonomous military field commanders to retaliate against U.S. and European nuclear targets. Attacks on secondary targets or nuclear detonations very close to Russian soil also might lead to some sort of nuclear escalation.
** Any nuclear attack on US and/or European sites by any nation or group, known or unknown, probably will result in massive US and/or European retaliation against the known or assumed perpetrators or their known or assumed allies.
** It is likely that the U.S., Russia, China, Israel, India and Pakistan will use some of their weapons to attack other nuclear and non-nuclear nations which might threaten them after they have been devastated by nuclear war.
** Any nuclear attack on Israel by terrorists, or Pakistan, Russia or China will result in Israel’s surviving land, air and submarine carried or based missiles being used against Arab and Muslim capitals. A particularly devastating attack (including with chemical or biological weapons) might result in possibly in a full scale “Samson Option” attack on European and Russian targets. The latter of course would result in Russian retaliation against the United States, perhaps its punishment for not having done enough to protect Israel.
** Any nation’s use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear nation will be only somewhat less inflammatory than using them against a nuclear nation, especially if that nation has many treaty allies. It will ratchet all nuclear nations alert systems and lead to unforeseeable consequences that could easily spiral to world nuclear war.
|Aggressive Pre-Emptive Retaliatory Accidental|
|SCENARIO 1. RUSSIA OR U.S. MISTAKENLY INTERPRETS GLITCH DURING TIME OF TENSION AS NUCLEAR ATTACK, LEADING TO WORLD NUCLEAR WAR|
During time of minor or major political tension, especially active U.S. bombings of other nations or any use of nuclear weapons, Russian commanders’ faulty early warning system detects false evidence of a nuclear attack from the U.S. Russia launches a large proportion of its weapons at the U.S. and pre-emptively at U.S. European and Israeli allies, as well as China, India and Pakistan to cripple their nuclear capability. The U.S. and Europe retaliate at Russia and U.S. attacks China to destroy its nuclear stocks. Israel retaliates against Russia and initiates aggressive attacks against Arab and Muslim capitols. India and China may strike each other to destroy any remaining nuclear or other military capability. (While less likely the United States would experience such a glitch, if so, the U.S. would strike Russia and China, they would retaliate against the U.S. and Europe and probably attack other potentially hostile nuclear powers to knock out their capability.)
U.S. OR RUSSIA THREATEN OR ENGAGE IN MILITARY AGGRESSION AGAINST SMALLER NATION, STARTING ESCALATION TO WORLD NUCLEAR WAR
Russia and US engage in threats over further US aggression in the Middle East or Russia’s refusal to withdraw troops from former Soviet Republic Georgia. Russia and/or the U.S. pre-emptively strike the others’ nuclear targets, leading to further rounds of retaliatory exchanges. Russia strikes pre-emptively at U.S. European and Israeli allies, as well as China, India and Pakistan to cripple their nuclear capability. Europe retaliates at Russia and U.S. attacks China to destroy any remaining nuclear stocks. Israel retaliates against Russia and initiates revenge attacks against Arab and Muslim capitols. India and China may strike each other to destroy any remaining nuclear or other military capability.
ISRAEL ATTACKS IRAN’S NUCLEAR FACILITIES AND/OR SYRIA AND LEBANON WHICH RETALIATE WITH MASSIVE CONVENTIONAL OR WMD ROCKET ATTACKS, ISRAEL RETALIATES WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS, ESCALATING TO WORLD NUCLEAR WAR
Israel attacks Iran’s nuclear facilities and/or Syria and Lebanon. These countries respond with massive rocket attacks using conventional bombs and even some chemical, biological or radiological weapons. Israel responds with nuclear strikes against these nations and Pakistan. Outraged Pakistan retaliates against Israel and pre-emptively attacks Israel’s ally/Pakistan’s enemy India, which retaliates. Israel initiates “Samson option” and attacks Arab and Muslim capitols, as well as “antisemitic” Europe and Russia. Russian regional commanders retaliate against Israel, its ally the U.S., and U.S. European allies and China, to destroy its nuclear capability. The U.S. retaliates against Russia and hits China’s nuclear capability. China uses any remaining nuclear weapons against Russia, the U.S. and India. India retaliates against China.
