NewCelica.org Forum banner
1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,125 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
MSNBC Reveals Facts on Israel's Weapons of Mass Destruction
by Ira Chernus Tuesday April 22, 2003 at 01:32 PM


Most astounding web page of the week: http://www.msnbc.com/news/wld/graphics/strategic_israel_dw.htm


Here is MSNBC, giving us more information on Israel's weapons of mass destruction (WMD)than I've seen in any left-wing or peace-activist news source. Here is the mainstream U.S. media, that beast we love to hate, giving us a story that gives away the store.

It's a story we expect the elite media to hide, because it is so embarrassing to U.S. policymakers. How could anyone cheer for the carnage in Iraq, where no WMD have yet been found, if they knew that Israel is the only Middle Eastern nation with a proven WMD arsenal? How could anyone approve of a U.S. policy that kills where WMD don't seem to exist and turns a blind eye where they obviously do?

Far from hiding the story, though, MSNBC uses its graphic skills to put all the details just a mouse-click away. What's going on?

Supporters of Israeli policy will give you an answer in a single word: anti-semitism. These folks are always amazing us with their charges of anti-Israel bias in the U.S. media, which they insist proves anti-semitism. It's silly, of course. If the media were biased against Israel, the facts about Israeli WMD would have been headline news every day during the debate about the Iraq war. Those facts were headline news in the Arab world. They were absolutely crucial, because they undermined the Bush administration's principal justification for war. But mainstream news sources here paid very little attention.

Even now, MSNBC is not making the information easy to get. It is tucked away in an obscure corner of the website. Try finding it from the home page, and if you figure out how, let me know. (I found it only through a direct link in an email I received.) When I searched the site for "Dimona" (Israel 's best-known nuclear weapons site), it came up blank. When I tried to access the root directory, I was told that I was "not authorized to view this page."

Still, the information is there on the site, if you know how to get it (and now you do). You have to wonder why. Maybe some MSNBC staffers were really interested in digging up facts, as good journalists should. Perhaps it never occurred to them that there was anything embarrassing here.

After all, mainstream U.S. journalists are not embarrassed to say that the U.S. has the world's largest and most advanced stocks of WMD. No reason to hide it, they assume, because our WMD are the good kind. We are a democracy. We would never use our weapons for aggressive or immoral purposes. We would use them only when absolutely necessary for self-defense. Most Americans assume that our WMD are morally pure because the journalists who give them their daily truth assume it.

Most of those journalists assume the same about Israel's WMD. Our mainstream media depict Israel as a lone bastion of democracy surrounded by totalitarian enemies. So its WMD must be as good as our own. If there is any bias here, it is for, not against, Israel and its policies.

This still leaves me wondering, though. For decades, Israel has been coyly half-hiding its WMD program. That program was treated as a big secret. Journalists who wrote about it risked attack by Israel's supporters; they were hailed as brave heroes by Israel's critics.

Israel's watchdogs in the U.S. are relentless and well-connected. If they thought this information on the MSNBC website was harmful to Israel, I suspect the information would disappear fast. In fact, the cynic inside me says the information might be on that site because the Israeli government wants it there.

Look at the graphic from the viewpoint of a military strategist in Damascus, or in Hamas headquarters in Gaza. You would see strength so overwhelming, it would be stupid even to dream of fighting against Israel, much less to think about it in realistic terms. Look at it from the viewpoint of a strategist in Istanbul or New Delhi. You would see a very appealing potential ally, one with far more firepower than you could even hope to produce in the near future. Look at it from the viewpoint of a strategist in Teheran or Islamabad. Would you want Israel as your enemy or your friend?

On the other hand, putting out the facts on Israel's WMD may not be Israel's idea at all. It may come from the nest of neo-conservative hawks in the highest reaches of the Pentagon. They want all those capitals throughout the Middle East and South Asia to get the idea. The neo-cons are planning a new order in that part of the world. They have announced quite openly that their conquest of Iraq was only a first step toward this new order. They plan to make Israel the military cornerstone of the new order.

