Power of Story
Send a Tweet        
- Advertisement -
Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

Barksdale - Why, When, Where and Who - Part One

By       Message azchuck     Permalink

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It


- Advertisement -


My September 11 article and my expanded five-part September 27 article both explained the reasoning behind my conclusions that:

1. The August 30 Minot-to-Barksdale flight of a B-52 with nuclear warheads loaded into advanced cruise missiles mounted under the wings could not have been the result of a mistake. Instead, this flight had to have been authorized and ordered through an alternative chain of command in the Air Force, and that order had to have been issued by someone with great authority. 

2. At some time during that episode, a nuclear warhead was stolen.   

3. That nuclear warhead had to have been stolen for some extremely important reason.  

- Advertisement -

4. More than a one-percent possibility exists that the important reason is the planned use of that missing warhead in a false-flag terrorist attack on an American city by American traitors in high positions in the government, the military, or both.  

5. This homegrown attack could and would be used or two purposes:  

One, to justify preemptive war against Iran, with use of nuclear weapons, and:  

- Advertisement -
Two, imposition of permanent, nation-wide of martial law in the United States.

The five-part article begins with:


These conclusions are deeply troubling. As retired Air Force General Eugene Habiger, former chief of the Strategic Air Command said:

"I have been in the nuclear business since 1966 and have never been aware of an incident more disturbing."

Unbelievable. Impossible. But the loading "mistake" was impossible also. As Sherlock Holmes suggested:
"... when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

This series of conclusions have not been rebutted or even disclaimed, either officially or through recognized media mouthpieces, either by the White House, the Office of the Vice President, Homeland Security, any of the national intelligence agencies or the Pentagon.  In short, officials have failed to explain or even to attempt to coherently explain how this impossible mistake occurred.

I view this failure to rebut or even to respond, in any form, as both an additional cause for concern and as a tentative confirmation of the correctness of my original suppositions. 


- Advertisement -

Mainstream media reports of the August 30 flight focused on the fact that an error had been made, while stressing the American public was safe at all times.  My analysis concluded that mistake was impossible, and focused on the discrepancy in the count.  

My tentative conclusions were based primarily on differences in the count of the number of nuclear warheads shipped. Early news reports said five. The count was later revised to six. Critical examination of various reports indicated that six nuclear warheads were reported to have been shipped from Minot and that only five were reported to have been retrieved at Barksdale. 


This aspect of the incident, arguably the most important aspect, has received no attention from the mainstream media. Worse, news of this discrepancy is disappearing.  

Part Two of my September 27 article noted:
"... links to stories referencing five nuclear warheads appear to be in the process of being deleted by the search engine Google. Soon after news of the event surfaced, the number of Google hits was roughly equal for searches for five and six."

"As of Saturday morning September 22, a Google search using + Barksdale + "6 nuclear" yielded 2,740 hits. Substitution of "5" for "6" resulted in only 556 hits."

As of October 12, the number of hits referencing six warheads has increased by 570, to 3,310. In contrast, the number of hits referencing five warheads has decreased by 12, to 544. Only the six warheads version of the story of the Barksdale flight is becoming more widespread.  

The discrepancy in the count, and the resulting suspicion that a nuclear warhead may have been stolen, continues to disappear down the Internet's memory hole. No new information as to the five count is being published.

I view this failure to make any attempt to explain the discrepancy as affirmation that the discrepancy did exist and cannot be explained.  

Summarily, after diligent effort, I have found nothing in the media, mainstream or non, to indicate my analysis was wrong. I continue to believe a nuclear warhead was stolen.  

Tentative substantiation has been provided by Wayne Madsen, a former Navy Intelligence officer who had been assigned to the National Security Agency and the State Department. Mr. Madsen is now an author and investigative reporter and claims to have a number of reliable government and military contacts. He reported in a September 24 article on his website:  

"WMR has been informed by a knowledgeable source that one of the six nuclear-armed cruise missiles was, and may still be, unaccounted for."

I don't know who Mr. Madsen's "knowledgeable source" is. I do know it isn't me.


My belief that a nuclear warhead was stolen leads to my current concentration on other unanswered questions:

Who stole this nuclear warhead? 

For what purpose?


The two-fold answer to the question of purpose should be fairly clear, because of often if obliquely expressed or indicated objectives of a small group of super-hawk neo-conservatives in positions of power in Washington. This group is led by Vice President Richard Cheney, acting from a position of safety in his heavily fortified "Site R" underground bunker, which was constructed to withstand a nuclear attack.  

There are two primary purposes:

One, a terrorist attack with a nuclear warhead on an American city will be used to muster overwhelming public support for a preemptive attack against Iran. That attack will include use of nuclear weapons.  

Two, that attack will be used to justify imposition of nationwide martial law in the United States, with permanent elimination of remaining civil rights and liberties of all American citizens. 