|SCENARIO 4. INDIA-PAKISTAN NUCLEAR EXCHANGE ESCALATES TO WORLD NUCLEAR WAR|
Hindu and Muslim rioting or conflicts in Kashmir escalate into preemptive nuclear exchanges between India and Pakistan. A rogue Indian general strikes China which massively retaliates. Russian communications knocked out by electromagnetic pulses hit Europe and China with limited number of missiles. U.S. retaliates against Russia and attacks China to destroy its nuclear stocks. Russia retaliates against the U.S. and hits U.S. ally Israel. Israel initiates revenge attacks against Arab and Muslim capitols.
|SCENARIO 5. CHINA INVADES TAIWAN, STARTING ESCALATION TO WORLD NUCLEAR WAR|
Taiwan declares independence. China begins Taiwan invasion, threatening to use nuclear weapons against U.S. cities. U.S. gives China an ultimatum to pull out which it ignores and U.S. uses nuclear weapons to destroy China’s weapons. China retaliates against U.S. and nukes Taiwan. A few nervous or chauvinistic Russian regional missile commanders make a first strike against U.S., European and Israeli nuclear weapons sites. The U.S., Israel and Europe retaliate. Israel initiates revenge attacks against Arab and Muslim capitols. Pakistan, India and China exchange pre-emptive nuclear strikes.
UNKNOWN PARTIES USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS ON ISRAEL, RUSSIA OR THE
U.S. STARTING ESCALATION TO WORLD NUCLEAR WAR
Terrorists or some unknown nation explodes one or two nuclear weapons in Russia, Israel, or U.S., possibly delivered via surreptitious means. Russia and the U.S. blame each other escalating to mutual “retaliatory” attacks, including on Europe. If Russia attacks Israel, Israel immediately initiates revenge attacks against Arab and Muslim capitols, and possibly “anti-semitic” Europe and Russia. Russia and U.S. preemptively attack China, and India and Pakistan pre-emptively attack each other, to destroy nuclear and military capabilities.
Nuclear power plants are nuclear war targets which will spread massive additional radiation over hundreds of square miles.
The United States wants to remain the only superpower with the power to unilaterally control any resources it needs and the government of any country that stands in its way of doing so. Obviously now the foremost target of the United States — and its only dependable partner in imperial overreach, Israel — is the Middle East and Iran. Both the U.S. and Israel want to control Arab and Muslim resources and make big profits for their military and other well-connected contractors. Both want to maintain a U.S.-Israel monopoly on nuclear weapons in the Middle East.
Additionally, Israel and its powerful American lobbies and leaders want to crush any potential challenge to Israel’s possession of stolen Palestinian lands. Tens of millions of American Christian Zionists support Israeli expansionism because they believe it will bring Armageddon and the return of Jesus.
United States military and political leaders, especially under President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, doubtless seek “nuclear primacy” – the ability to first strike both China’s 400 odd nuclear weapons and Russia’s 2,500 “on alert” weapons with minimal retaliation against American targets – i.e., maybe only a hundred U.S. cities would be destroyed and only 75 million Americans die immediately. See “The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy” By Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press, Foreign Affairs, March/April 2006.
Israel is especially dangerous because its leaders and supporters have made clear for years that if Israel was every devastated by any kind of war or attack it would retaliate in indiscriminate “Samson Option” attacks against not just on Muslim cities, but against European and even Russian targets. (See “Israeli Nuclear Threats and Blackmail ” .) Russia, of course, would retaliate with thousands of nuclear bombs against the United States.
Given suspected U.S. nuclear primacy plans, Russia could feel compelled to attack the United States for acts like a U.S. nuclear attack on Iran, which is just a few hundred miles from its border. On January 25, 1995 Boris Yeltsin, then President of Russia, came within three minutes of initiating a full nuclear strike on the United States because of one Norwegian scientific rocket Russians could not identify. (Details ) And U.S. leaders also could be spooked by a nuclear incident, as the 2002 movie “Sum of All Fears” illustrates.
Once there is any use of nuclear weapons, it will be like giving permission for anyone to use them. Compare it to a room full of people embarrassed to cough, but once one does, everyone else feels free to do so.
Any use of nuclear weapons probably will lead to a rapid escalation, “out of control spiral,” to nuclear war among most or all nuclear nations–”world nuclear war.” The U.N. cannot stop it. U.S. imperialism and pre-emptive strikes cannot stop it. Only a worldwide disarmament movement can stop it.
