]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
Good Morning -- BroJon Readers !! Here's the latest edition of
THE BROTHER JONATHAN GAZETTE
DAILY DIGEST
Tuesday July 11, 2006
]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when
everything the American public believes is false."
-- William Casey, CIA Director (from first staff meeting, 1981)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE NORTH KOREAN
MISSILES -- Of July 4th 2006
What The Mainstream Press Never Knew or Reported
Part Two
Well, we learned that as far back as
1954 the US and the Soviets both did experiments, even before the start of the
Space Age, and showed that the electronic controls of any missile in space can
be "toasted" simply by blowing off a nuclear weapon in space.
The resulting radiation will destroy the control circuits in any space
vehicle. This was an early version of the "electromagnetic
pulse" effect. It meant that any weapons system based on using
missiles to deliver nuclear bombs over long distances could be easily defeated
by laying down a radiation screen in the magnetic field way above the
atmosphere.
Only after October 1957 when the Soviets launched Sputnik, and a year later
when the American's with Von Braun's boys launched an American satellite, did
anybody ever hear about anything called the Van Allen Radiation belts.
But you were never told what finding the Van Allen belts meant for the Cold War
Space Race. You were told that the Van Allen belts were natural and were
energetic radiation particles from the sun. But not so. They
were man-made in 1954 and only lasted for about a week or so before they
dissipated to safe levels. But that showed that no space missile
system could be used for delivering nuclear warheads, since simply blowing a
nuclear explosion in front of an incoming missile would destroy its electronic
controls, and without controls, the missile burns up on reentry without ever exploding
or hitting the target.
This made for a very strange Space Race during the Cold War. From 1955
through about 1980, the US Air Force continuously flew B52 bomber loaded with
nuke weapons. Why do that when you already have large systems such as the
Minute Man missile already in place buried in hundreds of silos all around
America. But maybe the Minute Man was only a defensive system which could
put atomic explosions in space above America, which would act as a radiation
shield in space. But the Russians could do the same and make sure that no
Minute Man could survive the Van Allen radiation effect, and thus no Minute Man
could enter Russian airspace. So still, the only effective
offensive delivery system was the old standby B52, which never went into space
and thus was immune to the Van Allen effect. That's why the B52 lasted so
long as a nuclear weapons delivery system.
The Soviets had to counter the B52. They chose a two track program.
They developed a small missile to shoot down B52's. The other track was a
series of small rockets with short range and could carry a nuclear
warhead. The first indication that the Soviets had a missile which
could shoot down B52's was in 1959, when a Gary Power's high flying U2 spy
craft was shot down. Before that, the American's simply assumed
that B52's and U2's went so high and so fast that no Russian rocket could shoot
it down. 1959, was a real eye-opener for the Pentagon. What
followed was a series of spy vs. spy and measure and countermeasures that went
on for several decades. Most of which you never knew.
The Soviets and the Americans both developed the short-range nuclear missile,
but this was more defensive for making nuclear explosions just ahead of
incoming weapons from space and thus knocking them out. The Americans
made such systems as Bomarc's and Nike's but mostly put them in places around
the coastal areas of the United States as defensive weapons. The Soviets
countered in the 1960's with putting short range missiles on the deck of ships,
or moving them to Cuba. The Americans countered during the 60's and 70's
with high power precision radars all around the country that could spot the
Russian planes and ships moving in to deliver their short range missiles.
Those radar systems were not the DEW or BMEW lines built in the 50's across
northern Canada and also along the American/Canadian border. Those were
useless, since a single nuclear blast in space would produce a Van Allen belt
which rendered all Soviet missiles useless. The Soviets already knew
about the Van Allen effect since 1954, so the Soviets would never attack the US
using ICBMs over the pole. So the DEW line was useless, but it looked
good on paper. The DEW and BMEW lines were quickly dismantled and
replaced with the radars surrounding the coasts of the US, and looking for the
Russian ships, submarines or planes which my be carrying nukes. Those
radar systems also were later dismantled as useless in the mid-1970's at a cost
of billions of dollars.
During the 60's the Soviets developed faster and more accurate versions of the
missile which shot down Gary Power's in 1959. They could go even higher
and faster. These were the SAMs (Surface to Air Missiles) given to the
North Vietnamese throughout the Nam war. The USAF countered with
electronic warfare means to jam the radars of the SAMs. The Soviets
switched to infra-red tracking of the missiles to home in on the hot B52 jet
exhausts. The USAF countered with dropping hot flares in front of the SAM
to make it follow the flares and not the plane. The Soviets countered
with inertial guidance programs. This went on and on all during the
Vietnam war. Did the Americans ever find a way to counter the Soviet
SAMs?
