Another thing they do well is deploy agent's provocateur and/or their "mild-mannered counterparts", which I term "hush-puppies", scripted with miles of "now don't you worry 'bout that chicken-little stuff."
If there were a real crisis or emergency of the sort you postulate, you'd see significantly different actions on the part of the government, such as "crisis relocation" of all persons in the presidential line of succession so that even a large strike against multiple targets would not render the country leaderless. We're not seeing that. You'd see significant efforts being made to improve security of our own nuclear stockpile (both operational weapons and disassembled weapon components). We're not seeing that. Oh please, spare us the all-knowing dicta, will you? Good grief.
By the way, they have of late gone into overdrive vis-a-vis ramping up activities at Mount Weather and other "shadow government" operations located across the country. But then, you knew it already.
That's a very nasty case of projection you've developed.
That makes about as much sense as anyhthing else you've said here, i.e., approximately none. Just one more vain effort to reframe the discussion by putting your better on the defensive via "shoot-from-the-lip" non sequitur. Predictable, if nothing else.
If that gives you pause, then you might want to check out what Sam Cohen, the "father of the neutron bomb" has to say on various topics...
Anyone who links to J.R. Nyquist's website (who has predicted about a dozen of the past zero nuclear wars) is not to be taken seriously.
See what I mean? There you go again, trying to derail the discussion. You do NOT like the fact that I cited Sam Cohen, "father of the neutron bomb", as qualified and respected a bona fide expert as there is, so, what do you do? Do you argue with anything Cohen said? Of course not. You can't. You're so far out of your league that it's hilarious.
Yet, you do remain compelled to challenge everything that is counter to your agenda, so what do you do? You insult the website where I found Cohen's writings! Gee, silly me, to have grabbed the first instance of Cohen's work that Goggle returned.
I guess if I'd pulled his site from a different web server you'd then engage in HONEST debate over what HE said, rather than try to disrupt the train of discussion as you just did?
Yeah, right. LOL! Like I said, you are if nothing else, predictable!
Very notable bona fide authorities on the topic do take it very seriously.
"Appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy.
So is "Shooting the messenger", which, as you will recall, you just engaged in while dismissing Sam Cohen solely on the basis of the web server that carried his writings.
So too, is miscasting the citation of factual data as an "appeal to authority" simply because it comes from an authority. By your present "logic", any time someone provides a citation, he's automatically disqualified it. Of course, if he doesn't provide a citation, you can then go, "Ahah! NO citation available to support your assertion?"
A nice "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't" set-up -- for someone with a double-digit IQ. Sorry to disappoint you by not walking into that lame trap.
The irony of course is that the sole basis of your endless screeds is YOUR implied authority. You issue one ex cathedra statement after another, from the anonymity of your desk, while accusing those who present actual citations from real principals of engaging in precisely that which you have raised to an artform.
Keep it up. You're good at it. So good, in fact, that I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that the "poster on a mission" profile just doesn't seem to fit.
The closing paragraph of your diatribe can stand on its own merit, as a display of your shameless tactics. Hey, what's one more ex-cathedra declaration left unanswered? LMAO!
At this point, I am thinking that I'm probably through with you. It irritates me to consider the proability of MY tax money going into your pocket, increased with each opportunity I provide you to type your scripted replies to the thread.
As "I think I'm finished here, but y'all may find this stuff interesting" ping
I suggest reading Michael Crichton's State of Fear. He discusses at length how governments actually spend a great deal of time and effort promoting fear--which, incidentally, is exactly what you're doing.
As for Red Mercury...
Another website quoted below:
The new type of non-nuclear explosives are called ballotechnic materials. Cohen says that unlike other explosives, they produce no bang, no cloud, keep the same shape while they detonate, "but Boy!, do they get hot!"
In other words, according to Sam Cohen, ballotechnics engage in perpetual motion (i.e., high thermal output with no corresponding phase state change), all without any sort of "oh, isn't THAT interesting" from a no-kidding nuclear physicist.
Cohen identifies the mysterious "red mercury" (of TV documentary fame) as a ballotechnic material. He offers this "recipe:" take mercury-antimony oxide, compress it, and bombard with neutrons. He says it is slightly radioactive, with a half-life of a couple of days.
OK, Cohen says the half-life is about 48 hours. Now, what are the decay products? What are their effects on the much-ballyhooed ballotechnic materials? After 48 hours, you have 50% "Red Mercury" and 50% decay products. At two weeks, 127/128ths of the weapon has decayed.
You ridiculed my remarks about how nuclear weapons require ongoing maintenance to be ready for use; in turn, you propose a super-doomsday weapon that becomes unusable in less than two weeks, and probably fatally irradiates the guy trying to smuggle it into America...
Cohen says the Russians have built and tested mini-nukes, and that Americans and Russians are cooperating on pure fusion. He says that a Russian bomb was brought to Los Alamos ("by Federal Express" from a Russian plane in Washington) and successfully tested.
This part so completely beggars belief--on so many levels--that the rest of his story is called into question.