However, none of the several worldwide disarmament movements which have risen or fallen over the last forty years has been able to do it. Unfortunately, most activist organizations have been co-opted by special interests which consider nuclear and military disarmament to be low priorities, some because it would costs workers and executives high paid jobs or big corporations profits, and others because they support a strong U.S. military threat against nations challenging Israel especially and perhaps other allies. The only disarmament movement that can succeed is one which is willing to keep an arms length from union, corporate and pro-Israel interests that put jobs and Israel before nuclear safety and to make Middle East nuclear disarmament a top priority.
The only thing that may be able to end the possibility of nuclear war for good and forever is the non-violent dissolution of war-torn and warring nation states into non-violent self-determining communities and city states. These smaller entities would have to destroy all nuclear weapons since they could not afford to keep or use them. (See my site Secession.Net for ideas about this radical decentralist alternative). Unfortunately, barring some unusual rise in human consciousness, such radical dissolution is likely to happen only after a nuclear war has killed hundreds of millions or even billions of people.
If you are not ready to pursue this alternative, at least use this page to help END YOUR PERSONAL DENIAL of the fact that WORLD NUCLEAR WAR REMAINS INEVITABLE until we finally create a powerful and effective nuclear disarmament movement.
PAST THREATS OF WORLD NUCLEAR WAR
Video: Presidents Threaten Nuke War
During the “Cold War”
The 1945-1989 “Cold War” between the U.S.S.R. and the United States was one long nuclear standoff. These threats continued into even the late 1990s and could easily be prompted by some new regional crisis, especially as the United States continues to build military bases all around Russia’s perimeter.
David R. Morgan, National President, Veterans Against Nuclear Arms, describes in detail 16 threats to use nuclear weapons — most of them from the United States, many of which continue as standing threats: 1946-Iran and Yugoslavia; 1948-Berlin; 1950-Korea; 1954-Vietnam and China; 1956-Suez; 1958-China; 1959 and 1961-Berlin; 1962 Cuba (the most famous and most dangerous situation); 1969-Vietnam; 1970-Jordan; 1973-Israel; 1980-Iran; 1983-Reagan’s First Strike threats. And of course both the United States and Israel have repeatedly made it clear “no option” is off the table, first against Iraq and now against Iran.
In my studies of the Middle East, I discovered the U.S. military presence has included other threats to use nuclear weapons to prevent any “Soviet aggression” in the area and especially to protect Israel. In 1956, President Eisenhower threatened to use nuclear weapons if the U.S.S.R. became involved in the Suez Crisis. In 1958, Eisenhower threatened Soviet-backed Egypt and Syria to keep them from interfering in Lebanon. In 1967, President Johnson considered using nuclear weapons during the Arab-Israeli war and the Washington-Moscow hot line was used for the first time. In 1973, during another Arab-Israeli war, President Nixon declared a nuclear alert that moved U.S. readiness to “DEFCON III”. In 1979, after the invasion of Afghanistan, President Carter threatened to use “any means necessary”, including nuclear weapons, in order to maintain U.S. supremacy in the Middle East. Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, which included clashes with Syrian and Soviet troops, nearly triggered a nuclear alert.
And U.S. ally Israel, in its efforts to hold on to and even expand what hundreds of hundreds of millions of Muslims consider to be “colonized” and “occupied” land in Israel and the occupied territories, has often used the nuclear threat. The Federation of American scientists site notes: : Strategically, Israel uses its long-range missiles and nuclear-capable aircraft (and, some say, submarines with nuclear-armed cruise missiles) to deter both conventional and unconventional attacks, or to launch “the Samson Option”, an all-out attack against an adversary should defenses fail and population centers be threatened. In a lengthy article on Israel’s nuclear capability, anti-nuclear activists John Steinbach writes: ” Israel has made countless veiled nuclear threats against the Arab nations and against the Soviet Union (and by extension Russia since the end of the Cold War) One chilling example comes from Ariel Sharon, the current Israeli Prime Minister “Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches.” See more on Israeli nuclear weapons and its numerous “Samson Option” threats by Israeli leaders and their supporters.
