THOSE “SUPERWEAPONS” AND WHAT I’M NOT TALKING ABOUT

THOSE “SUPERWEAPONS” AND WHAT I’M NOT TALKING ABOUT

There's something in the news that I'm not going to talk about, because quite frankly, I'm sick of politics. And that's the attack on the oilfield in the (out)House of Saud. I'm not going to talk about it because while driving around yesterday morning and listening to the news, most of the consensus emerging was pointing the finger to Iran. Now, I'm not surprised, but I'm not going to talk about the nut cases running that country, nor about how I wouldn't put it past them. Nor am I going to talk about my profound distrust of the American creep state, which would do just about anything to create false flags to get us into another war, nor am I going to talk about the problems of such a strike raising the price of oil, and therefore not only putting the West in a crimp, but also Tehran's close ally China.  I'm not going to talk about that being a reason to question the "logic" behind the attack. As I say, I put nothing past the nutcases in Tehran, nor in Swampington, D.C. Yosemite Sam Bolton (and thanks to K.M. for that comparision!) may be gone, but there's plenty more cartoon characters to draw from in the neocon stable of cartoon characters.

What I do want to talk about is that strange comment Mr. Trump made recently (on the anniversary of 9/11, in fact, a little point of timing that may be significant) about the USA having some sort of "superweapons" in its arsenal that means we don't even need to use nukes to wreak nuclear-level destruction on an opponent. This story was shared by a lot of people, so thank you to all who passed it along:

Trump says the US military has super weapons that are even bigger and better than its nuclear arsenal

Now, before I crawl once again to the end of the twig of high octane speculation, I want to pose a question, or rather, a difficulty for what I'm not talking about. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Trump's statement is true. Personally, I think it probably is true; after all, a missing $21,000,000,000,000 dollars can by a lot of exotic toys. But even if one is inclined not to believe it, the President's statement pose a difficulty for this whole Iran attacking the (out)House of Saud thing that seems to be the latest in the push for some sort of direct action against Tehran: if, indeed, such capabilities exist, then why are we so exercised over Iran getting nuclear weapons? Recently, the President tweeted his "condolences" to Tehran after satellite photos showed a burned out Iranian rocket launch site. The message was "clear:, namely, that the site had been "taken out" somehow. There are, of course, other ways to deliver nuclear weapons than rockets: breifcases, cargo containers, packages, ships, and so on will do. The problem with such methods is that they're even more subject to interdiction than rockets, and hence riskier to a country with relatively few warheads to spare. Then there was that strange comment made some months back when an American general was asked, in regard to North Korea, if "all the options" that were being considered included "kinetic weapons". The reporter who asked this asked it very loudly, so that the question could not be missed. And the general's answer was "Yes."

In reading the article, however, the possibility of kinetic "rod of God" weapons is not even mentioned, and the narrative is steered once again to conventional weapons:

Nuclear arms control expert Jon Wolfsthal, who served as a special assistant to former President Barack Obama from 2014 to 2017, raised the possibility that Trump does not know what he is talking about.

"Nuclear weapons remain the most powerful weapons in the US military arsenal," Wolfsthal told Task & Purpose on Wednesday. "While we have a vast array of conventional military weapons and many means of delivery, none come even close to the explosive or destructive power associated with our nuclear arsenal."

"I will assume that this is consistent with the president consistent effort to say anything he does is better, smarter, stronger, bigger than anyone else, but is not based on any facts or real world assessment," Wolfstahl continued.

Trump has been known for making bellicose statements. Before his rapprochement with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, the president had threatened to subject the rogue communist regime to "fire and fury."

So we can all relax: there's no such thing as other kinds of weapons. It's all Mr. Trump just sounding off once again.

But I doubt that very much; it wasn't just Mr. Trump hinting at "something else", it was also that general in response to the reporter. And that raises another possibility that I'm not going to talk about, namely, the possibility that Mr. Wolfsthal is telling the truth, at least as far as he (and possibly President Obama) were made aware of it: no such things existed in the US arsenal. And that might mean that they were kept deliberately out of the loop, while Mr. Trump was kept in that loop. And let's not forget the Chinese chemical plant explosion at Tianjin, and the suspiciously narrow and deep crater left by that event, which led me and others to speculate that perhaps one was looking at a "rod of God" attack.

Oh, and while we're not talking about stuff, I also don't want to talk about other means of interference, like some sort of possible electro-acoustic means of detonating all those ammo dumps and munitions works that seem to be exploding lately (along with the Iranian rocket site). And, while we're not talking about stuff, there's always the possibility that they're bluffing, too.