The simple answer is NO. But a temporary fix, was to use fast moving A4
fighter jets in the "Wild Weasel" configuration. Tell me if you
would ever do this? The A4 pilot flies around a sector with suspected SAM
missile sites. He gets the North Vietnamese to fire a missile at him.
He sees the flame of the missile firing and the long "telephone pole"
rocket zooming up toward him. He aims his plane downward toward the
missile and zeros in on the nose of the SAM. At the very last second just
before collision, the pilot pulls upward at 6 gs and zooms perpendicular to the
path of the SAM. The missile can't turn that fast and by the time it
explodes the A4 is about a mile away. The Wild Weasel has just eluded a
SAM missile. The pilot's electronics warfare office in the seat behind
him has tracked the missile back to the SAM site on the ground, which was well
hidden deep within the jungle below.
The A4 pilot then turns around and bombs the SAM site into
oblivion. Did the Air Force ever find a solution to defeat the SAM
missiles? I would say no. This Wild Weasel maneuver was repeated
many hundreds of times. Sometimes with fatal results. Many B52's
were still shot down. The reason for the maneuver was to send a squadron
of A4s ahead of a flight of B52 bombers. The Wild Weasels would "plow
the field" in front of the B52's to reduce the number of SAM
attacks. But no system is perfect. Many planes and pilots
were still lost. The term Wild Weasel used to refer to those A4's in Nam,
but today in Top Gun school, the term refers to any daredevil pilot who uses blood,
guts and determination to defeat superior technology. Today, a Wild
Weasel is any fighter pilot who accepts "soiling his pants" several
times a day as part of his job description. But is that a solution to the
SAM problem? No.
The SAM missile problem still exists today. It started originally in the
1950's with the missile that shot down Gary Power's in 1959. In the
1960's the SAM missile was designed in various flavors, for use by the North
Vietnamese, in a test/counter-test against for-real live B52's. The
SAM missile was never supposed to be a defensive or offensive weapon. It
was just a "terror weapon" designed to make life difficult for
pilots. They were like sharks in the sky. Pilots always had to watch
out for them just to make sure the pilots or their planes didn't get
"bit."
In the 1970's the Russians sold thousands of these SAM missiles in various
flavors to Saddam in Iraq for use in the decade long Iran/Iraq war.
The US Air Force ran into these same missiles in the 1991 first Persian Gulf
war. Here they were called "SCUD" missiles, which was a NATO
name for the Iraqi Russian-based SAM missiles. From 1991 to 2003,
the US Air Force maintained no-fly zones to prevent Saddam from attacking his
own Kurds in the north and the Shias in the south. All during this 12
year period, Iraqis took "potshots" at American fighter jets in the
no-fly zones, with these SCUD missiles. They really had little effect,
other than to harass the pilots who might have had to do Wild Weasel maneuvers
to avoid the SCUDS.
The reason why that is important is because, both the Russians and the Chinese
had also sold thousands of these SAM missiles to North Korea. The Koreans
painted them in national colors and marched them in military day parades.
The Korean name for those missiles is the Nodong. On July fourth, 2006,
the Koreans fired 11 missiles. One was a larger Taepodong II and the
other ten were all Nodongs. So, what's going on here? Why does
Korea need to "test fire" old-fashioned SAM missiles based on old
tried and true designs using 1960's Soviet/Vietnam-era technology.
Something that the newsmedia has been telling us about Kim Jong Il and his
Fourth of July missiles just doesn't seem right.
To get the answer we need to go all the way back to 1954 and the
"discovery" of the Van Allen Radiation belts. All during the
Cold War, the Soviets and the Americans knew that building a military weapon
system based on long distance ICBM missiles was useless, since they could be so
easily defeated by the radiation effect of the Van Allen Belt, which was from
man-made nuclear explosions in the vacuum of space. After the initial
explosion, the radiation particles spread at almost the speed of light and
surrounded the whole planet in about 20 seconds. After that and for
several weeks, space is pretty much a no-fly zone for ICBMs. Of course,
that was all very top secret and you were never told any of that, especially if
you were a congressman or senator who fought the Cold War by spending trillions
of defense dollars on useless ICBM missile systems. They never knew
about the Van Allen Belt radiation effect.
Thus the Cold War went in two directions. The Americans concentrated on
the B52 airplane delivery system, which never went into space, and the Russians
concentrated on short-range little missiles called SAMS which could easily
defeat the B52s, especially when used in large numbers at the same time.
For the next four decades the Cold War was pretty much a standoff, with neither
side a clear military winner. That is until about 1990. In December
of 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed and disappeared. But just before that
in 1985, a genius weapons designer came up with an idea that would defeat the
Russians. That designer was Dr. Ben Eastland.