Why should Middle East and South Asian leaders roll over and accept the new neo-con order? Just take a look at the MSNBC graphic. Incontrovertible military facts on the ground speak louder than words. Need we say more?

Perhaps the information is tucked away in such a hard-to-find corner of cyberspace because the general public is "not authorized to view this page." Perhaps it is meant to send a specific message to specific people. Or perhaps I'm far too cynical.

In any event, now you too know just how huge Israel's WMD program really is. Anyone for international inspectors? Or would you trust the U.S. and its "coalition of the willing" to do the job?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,480 Posts
Gee, or maybe its tucked away because Israel has had em for a while, everyone knows it, and no-one gives a **** since they are pretty much an ally. News is only news if people care. Otherwise its just information. Given their history and relative geographic size, no-one really blames Israel for being a little paranoid methinks. The main thing is Israel hasn't been using them, Saddam already HAS done so - THAT is the difference.

Then again, the US has used WoMD too in WW2. But we won, and we didn't start the war anyways, so all in all I can't say that it bothers me too much. What you seem to miss out on Chui is that the US already runs the world - France just hasn't realized it yet. :D

Anyways - congratz on coming up to speed with the rest of the free world info wise - welcome to last Century.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,125 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Nothing new to me, Griff, it's just news to the uninformed. Thought that many of the naysayers would find it interesting coming from an "authoritative" source. Oh, and neither Israel or Iraq have used WMDs within the last 15 yrs, but Israel has been involved in more conflicts and invasions than all of the other troubled nations combined. And in lieu of the knowledge that Israel has between 200 and 400 ICBMs wouldn't you say that you understand the paranoia of the Arab nations? Especially when one fully understands the Ideology of the Hyksos who dominate the region...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,133 Posts
Toy Yoda said:
What's the difference between a nuclear weapon, and a thermonuclear weapon?
The difference is the type of atom that you split. One is a thermo nuclear chain reaction when you split a hydorgen atom the other is a more controlled and lower yield release of energy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
997 Posts
H-bomb is fusion (thermonuclear) and A-bomb is fission (nuclear).

Fusing the hyrodrogen molecules creates enourmous power, while spliting Uranium 235 or Plutonium does make as big of a show.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,480 Posts
Chui said:
Oh, and neither Israel or Iraq have used WMDs within the last 15 yrs, but Israel has been involved in more conflicts and invasions than all of the other troubled nations combined.
Umm... I seem to recall Saddam gassing the Kurds and then firing SCUDs into Israel... I kind of think that counts. And that was what 10 years ago?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
Deaks2 said:
H-bomb is fusion (thermonuclear) and A-bomb is fission (nuclear).

Fusing the hyrodrogen molecules creates enourmous power, while spliting Uranium 235 or Plutonium does make as big of a show.
So "hyrodrogen" is an element in Quebec?
What do you fill your balloons with, "herelium"? :p

Seriously though, thanks for the info.

On an unrelated note:
What are your thoughts on cold fusion?
Is it mankind's solution to our power requirements, and the resultant pollution?
Or is it just a pipe dream?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
Hasn't Hussien used chemical weapons on the shiites after the first Gulf War to end the uprising 10 years ago?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,125 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Firing conventional warhead, surface to surface missiles is by no means a "weapon of mass destruction". C'mon...

And, no, no WMDs were used against the Kurds at the end of Gulf War I to my knowledge. Where'd you get that information?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,480 Posts
Chui said:
And, no, no WMDs were used against the Kurds at the end of Gulf War I to my knowledge. Where'd you get that information?
Just do some research Chui - don't expect me to do all your research for you sheesh.... Maybe you need to use a boolean search... :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,125 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
I wouldn't call cold fusion a "Pipe Dream" in the perjorative sense. Many of today's rather common technology was once considered a "pipe dream" not too long ago...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,480 Posts
Not a pipe dream perhaps, but as of this point completely unproven and unsubstantiated, as supported by the conclusions of the ERAB report after their invesigation into cold fusion in '89. It clearly states that no evidence of fusion resulting in the production of heat energy was ever reproduced. It also mentions that in all the experiments that were supposedly "successful" in that heat was generated and claim to "prove" cold fusion, the existence of evidence of fusion itself was never produced or measured, which indicates that the reaction was most likely of a different non-nuclear nature.

