Obama flies to Norway the same day Russia detonates ICBM over country

Russian Nuclear ICBM testing failure over Norway brings into question the timing of the test, occurring on the same day that American President, Barack Obama, heads to the country to accept the Nobel Peace Prize.

The amazing display of the failed test launch, as reported in my earlier article, drew speculation of wormhole devices, alien sightings, and the like. However, what was witnessed was an upper stage failure to a Nuclear Capable ICBM.

Navtex recorded a "No Fly" warning over the Russian White Sea for 0600 - 0900 on 09 December due to rocket launch in the region. For the Russians to deny launching a rocket is simply a lie. It was a planned launch.

The question that I have is simple: Why are the media outlets running the non-story of "mysterious lights over Norway" instead of asking the important questions about Russia's ICBM technologies development, the purpose of launching over Norway when the US President is en-route to that country, and what this means for the Obama administration's stance of eliminating advances in ICBM missile shields.

The media fails to ask those questions - so I will ask them to my readers!

ISRAEL STRIKES IRAN?

In June of 2008, IAEA Director, General Mohamed ElBaradei, said that Iran would have a Nuclear Weapon in as little as six months. The six month window has now come and gone, placing any invasion of Iran in a "midnight scenario" - the potential for Iranian Nuclear Retaliation.

Iran is pressuring Arab and other Muslim nations to confront Israel over the full scale invasion of poverty stricken terrorist stronghold, Gaza.

Now, with President Bush set to leave office within the week, Informed sources in Washington tell Newsmax that Israel indeed will launch a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities soon – possibly in just days.

An Israeli strike against Iran will cause retaliatory strikes against US troops by Iranian sympathizers in Iraq, drawing out a mission that is very near total completion. Such a strike will cause Hezbollah to launch attacks from Lebanon along Israel's northern border. Syria may join in the defense of her ally, and invade the Golan region - or at least begin military bombardment in that region. And finally, any attack on the enrichment facilities is likely to trigger a launch of an Iranian long range missile tipped with nuclear warheads, aimed at Israel - who will likely retaliate with their own nuclear strike.

The first shots of the first major nuclear war may be days away. If Newsmax is accurate, troubling days are ahead.

Nuclear Saudi Arabia?

The IAEA and Saudi Arabia are moving forward with approving civilian nuclear power plants in the Kingdom. This plan outlines Saudi Arabia's plans for oil needs in the future, suggesting that they will be nuclear for all internal energy needs, and use oil strictly as an export.

The increased needs for power around the world are showing a resurgence of pro-nuclear supporters worldwide - often without consideration of waste or weaponizing.

Iran, for instance, is building their first nuclear power plant, but are researching nuclear weapons in parallel, with the voiced purpose of annihilating Israel.

Can Saudi Arabia, a country whose population vehemently hates Western influence (a majority of the attackers on 9/11 were from the Kingdom), move forward with a peaceful nuclear program - or are we left to wonder if a weapons program will also be in the future for the Arab peninsula?

What is more disturbing is that the United States supports the nuclearization of the Arabian Kingdom. On one hand we pressure Iran to cease nuclear ambitions for fear that it would drive further nuclear development in the greater middle east, while on the other hand we are supporting (and most likely sharing technology) the Saudi nuclear ambition. The following map shows the status of all countries around the world regarding their nuclear ambitions:

The problem that the United States is failing to recognize is that the spread of nuclear technology is the forbidden fruit. Once you get the taste, it is natural progression to push the limits - with weapons. Don't believe me? Consider India, Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea.

Can the world move forward in a nuclear future of peace? Or does this latest spread of nuclear technology suggest another wrong turn for safety worldwide?

58 Years, Nearly to the Day - Korean War Ending

June 25th, 1950 marked the beginning of one of the first of many Cold War conflicts, in which the United States and her allies would fight against the spread of Socialism and Communism.