The Soviet Union and later Russia also have used the nuclear threat. Angered by the United States placing nuclear missiles in Turkey in the early sixties, Soviet leader Nikita Kruschev placed nuclear weapons in Cuba, leading to the Cuban missile crisis, the closest the world has come so far to nuclear war. (President Kennedy did not know there really were nuclear weapons when he threatened to invade and this information was released only after the fall of the Soviet Union.) Nevertheless, the nuclear standoff led to the Soviet Union withdrawing their nuclear missiles from Cuba and the U.S. withdrawing them from Turkey.
During the 1999 NATO Bombings of Serbia
During the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia, Russian leaders repeatedly inferred that if bombing continued or ground troops entered Serbia, it might lead to nuclear war with Russia. A series of quotes, right up until the bombing stopped, illustrate how serious they were.
“I told NATO, the Americans, the Germans: Don’t push us toward military action. Otherwise there will be a European war for sure and possibly world war.” Russian President Boris Yeltsin, April 6, 1999
“In the event that NATO and America start a ground operation in Yugoslavia, they will face a second Vietnam, I do not want to forecast what is going to start then. I cannot rule out a third world war.” Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov, April 17, 1999
“If NATO goes from air force to ground force it will be a world catastrophe. (Russia) has never felt such anti-Western, anti-European feelings.” First Deputy Russian Prime Minister Anatoly Chubais, April 25, 1999.
“You have to understand that if we want to cause you a problem over this, we could. Someone, we don’t know who, could send up a missile from a ship or a submarine and detonate a nuclear weapon high over the United States. The EMP (electromagnetic pulse that destroys electronic and computer equipment) would take away all your capability.” Vladimir Lukin, Chairman of the Russian State Duma Foreign Policy Committee, late April, 1999
“Just let Clinton, a little bit, accidentally, send a missile. We will answer immediately. Such impudence! To unleash a war on a sovereign state. Without Security Council. Without United Nations. It could only be possible in a time of barbarism.” Boris Yeltsin, May 7, 1999
“The world has never in this decade been so close as now to the brink of nuclear war.” Viktor Chernomyrdin, May 27, 1999
India and Pakistan
India and Pakistan have repeatedly threatened nuclear war against each other, most seriously in the last few years. In late December 2002 Pakistan’s president, General Pervez Musharraf, addressing Air Force veterans in Karachi, said: he last year “personally” conveyed a clear “message” to Prime Minister Vajpayee, “through every international leader who came to Pakistan”, namely, that Indian troops “should not expect a conventional war from Pakistan” if they “moved a single step across the international border or the Line of Control”. In response Indian Defense Minister George Fernandez said: “We can take a bomb or two, or more. When we respond, there will be no Pakistan.” About the same time former Army Chief of Staff Aslam Beg, then heading a right-wing Pakistani think tank said: “Our policy of deterrence is India-specific. No matter who comes for us, Israel, the United States or India we will take on India. If someone is thinking of taking on Pakistan they should know we will take on India.” And despite subsequent detente between the two nations during the remainder of 2003, as late as fall, 2003 Ariel Sharon visited India, worrying Pakistan that he was once again proposing India do a surgical strike against Pakistani nuclear assets. Once any such a Indian-Pakistani nuclear exchange began, there are a number of scenarios by which it could escalate into accidental or intentional world nuclear war.
During Run Up to U.S. War on Iraq
Sharon eyes ‘Samson option’ against Iraq …November 2002 News.Scotsman.Com [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon – who is courting extreme right-wingers to prop up his teetering government following the withdrawal of the Labour Party last week – has spoken openly of his willingness to strike back, and strike back hard, should his country be attacked by Iraq. … Sharon’s blunt admission that a retaliatory strike would be ordered in the event of an attack on Israel with non-conventional weapons came after discussions with US President George W Bush.
Israeli officials later interpreted the president’s stance as giving the green-light to Sharon to attack Baghdad only if Iraq launched a pre-emptive strike against the Jewish State before an American military campaign had got underway.
The officials said if an American military offensive had already begun, then Israel should show restraint and allow the US forces to retaliate.