I've attached the conclusions and reccomendations section of ERAB's report on Cold Fusion for your reading enjoyment. Its worth stating that no convincing evidence has come of any of the Cold Fusion research programs since the time of this report, which seems to further substantiate the belief that Cold Fusion is in fact a "pipe dream"

(Ya know Chui, as a sceptic I'm surprised you support this nuclear snake oil)

*********************

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


BACK to Contents
A. PREAMBLE
Ordinarily, new scientific discoveries are claimed to be consistent and reproducible; as a result, if the experiments are not complicated, the discovery can usually be confirmed or disproved in a few months. The claims of cold fusion, however, are unusual in that even the strongest proponents of cold fusion assert that the experiments, for unknown reasons, are not consistent and reproducible at the present time. However, even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary. As a result, it is difficult convincingly to resolve all cold fusion claims since, for example, any good experiment that fails to find cold fusion can be discounted as merely not working for unknown reasons. Likewise the failure of a theory to account for cold fusion can be discounted on the grounds that the correct explanation and theory has not been provided. Consequently, with the many contradictory existing claims it is not possible at this time to state categorically that all the claims for cold fusion have been convincingly either proved or disproved. Nonetheless, on balance, the Panel has reached the following conclusions and recommendations.

B. CONCLUSIONS

Based on the examination of published reports, reprints, numerous communications to the Panel and several site visits, the Panel concludes that the experimental results of excess heat from calorimetric cells reported to date do not present convincing evidence that useful sources of energy will result from the phenomena attributed to cold fusion.

A major fraction of experimenters making calorimetric measurements, either with open or closed cells, using Pd cathodes and D2O, report neither excess heat nor fusion products. Others, however, report excess heat production and either no fusion products or fusion products at a level well below that implied by reported heat production. Internal inconsistencies and lack of predictability and reproducibility remain serious concerns. In no case is the yield of fusion products commensurate with the claimed excess heat. In cases where tritium is reported, no secondary or primary nuclear particles are observed, ruling out the known D+D reaction as the source of tritium. The Panel concludes that the experiments reported to date do not present convincing evidence to associate the reported anomalous heat with a nuclear process.

The early claims of fusion products (neutrons) at very low levels near background, from D20 electrolysis and D2 gas experiments, have no apparent application to the productinn of useful energy. If confirmed, these results would be of scientific interest. Recent experiments, some employing more sophisticated counter arrangements and improved backgrounds, found no fusion products and placed upper limits on the fusion probability for these experiments, at levels well below the initial positive results. Based on these many negative results and the marginal statistical significance of reported positive results, the Panel concludes that the present evidence for the discovery of a new nuclear process termed cold fusion is not persuasive.

[[36]]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Current understanding of the very extensive literature of experimental and theoretical results for hydrogen in solids gives no support for the occurrence of cold fusion in solids. Specifically, no theoretical or experimental evidence suggests the existence of D-D distances shorter than that in the molecule D2 or the achievement of "confinement" pressure above relatively modest levels. The known behavior of deuterium in solids does not give any support for the supposition that the fusion probability is enhanced by the presence of the palladium, titanium, or other elements.

Nuclear fusion at room temperature, of the type discussed in this report, would be contrary to all understanding gained of nuclear reactions in the last half century; it would require the invention of an entirely new nuclear process.
C. RECOMMENDATIONS

The Panel recommends against any special funding for the investigation of phenomena attributed to cold fusion. Hence, we recommend against the establishment of special programs or research centers to develop cold fusion.