The major combat ended in a 1953 cease fire, but the conflict has never been resolved. There is still an active declaration of war between the two halves of the Peninsula, as well as a continuation of sanctions against the North Koreans for their unwillingness to cooperate and end the war. The sanctions have destroyed any chance at economic growth in the tyrannical regime, and their people have little been able to enjoy the fruits of the 20th and 21st centuries.

June 27th, 2008, 58 years later, the day is being marked as the beginning of the end of the Korean War. The Nuclear Cooling Tower at Yongbyon has been destroyed, and the United States is officially ending economic sanctions. The country is stopping short on disclosing information regarding the proliferation of the nuclear technology, but this is a momentous first step, and clearly the most visible step.

This does not mean that the Peninsula is going to be reunited overnight, or that relations between the US and the North Koreans are repaired... but it does represent a mend in relations that could lead to peace and prosperity in the Northern Country.

This move represents the continued strength and influence of the United States, in a time where even the US media would have us seen as weak and losing influence. This is a great step towards freedom and liberty throughout the world.

Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

The most dangerous and lasting tool of war is that of the Nuclear variety. Not only are nuclear weapons the most destructive, intended for nothing more than mass casualty, but their blast results in radiation fallout leaving areas unlivable for years, and spreading sickness across the globe.

So why would any country in the world tolerate the current proliferation of this technology?

The simple answer is that no country should tolerate nuclear technology development.

The Cold war saw bomb tests that pushed the limits of what the world could survive, and eventually, with the detonation of the Soviet Union's Tsar Bomb (50 MT detonation Thermonuclear Blast) the world put it's breaks on for "bigger" and began thinking "quantity". This nuclear stockpile was enough for each of the super-powers to destroy the world many times over. But what lesson did we learn from this nuclear contest?

One would assume that the lessons learned were those of awe of the raw power, humility in that power, and to be humble in our reaches to destroy our enemy... as there comes a point where the consequences of your technology will ultimately also destroy you (and everyone else). This ultimate destruction led the USSR and the US into the "mutually ensured destruction" mentality, which saved our two nations from moving forward with nuclear war...

But what about states that have no ill will towards their own destruction, or the death of their own people? What about states that choose to use these weapons as tools of offense against their neighbors?

The answer by any sane individual should be that this technology should be thwarted at all costs!

This is the very reality that we, as a group of logical and rational individuals, are facing in Syria and Iran... countries with an agenda of murder based on religion, in search of a technology that kills indiscriminately, en masse.

Israel, the target of Iran's nuclear weapon's program, is preparing to defend itself against the imminent threat of an Iranian Nuclear Program... and I completely support Israel's right to strike Iranian Nuclear Compounds.

In the lead-up to World War Two, Adolf Hitler made his intentions very clear... the annihilation of the Jewish population from the face of the earth. He stated this every time he spoke, and eventually had the power to begin his war of murder against innocent civilians. Similarly, Iranian leaders are daily calling for the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel, and the destruction of Judaism in the world... while subsequently developing nuclear technologies. They have stated their purpose, we all know their tool of choice... and it is our responsibility to never have to ask the question: "Why didn't someone do something?"

Iran is a state undeserving of political courtship. They are dangerous... to Israel, to the US, to their neighbors, and to the innocent citizens of that country who have no power over their insane leaders. The structure of that state needs to be re-thought, and the power needs to be put back into the hands of the educated and rational... not the militaristic religious leaders in power now.

But what consequences are there to Israel attacking Iran?

The leader of the AIEA claimed that he would step down because the Middle East would turn into a fireball. He claims that there is no clear and present danger, yet, and therefore no attack is necessary.

Israel attacked Iraq in the early 80's for the same reasons - destroying their nuclear weapons facilities. Iran has learned from the attack on Iraq, building their facilities further underground and spread throughout their country, so a more coordinated effort would need to take place to ensure the destruction of their program... Israel would have to strike many locations throughout Iran, giving resemblance to a full scale invasion... a move that would unite the Iranian people behind moving into emergency measures and retaliating against Iraq and Israel (Iraq because the US is there). Their attacks would come in the form of hundreds of suicide attacks, civil unrest, and general mayhem...