Eastland is a designer with a diverse background in radio electronics, nuclear
engineering and astrophysics, along with a few other specialties. I have
a similar diverse background, and also like Eastland, I have a perverse sense
of design which goes beyond the range of normal logic. It's called
thinking outside the box. When I first read Eastland's patent design, I
was reminded of myself in 5th grade.
In 5th grade I lived in upstate New York in a rural village called Scotia, just
outside of Schenectady. During the winter when the snow was bad and the
temperature was too low, recess time meant staying inside the school
room. During those times, me and some of my friends invented a boy's game
called Jet Wars. We drew quick sketches of jet planes and then made up
stories about the weapons, then we decided who's plane could shoot down the
others. The trick was combinations of weapons. I might say my
machine guns blasts your windows so you can't see, then I sneak up and drop a
bomb on your tail. Jay might say, my machine guns punch holes in your
wing gas tanks, then I open fire with a flame thrower and burn up your
plane. Roland's plane had 15 machine guns and could cut a plane in
half.
As I said, the trick here is to think outside the "box." But in
the mid-1950's, the "box" was rather limited, especially for 5th
graders. We knew about jet airplanes with swept back wings, and for 10
year olds, Crossfield and Yeager, and the speed demons who broke the sound
barrier, were heroes almost as big as Superman on Wednesday night
TV. But the weapons systems we had to play with came mostly from World
War I or II movies. So we were pretty much limited to machine guns and
bombs. We tossed in flame throwers, even though none of us had ever seen
one on an airplane, but it seemed possible. Actually, during the Vietnam
war, planes were dropping cannisters of napalm. And napalm was made from
exactly the same coconut oil-gasoline mixture used in a flame thrower, so the
concept was reasonable. The other problem I had here was the girls.
Most of the other kids in the class were doing something else, like reading, or
the girls mostly talked to each other. But us boys were running around
making "zooom, ke-ke-ke-ke, boooom" noises and aiming our pictures at
the other boy's planes, so a lot of the girls just watched the loud silly
behavior of the boys. My problem was Caroline. She had the strange
habit of holding my hand, and then softly stroking the top of it, while looking
up at me with fawning eyes. I was only 10 years old and wondered, what's
the matter with this girl? Did she watch too many Cinderella and Snow
White movies? I often felt like just pulling my hand away, and saying,
"ewww girls." I mean that's what most 5th grade boys do.
But I was too polite, so I ended up mostly playing one-handed Jet
Wars. This imaginary war game was so engrossing, most of us boys
were oblivious to what was going on around us. But my
"Caroline" problem made me want to end the game. I didn't want to upset
the other
boys by just saying "I quit." so I found another way.
I drew my very best swept wing jet. It had a bulge on the front.
The boys said, "what's that big lump on the front of your
plane?" "That's my secret weapon," I said. "So
how's it work," asked Jay, I drew a dashed line coming from the
strange protrusion. I zoomed my picture at their pictures and said,
"My plane just peed on your plane and shorted out your electronics and
rusted your machine guns. Now you are flying out of control and spiraling
into the ground. You lose and I win, without even firing a
shot."
This "secret weapon" was devastating and there was no defense.
Roland started to draw an umbrella over his plane. I said, "You
can't fly an umbrella at Mach two. It'll rip away." Jay and
the other boys started to scratch out their umbrellas, then everybody crumpled
up their drawings and tossed them in the waste basket. We all sat down -
game over. It wasn't that I had actually produced a secret weapon which
always won, but it was so far "outside the box" that the boys thought
I had. That's the secret.
The sudden silence in the classroom was eerie. Finally the girls
noticed. Mary asked, "What happened to your Jet plane game? Why did
you quit?" Roland said, "Marshall won with his secret weapon.
So we all quit. He always wins." Maria and Caroline
seemed confused. Then Mary asked, "So how did he win?" I
just smiled and said nothing, as Caroline grabbed my hand again. The boys
covered their mouths with their hands, sorta giggled, and looked at each
other. How do you explain a "boys" game to the girls.
Finally Roland said, "We can't tell you. It's top secret."
For almost 10 years during the Reagan Star Wars program, I worked on a number
of secret military weapons. Often for my designs, I needed to have them
give me certain information about speed, distance , brightness or
whatever. Since I didn't have a secret clearance, they usually said,
" We can't tell you. That's top secret." My first
thought was: how do you expect me to design something when you won't tell me
what it is? And my second thought usually was: Who peed on your
shoes?
Often the top secret part of the system that they couldn't tell me about was
that the system didn't work. They hoped maybe I could solve the problem.
Which was why then hired me for the job. But then they hired me and
wouldn't tell me what the job was. Does that make any sense?
Such as the D5 missile which burned its tail off after 2 minutes of
flight. Or the Trident submarine missile program which had a habit of
dropping missiles through the bottom of the boat. Or the Star Wars laser
weapon which took 45 minutes to warm up from the coldness of space before it
could be accurately aimed and fired, by which time New York was history ten
minutes before. But all were top secret programs, mind you.