They simply don't exist. After all, someone in the government said so. But wait, they do, because someone in the government said so.

See you on the flip side...

24 thoughts on “THOSE “SUPERWEAPONS” AND WHAT I’M NOT TALKING ABOUT”

  1. I believe the movie was “Under Seige 2”
    The line went “They know that we know, but we pretend that we don’t know that we don’t know about what they have, and they pretend that they don’t know that we don’t know about it.”

  2. better than nuclear weapons are those holographs, like the one shielding the desert in Planet of the Apes (70’s version).

    or the Sauds crystal ball that Trump was playing around with with Team Saud shortly after his election.

    Leonard Cohen , Ive seen the future and it is murder, as he sings for Murder Inc., of whom the top Sauds are relatively blood line related.

  3. Fake News last hurrah before it finally crash and burn weighed down by all the lies it has scrolled out. As for nuclear weapons they are and have always been too powerful and dangerous for anyone with half a brain to use.

  4. no doubt we have some pretty nasty weapons. Death Star is not above being a target weapon.
    But, others may have their share as well.
    Then there are the “Others” who might have a say in their use; even if it’s after the fact.

  5. I’m sick of this war business, you can bet 99% of the worlds population are also sick of these bloody wars. WE need to elect politicians who DON’T WANT TO START WARS, thus ended the lesson.

    1. Funny think over the last 15 years or so. While surveying various corporate leaders while they donated blood, I kept a few questions in mind. What consensus I gathered, mostly from senior mgmt in HR, purchasing and operations, was that when price of gasoline is above $2.50/gal, mfg jobs return to USSA. When under that mark, jobs flee. It’s all about transport costs.

      Have seen many examples. Mfg lines of pharma containers (pill jars) pulled from Puerto Rico and re-installed outside of Chicago to better and more cheaply supply the pharma company in Chicago. $5/hr, no benefits jobs in PR were replaced with $18/hr full benefits jobs outside Chicago. They insisted that better customer service, better quality and huge transport savings more than justified it.

      The most impressive note in all this trend is I have seen it go both ways very fast all around that price point on gasoline. It’s to the point that big corporates can have it both ways and snowbird from one country to another as often and as fast as they want to. These senior mgrs were barely factoring in the costs of tear down and reset of production. They were far more interested in timing and catching the azimuths of labor and real estate prices.

      1. ZDB: “…when price of gasoline is above $2.50/gal, mfg jobs return to USSA. When under that mark, jobs flee. It’s all about transport costs.”

        Very interesting! (Thanks.) Under that premise, the ‘attacks’ on the Saudi oil refinery would raise oil/gas prices, and jobs would flee the US. What political/economic groups would pursue that goal?

        (It is interesting that the ‘attacks’ would come just as the US is swinging into a Presidential election cycle. A substantial, sustained oil/gas spike would likely tip the US/world economy into a 2008-like Great Recession. The incumbent is almost always defeated in that situation, barring being in an outright war. Are we seeing factional infighting here?)

        1. Had a gas station nearby raise their price $.40 last night. Those anti-price gouging laws of the ’80’s are gone.

          I no longer have a clue who’s zooming who in the swamp. I can no longer predict with any reliability what the economy is going to do based on fuel prices. It does look like the economy is due for another tanking just based on everything else that’s going on. A war would be just the thing to provide cover for any and all hardships coming.

          Heck even arresting and prosecuting (for once) a bunch of banksters at jp morgan for gold fraud might provide the excuse the rest of the banksters want so they can cypress the rest of eu, uk and ussa. bailouts and then bailins, right?

  6. Boy am I glad I found out and discovered your group. What a relief. Thank you all for being here and sharing your genius….no way can one person connect all the dots to produce a coherent understanding of the situation we inherited. Nice job, love checking in here. May Peace and Goodwill triumph again.

    1. You’re scaring us all Billy Bob. Comments like that make me think Big Brother is coming and Doc needs to consider other networks to keep this going. Seen too many good youtube channels disappeared.

  7. Heck of a time to be a geopolitical (or exopolitical) strategist or analyst. By the time you click that blue box down there that reads “post comment”, the very meaning of your words have been altered and a technology as significant to geopolitics as the longbow has been contrived.

  8. While we are not talking about “the attack on the oilfield in the (out)House of Saud,” I wanted to mention Jim Stone’s ‘take’ on the attack itself; basically a False Flag: (I replaced all-capitals with italics)
    http://82.221.129.208/.wb6.html
    “There were no Drones and No Missiles used against Saudi Refinery.