U.S. Weighs Tactical Nuclear Strike on Iraq Paul Richter, January 25, 2003, Los Angeles Times. As the Pentagon continues a highly visible buildup of troops and weapons in the Persian Gulf, it is also quietly preparing for the possible use of nuclear weapons in a war against Iraq, according to a report by a defense analyst. . .Military officials have been focusing their planning on the use of tactical nuclear arms in retaliation for a strike by the Iraqis with chemical or biological weapons, or to preempt one, Arkin says. His report, based on interviews and a review of official documents, appears in a column that will be published in The Times on Sunday. . . Critics contend that a bunker-buster strike could involve a huge radiation release and dangerous blast damage. They also say that use of a nuclear weapon in such circumstances would encourage other nuclear-armed countries to consider using such weapons in more kinds of situations and would badly undermine the half-century effort to contain the spread of nuclear arms. . .In a policy statement issued only last month, the White House said the United States “will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force — including through resort to all of our options — to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States.”
Bush refuses to rule out nuclear weapons March 23, 2003, News.Scotsman.com President George W Bush today refused to rule out the prospect of US forces using nuclear weapons if they were subjected to a chemical or biological attack in Iraq. Speaking at a joint press conference with Tony Blair at Camp David, the US president was asked whether, if coalition forces were subjected to a chemical weapons attack by Saddam Hussein, the US would use its nuclear capability. Mr Bush replied: “If he uses weapons of mass destruction, it will just prove our case. And we will deal with it. We have got one objective in mind, that is victory. And we will achieve victory.”
The Unthinkable: The US- Israeli Nuclear War on Iran by Michel Chossudovsky (January 21, 2007) There is mounting evidence that the Bush Administration in liaison with Israel and NATO is planning the launching of a nuclear war against Iran, ironically, in retaliation for its nonexistent nuclear weapons program. The US-Israeli military operation is said to be in “an advanced state of readiness.”
December 16, 2005
Nuclear Deployment for an Attack on Iran
And the nuclear hitmen behind it
by Jorge Hirsch
Hersh: U.S. mulls nuclear option for Iran CNN Interview with Seymour Hersh (April 10, 2007)
BLITZER: Here’s the most explosive item in your new article in The New Yorker magazine. And I’ll read it: “The lack of reliable intelligence leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites,” the nuclear sites in Iran, “little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. ‘Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap,’ the former senior intelligence official said. ‘Decisive’ is the key word of the Air Force’s planning. It’s a tough decision, but we made it in Japan.” Now, this is an explosive charge, an explosive revelation, if true, that the United States is seriously considering using a tactical nuclear bomb or bombs to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
HERSH: What you just read says this. If you’re giving the White House a series of options, and the option is to get rid of an underground facility — the facility I’m talking about is Natanz, 75 feet under hard rock — if you want to tell the White House one sure way of getting it in a range of options is nuclear, what happened in this case is they gave that option, the JCS, the Joint Chiefs [of Staff].
And then, of course, nobody in their right mind would want to use a nuclear weapon in the Middle East, because it would be, my God, totally chaotic. When the JCS, the Joint Chiefs, and the planners wanted to walk back that option, what happened is about three or four weeks ago, the White House, people in the White House, in the Oval Office, the vice president’s office, said, no, let’s keep it in the plan.
That doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. They refuse to take it out. And what I’m writing here is that if this isn’t removed — and I say this very seriously. I’ve been around this town for 40 years — some senior officers are prepared to resign. They’re that upset about the fact that this plan is kept in. Again, let me make the point, you’re giving a range of options early in the planning. To be sure of getting rid of it, you give that option.
World War III
On October 16, 2007, Vladimir Putin visited Iran to discuss Russia’s aid to Iran’s nuclear power program and “insisted that the use of force was unacceptable.” On October 17, Bush stated “if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon,” understood as a message to Putin. On October 26 Putin compared U.S. plans to put up a missile defense system near Russia’s border as analogous to when the Soviet Union deployed missiles in Cuba, prompting the Cuban Missile Crisis which brought the US and the Soviet Union close to nuclear war in 1962. On November 8 Bush said: “If you want to see World War Three, you know, a way to do that is to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon.” This is interpreted as a comment about Israel’s use of the Samson Option to target Russia, which would retaliate with nuclear weapons against the United States.
Obviously, if a thermonuclear bomb exploded close to your home, you’d have little hope of surviving the blast. But what if one exploded 5 miles away, or 20 miles away? And what about radioactive fallout?
Learn about a nuclear weapon’s “zones of destruction” — choose between a relatively small detonation at earth’s surface, which will produce substantial fallout, and an especially destructive large detonation at high altitude.