This small group is not content with its destruction of Iraq and will not be content with the destruction of Iran. The opportunity to destroy other members of the President's proclaimed Axis of Evil will be available and will be taken. Namely, North Korea and Syria will be destroyed along with Iran.  

The desire to destroy all these countries leads to the problem of how to construct a trail of dots that will shift blame for a false flag attack on an American city to a combination of Iran, Syria and North Korea.


This construction process is underway. OPERATION ORCHARD, the September 6 attack by Israeli Air Force planes on Syria, is but one example. The attack was made near a reputed Syrian nuclear facility in Dayr az-Zwar, reputed to have been constructed with Iranian assistance and North Korean expertise, near the village of Tal Abyad, near the Turkish border.   

All aspects of this attack are shrouded in an extraordinary level of secrecy, in both America and Israel.    

Israel hinted that Syria had a stock of "radioactive devices" acquired from North Korea and that the facility was fully constructed and in operation. But Israeli and American intelligence sources also indicated the attack was launched to destroy a partially constructed reactor - a glaring discrepancy.  

An attack on a reactor, even one in operation, would constitute an international crime, in that Syria has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and no evidence has been presented that Syria is or ever has been in violation of the treaty. Under the treaty, Syria is allowed to construct a reactor for peaceful purposes, and is not required to disclose details of the reactor.  

Experts have stated that completion of the reactor would have been three to six years away. This indicates that the presence of nuclear materials at the site would have been extremely unlikely, because fuel rods are customarily not delivered until six months or less before a reactor in placed in operation.  

Even Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was cautious as to the validity of the Israeli intelligence. But, as one American official explained:
"There wasn't a lot of debate about the evidence..."

That evidence consisted exclusively of satellite photos provided by Israel, obtained by its OFEK 7 satellite. American satellites, which are claimed to have superior capabilities, apparently overlooked Syria's construction of a nuclear reactor.  

A number of commentators appear to be puzzled about the purpose of this raid and the lack of consistent and believable public comment, in the form of either confirmation or denial, by Syria, Israel and the United States. This leaves us with the possibility that nothing of value was targeted or destroyed in the raid, and that the sole purpose was dissemination of the North Korean-Syria-Iran connection story.  

This connection will be essential if a nuclear weapon is detonated in an American city, because the stolen warhead is plutonium based. Plutonium can only be created in a nuclear reactor. North Korea plausibly has capacity to created limited amounts of plutonium. Syria and Iran do not. 


As to the first objective, justification for launching war against Iran, Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to President Carter, all but predicted an identical or similar scenario while testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 1, 2007:

"If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large."  

"A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan."

In the eight months since Mr. Brzezinski made these predictions, his predictive capabilities have become increasingly apparent.  

America remains bogged down in Iraq in a protracted bloody involvement, with no end in sight.  

Iraq has made little progress in meeting its benchmarks.  

Iran is publicly being blamed for bloodshed and lack of progress in Iraq.  

Washington now awaits the provocation or terrorist act that can be blamed on Iran and the resulting "defensive" military action.


But obstacles to this plan exist. One is the magnitude of deviation required from long-standing American policy.  

The Continental Congress began design of the Great Seal of the United States of America on July 4, 1776. The intent was to create a symbol of the government that would reflect the Founding Father's principles of freedom and democracy.  The Seal depicted an American bald eagle, with an olive branch in the right talon and 13 arrows in the left talon, to represent peace and war. The eagle faced toward its right talon, signifying that the United States would always first look for peace.  

In contrast, the Presidential flag depicted the eagle looking to the arrows in its left talon.  On October 25, 1945, less than three months after use of nuclear weapons against Japan, President Truman issued Executive Order 9646, which announced a reversal. The eagle on the Presidential flag would look to its right, to the olive branch. As Truman explained:
"... has him looking at the olive branch for peace, instead of the arrows for war..."

Truman intended the Presidential flag to denote that the United States would be dedicated to peace. America would always seek peaceful resolution of international disputes rather than excuses for waging preemptive war.   

The War Office was created in 1778. The Department of War was created in 1789. The name was changed to the Department of Defense on August 10, 1949. Again, the intent was clear: The United States would defend herself but would not initiate war.  

From 1945 until 2001, all Presidents declared a consistent national policy as to use of nuclear weapons: The United States would not use nuclear weapons except in defense. Nuclear weapons were to be weapons of last resort. First strikes were eliminated from consideration.


- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

The author is a retired professional civil and structural engineer, reformed attorney, fierce Progressive, policy junkie, vociferous reader, lifelong learner, aspiring writer and author of the crime-thriller "The Geronimo Manifesto". He is also a (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

John McCain's Agent Orange Issue

Credit Default Swaps: The Insane Problem and the Radical but Sane Solution

The Government's Shameful War on Marijuana Users

Mary, Happy Birthday and Get Well Soon

Lethal Justice for Massey Energy

Financial Terrorists Are Attacking America