    Obviously, there’s no way to be 100 percent certain with this, but a referee would certainly call it for the following reasons: There was no damage to the oil facility. At least no damage to speak of. They can patch it up and get it going STAT because it was extremely minimal damage that did not wipe out actual refining capabilities; all it did was light big fires (that are already completely out) and make a bunch of smoke. If this was for real, it would not be put out already.

    Another very suspicious aspect of this was how precise the ‘hits’ were. It looks as if someone went up on the tanks with a man lift that could access the same spot on each tank easily, and put the absolute minimal explosive there manually that would be needed to blow the tank, without actually destroying the tank. There’s not a chance in hell it was cruise missiles because, if it was, there would be nothing left of the tanks. Instead, they are all neatly poked in exactly the same spot on each tank. The tanks obviously only need to be patched; they don’t need to be replaced.

    Here’s a Huge reason to call the attacks totally Fake, and I know this cinches it –

    First, an explanation to prove the scenario here: In industry, when repairs have to be made to any tank filled with anything that can explode when mixed with air – if it needs to be welded – welding can be done without worry, provided the welding is done below the level of the liquid in the tank; down below where the air can reach it. This is even true on gasoline tanks. As long as you don’t puncture the tank or weld where the air is, there’s no chance at all of there being a problem from being welded – welding can be done below the level of whatever liquid is in the tank. This is Exactly how every single ‘drone and cruise missile’ hit these tanks.

    Take a look at this picture. (http://82.221.129.208/pages/nowayiran.jpg) All the tanks were hit the same way in exactly the same spot, with precision that is not attainable by those accused, as well as precise limited damage not attainable by those accused.

    This attack was prepared for, because NONE of the tanks exploded; all were full to above the level of impact. What are the chances of that happening at random? I’d say zilch, and am probably right. And how the hell are the fires out so soon after the ‘attack’ that a photo like this could be taken right away? These fires were out in ONE DAY. That needs some explaining – explaining that can’t be done outside of this attack being hoaxed for max impression and minimal damage.

    Bottom Line: If it is all out so quickly and the damage is that uniform and the damage is that minimal, first of all, Iranian cruise missiles did not do this – because the damage is not enough (all of them carry 130 KG [286 pound] warheads and up), which would obliterate a large section of those tanks and not just leave a little hole. (Oh, I know what did this: the Iranian navy put limpet mines on those tanks. Yep, that would end up looking like the photo.) And second, magically and mysteriously got all of them right where they would not ignite any vapors and blow the whole thing. Forget about how they sailed into that refinery to do it: Iran did it, Iran did it, Iran did it!!!!

    The Yemenis did not do this either; they were simply not capable of that kind of precision. Even the U.S. would likely not have an attack pattern be so uniform and perfect. This looks like a hand-placement job, and someone was brainless about making it look credible.

    Update: Look in the lower right hand corner of the photo [above]. There is a car or pickup truck there. That shows how large the tanks are. Iran’s smallest cruise missile has approximately a 290 pound warhead. If an Iranian cruise missile hit those tanks (as some have claimed), the hole would be approximately as far across as 5 of those cars if the tank was robustly built; and more if it was not. And if there was no additional explosive effects provided by the fuel in the tank. The entire story line for the refinery attack is an obvious hoax. There’s no way a 290 pound warhead hit that tank.”

    (When I first saw this photo [elsewhere], I was suspicious about the ‘hits’ being at the exact same spot on each tank. This was much too uniform for attacks from a far distance…)

    1. As you say Goshawks we could well say “What Attacks?”. Looks like a maladroit attempt to snap up a few billions in speculative operations, with the added “benefit” of giving the multi-national arms lobbies a boost (as if they needed one…).

      1. C’mon Goshawks, the legacy news told us all that Saudi oil production got cut in half. That makes it consensus news, right?

        Am I noticing a trend here that we’re being hit more often with progressively more fake looking fake news? Is it becoming more and more fake? What advantage do the news controllers gain by doing that? Besides undermining their competitors (if there are any)?

        Along the lines of more credible news this morning, I ran across this tidbit that better explains a question I have asked for awhile. My question runs to larger trends like the one noted above. It’s all about who is zooming who and why so publicly. It does give the appearance of conflict among the WGEO that goes right to the top of the WGEO that we know of.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY5vsd8Vg7E&feature=em-lsp
        Rothschild FREAKS OUT as Authorities Slam “CRIMINAL DECISION” to Sell Him Airport

        It would seem Nathan, Lynn and Jacob are seriously taking shots at each other. And Lynn has tweeted her last tweet? Has she suddenly understood that she’s next on the Epstein guilt by association hit list?

Comments are closed.