The Panel is sympathetic toward modest support for carefully focused and cooperative experiments within the present funding system.

The Panel recommends that the cold fusion research efforts in the area of heat production focus primarily on confirming or disproving reports of excess heat. Emphasis should be placed on calorimetry with closed systems and total gas recombination, use of alternative calorimetric methods, use of reasonably well characterized materials, exchange of materials between groups, and careful estimation of systematic and random errors. Cooperative experiments are encouraged to resolve some of the claims and counterclaims in calorimetry.

A shortcoming of most experiments reporting excess heat is that they are not accompanied in the same cell by simultaneous monitoring for the production of fusion products. If the excess heat is to be attributed to fusion, such a claim should be supported by measurements of fusion products at commensurate levels.

Investigations designed to check the reported observations of excess tritium in electrolytic cells are desirable.

[[37]]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Experiments reporting fusion products (e.g., neutrons) at a very low level, if confirmed, are of scientific interest but have no apparent current application to the production of useful energy. In view of the difficulty of these experiments, collaborative efforts are encouraged to maximize the detection efficiencies and to minimize the background.

[[38]]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


BACK to Contents
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,125 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Amazing how you would deduce my "support" from my written statements. Who knows what future technology my behold. I do not care to speculate. Hindsight being 20/20 vision; many things we take for granted were deemed "impossible" and "pipe dreams" earlier like going to the moon, satellites, nuclear power, air travel, 100 mph cars :chuckles: , microwave ovens, personal computers, etc, etc.

This is one area I could follow a bit more closely, but technology that requires wholesale infrastructure modifications are very slow to be implemented even if they were physically viable.

A bit of apathy? Perhaps.

Thanks for the article, however.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,480 Posts
Well, saying its not a pipe dreams I took it to mean that you thought it might be or become a reality. Apparently you were just saying not to discount it in a broad sense. I will agree that its never a good idea to give up on something with the potential benefits of cold fusion without EXTENSIVE research, but it has gone unproven so often and for so long that I don't see it ever becoming a reality, at least not as originally proposed as a hydrogen or deuterium reaction.

I continue to check up on Cold Fusion from time to time because like may others I was pretty hyped when I first heard it may have been discovered, and I later became very bummed when the early tests were debunked. I still have hope that some day someone will find a way to do something resembling what was once claimed to be cold fusion, (ie develo an easy source of clean limitless power) but sadly nothing that I have seen published indicates that anyone has really made any kind of advances, although some small amount of research is still being performed in this field.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
383 Posts
Deaks2 said:
H-bomb is fusion (thermonuclear) and A-bomb is fission (nuclear).

Fusing the hyrodrogen molecules creates enourmous power, while spliting Uranium 235 or Plutonium does make as big of a show.
Just to expound a little on this, first off, fission is the splitting of an atom and fusion is the combination of two or more atoms. A thermonuclear device is actually a chained fission and fusion reaction. Fusion requires very extreme temperature and pressure to occur due to extremely repulsive forces (two positively charged protons, for example). A thermonuclear device uses a small traditional fission reaction (atomic bomb) to produce the necessary heat and pressure for fusion to occur. The power from a thermonuclear bomb (hydrogen bomb) comes from the fusion of a hydrogen isotope called deuterium (a proton + a neutron) to produce a helium nucleus (two protons + two neutrons).

On the subject of cold fusion, it seems a little unlikely to me. You just have to realize how hard two atoms must collide in order for them to fuse. This collision has to overcome tremendous forces. The only way that we currently know how to do this is to make the atoms move at tremendous speeds. And of course, we all know that temperature is simply the average of the kinetic energy of the system. So by definition, fast moving atoms means high temperatures. Barring some yet-to-be-discovered means to control atomic forces on a per atom basis, it just isn't going to happen. Personally, I'd much rather see the funding go towards making hot fusion a practical power source -- a much more likely and easily obtainable goal.
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Top