Suppose, however, that the attack included one on the leaders of Iran as well? The destruction of the leadership would isolate the chaos to Iran, with the occasional attack of US and Israeli interests (no more than usual, I would think)... and the country of Iran may be one step closer to returning to a peaceful country led by logic and wisdom.

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of every human to ensure that nuclear technology is no longer allowed to be developed by countries around the world. Instead, I propose using the money to fund alternative sources of energy, such as solar or wind... A country could more easily stimulate their own economy by ensuring technical jobs, cleaner energy, and a more peaceful existence.

Of course... unless that is not their goal?

Iran's Goal: A Nuclear Apocalypse

Iran's quest to bring about the End-Times is as clear as listening to a speech by any one of her leaders. The self-fullfilling prophecy of bringing about the savior of man, or the next prophet, is done so by tragic warfare, with total destruction of humanity in it's current form... It would appear, to anyone actually listening, that Iran's hopes for world peace come only from making haste on bringing about global nuclear war.

This is the problem with religious fanaticism in leadership positions... such as the Iranian panel of religious leaders and the Ayatollah, in charge of overseeing all that the governemnt and people do. Their hope is to please their god by aiding the end times.

Don't believe me? Iran has been trying to obtain the technology to build nuclear wepons since before the revolution, and since 2003 has redoubled their efforts to create not just enriched Uranium for fuel, but Plutonium for bombs. All the while speaking of peaceful energy use, but ending the speeches and policy with "and by the by, we also are going to blow Israel off the map"... let me guess, blow them off the map with peaceful energy?

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regularly mentions the Mahdi, the Muslim Messiah, in his speeches regarding the future of Iran and Iran's energy program.

If we analyse the events and the rhetoric, we can better understand what is unfolding.

The use of religion, or the invocation of the name of a god on behalf of one's cause has been the oldest and strongest form of coorsion in the history of man. Fighting in "god's army" has been a battle cry of both sides of countless wars throughout the ages. Most famous was the Crusades, in which the Holy Land was being reclaimed in the name of Christ. What better way to get atonement than to glorify your god in battle?

With this in mind, there is no question that the leaders of Iran look to influence their subjects, as well as Muslims around the world, who see the tasks they are undertaking as the work of the muslim god. As a muslim, or a citizen of Iran, how can you question the actions of your divinely inspired leaders? To do so would be blasphemy... and to blaspheme would mean death. So it goes, that the leaders of Iran have taken the most widely used page out of the history book, and are once again invoking religion over reason, and their loyal subjects are powerless to stop god.

Next, let's evaluate the "code words" being used by Iranian leadership. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad often talks about the use of Uranium for "peaceful purposes" while in the same breath talking about the destruction of Israel and the West. Let me explain: in the eyes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad they are not mutually exclusive... they are, in fact, one in the same. According to the story of the Mahdi, there will be peace on earth when the restores righteousness and changes the world into a perfect and just Islamic society alongside Jesus (who, of course, was Muslim and not Jewish... right?). So the peace comes when the world is controlled by Islam, and we are all subject to Islamic law. That is the ultimate "peaceful purpose"... death to the infadels, and survival and submittal of all loyal islamic subjects to the islamic leadership... I mean allah, of course!

Iran is in a dangerous bind... and that bind is tying knots in the stomach of the rest of the world.

Should Iran obtain nuclear weapons, or the capability to manufacture them, we will be within a decade of nuclear war.

I ask, if we can see the future and know what tragedies are going to come, is it our obligation to stop them?

Of course I am not suggesting all out war with Iran... but destroying the ability for Iran to enrich nuclear material... for energy or for weapons.

The alternative could be much worse.