Choose a Weapon…
Tour The Greenbrier Bunker
During the Cold War the United States government maintained a top-secret underground bunker in the mountains of West Virginia. Built under The Greenbrier, a luxurious Southern resort, the facility was designed to house the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate in case of nuclear attack. Compromised by an investigative reporter in 1993, the bunker is now open to the public. With the code name “Project Greek Island”, it remains a sobering reminder of how America lived with and prepared for the possibility of a Soviet nuclear attack. You can enter the bunker or you can read an interview with Fritz Bugas, former on-site Superintendent of the Greenbrier bunker.
“Doomsday” Seed Vault Opens in Norway Feb 2008
I personally believe, and hold the interpretation of a Futurist, that there will be two occurrences, one from Rev 6:12-17 and another from Rev 8:10-11 (The bible even gives this second one a name; “wormwood“, if that is indeed what it is referring to… you decide.)
Our very own Bill Gates, along with the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto Corporation, Syngenta Foundation and the Government of Norway, among others, in what is called the ‘doomsday seed bank.’ Even though there are several seed banks currently in existence; this one is the backup to all of the others.
Officially the project is named the Svalbard Global Seed Vault on the Norwegian island of Spitsbergen, part of the Svalbard island group.
LONGYEARBYEN, Norway (CNN) – Thu February 28, 2008 — A vast underground vault storing millions of seeds from around the world is scheduled to open this week in a mountain on a remote island near the Arctic Ocean.
Dubbed the “Doomsday Vault,” the seed bank is considered the ultimate safety net for the world’s seed collections, protecting them from a wide range of threats including war, natural disasters, lack of funding or simply poor agricultural management.
The Norwegian government paid to build the vault in a mountainside near Longyearbyen, in the remote Svalbard islands between Norway and the North Pole. Building began last year, and the vault is scheduled to open officially Tuesday.
The Svalbard Global Seed Vault, as it is officially known, can hold as many as 4.5 million seed samples and will eventually house almost every variety of most important food crops in the world, according to the Global Crop Diversity Trust, which is paying to collect and maintain the seeds.
The United Nations founded the trust in 2004 to support the long-term conservation of crop diversity, and countries and foundations provide the funding.
“The seed vault is the perfect place for keeping seeds safe for centuries,” said Cary Fowler, executive director of the trust. “At these temperatures, seeds for important crops like wheat, barley and peas can last for up to 10,000 years.”
The vault’s location deep inside a mountain in the frozen north ensures the seeds can be stored safely no matter what happens outside.
“We believe the design of the facility will ensure that the seeds will stay well-preserved even if such forces as global warming raise temperatures outside the facility,” said Magnus Bredeli Tveiten, project manager for the Norwegian government.
The vault sits at the end of a 120-meter (131-yard) tunnel blasted inside the mountain. Workers used a refrigeration system to bring the vault to -18 degrees Celsius (just below 0 degrees Fahrenheit), and a smaller refrigeration system plus the area’s natural permafrost and the mountain’s thick rock will keep the vault at least -4 C (25 F).
The vault at Svalbard is similar to an existing seed bank in Sussex, England, about an hour outside London. The British vault, called the Millennium Seed Bank, is part of an scientific project that works with wild plants, as opposed to the seeds of crops.
Paul Smith, the leader of the Millennium Seed Bank project, said preserving the seeds of wild plants is just as important as preserving the seeds of vital crops.
“We must give ourselves every option in the future to use the whole array of plant diversity that is available to us,” Smith told CNN.
The idea for the Arctic seed bank dates to the 1980s but only became a possibility after the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources came into force in 2004, the Norwegian government said. The treaty provided an international framework for conserving and accessing crop diversity.
Svalbard is designed to store duplicates of seeds from seed collections around the world. Watch a tour of the frigid vault (1 Min 46 sec)
The Norwegian government says it has paid 50 million Norwegian Kroner ($9.4 million) to build the seed vault.
CNN’s Becky Anderson contributed to this report. See the original article HERE.
Seed Vault Article Sources:
See more: http://www.carolmoore.net
Incoming search terms:
- soviet nuclear targets (16)
- nuclear targets in europe (13)
- nuclear targets europe (11)
- there not really a nuclear war (5)