So now that you know my 5th grade experience of designing outside the box, you
can now begin to understand why I was not surprised by Dr. Ben Eastland's
design for HAARP. He had just "peed" on the Soviets in 1991,
and in December of 1991 they crumpled up their designs and threw them in the
wastebasket. The trick was: is Eastland's design that devastating, or did
the Soviets just think so. Actually it was both.
I looked at Eastland's patent and thought this is absolutely stupid and
devastatingly brilliant at the same time. To any scientist, Eastland's
patent looked like a cheap and easy way to reproduce the high radiation of
the 1954 Van Allen Belts, but without the nuclear explosion. Most
scientists around the world would think that the United States was planning to
recreate the Van Allen Belts as a missile shield, and then the US could attack
the USSR, but the USSR would be unable to retaliate back with missiles because
of the heavy radiation. The 1983 announcement of Reagan's Star Wars
"Shield" concept lead most military people to actually believe that
the US might be building a shield. Then Eastland's 1985 announcement of
his invention, made everybody think maybe the US actually was going to rebuild
the Van Allen Belt shield. This would mean the absolute victory of the US
in any war of missile exchange such as World War III. Was this Van Allen
Belt shield real, or was it
like Marshall's micturating airplane and all the boys just thought it
was a devastating weapon?
Since the first 1954 Soviet and US nuclear tests in space, nobody has ever
again tried to create the Van Allen Belts. If they were to be recreated, they
would have a devastating effect on all modern life in the Space Age. All
astronauts would be killed, so all space travel would end. All satellites
now in space would be knocked out. Space probes to other planets
would be impossible without tons of radiation shielding. That means no
satellite dish TV, no long distance telephones through satellite links.
Most of the Internet would disappear, since most of the big Internet backbones
go through communication satellites. That high radiation in space would
have very little direct effect on humans, such as you almost never know when there
have just been large solar flares - you can't even sense the radiation.
But the effect on our lifestyles would be devastating - just as solar flares
can cause widespread power blackout outages and disruptions of
communication.
In 1954, the experiments to create the first Van Allen Belts went unnoticed by
the public. The discovery by Dr. Van Allen was not even announced until
several years later. And nobody noticed what it meant. But in 1985,
Dr. Eastland had proposed at a Radio-Geophysics conference that he could
recreate the Van Allen Belts by using a short wave transmitter located just
below the auroral zone in Alaska. In 1991, the US Congress passed the
funding to build such a device at an old Air Force base in Gakona,
Alaska. But, why? Were they actually going to rebuild the Van Allen
Belts? NO.
But the real question is why did North Korea fire 10 missiles into the Sea of
Japan just as the Space Shuttle Discovery passed overhead. At that time,
the Shuttle Discovery was still very low and only halfway up to its first full
height in orbit. The Discovery was still only half way to its rendezvous
with the Space Station at the height of just over 200 miles. That
means that the first time during the first orbit after launch, Discovery was still
only at a height of about 100 miles. That means that the Shuttle
Discovery was right over North Korea and the Sea of Japan, and at a height
which was still in range of Korea's small SAMs, those Nodongs, and surely
within the range of the larger Taepodong II. The result was that all the
North Korean missiles were aimed in the direction of Discovery - they all went
eastward and all fell into the Sea of Japan. But why?
Actually, I fully explained this three and a half years ago. But
sometimes my technical explanations and descriptions of international politics
seem to pass by many people. So often I rely on very simple and personal
analogies and explanations. So that's why I told you the story of my 5th
Grade Jet Wars battles. Sometimes when you think outside the box, you may
win the game, but as a result, the "enemy" does some very strange
irrational things. Why did the boys just give up when faced with
Marshall's micturating Mig? When the boys crumpled up their papers, was that
the same technical response that Russia made in 1991 when it simply folded up
the USSR?. And then in 2003, why did China and North Korea ask Russia,
just just like Mary, Caroline and Maria, "Why did you quit?"
And why in 2003, did the United States military explain, "That's top
secret. I can't tell you." So most of the CAIB testimony into the
Columbia disaster was locked up in the National Archives for 75
years. It's just too top secret. So who peed on their
military spit-shine shoes?
So now you are ready to find out why North Korea fired 11 missiles eastward
into the Sea of Japan on the Fourth of July 2006. And why neither
the US military nor the US mainstream press can explain it. And probably
neither of them can explain "micturation" either. That's coming
next, at least the part about Korea. You can look up micturation on your
own...
Marshall Smith
Editor, Brother Jonathan Gazette
newseditor@brojon.com
Click here to find the live links to the full stories in the Gazette -
http://www.brojon.com
