A Blatant and Illustrative Nuclear 33
In today's NYTimes no less.
Note the little blurb on the front online page for the Op-Ed:
331 nukes! The article claims the US only needs 331 (or 311, see below) nukes, despite the fact that we now have 5,113 nukes.
Note, the official title of the piece is "An Arsenal We Can All Live With". NOT 331 nukes as cited by the front page ad shown above.
When you read the dang thing, the funny part is how most of the article talks about 311 nukes! And as they talk about how they calculate the number of nukes needed, their number indeed adds up to 311, not 331--
100 land based nuclear missiles (in silos)
192 submarine based nuclear missiles (Trident subs)
19 plane-based nuclear missiles (B-2 bomber)
That's 311.
But then they write "our 331-missile plan", as their sum of the number of missiles needed.
In the NEXT PARAGRAPH, they write 311 nuclear weapons are what is needed.
Clearly, someone was desperate to have a 33 there-- a 33 they advertised on the front page. But they actually refer to 311 five times and 331 only once in the piece!
The piece was written by "Gary Schaub Jr. is an assistant professor of strategy at the Air War College and James Forsyth Jr. is a professor of strategy at the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies."
I think this incident should clear up any lingering doubts about the significance of "33".
But, another question is-- where was the editor here? Was there any editing at all? Or did the editor actually add in the 33?
Note the little blurb on the front online page for the Op-Ed:
331 nukes! The article claims the US only needs 331 (or 311, see below) nukes, despite the fact that we now have 5,113 nukes.
Note, the official title of the piece is "An Arsenal We Can All Live With". NOT 331 nukes as cited by the front page ad shown above.
When you read the dang thing, the funny part is how most of the article talks about 311 nukes! And as they talk about how they calculate the number of nukes needed, their number indeed adds up to 311, not 331--
100 land based nuclear missiles (in silos)
192 submarine based nuclear missiles (Trident subs)
19 plane-based nuclear missiles (B-2 bomber)
That's 311.
But then they write "our 331-missile plan", as their sum of the number of missiles needed.
In the NEXT PARAGRAPH, they write 311 nuclear weapons are what is needed.
Clearly, someone was desperate to have a 33 there-- a 33 they advertised on the front page. But they actually refer to 311 five times and 331 only once in the piece!
The piece was written by "Gary Schaub Jr. is an assistant professor of strategy at the Air War College and James Forsyth Jr. is a professor of strategy at the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies."
I think this incident should clear up any lingering doubts about the significance of "33".
But, another question is-- where was the editor here? Was there any editing at all? Or did the editor actually add in the 33?
posted by spooked at 12:53 PM
3 Comments:
Spooked:
Good find.
Of course, my research, books and articles may have revealed a far deeper understanding for the great and continuous PUBLIC decrease in ths alleged number of nukes on “both” sides (which is itself a front as I have shown.)
.
The real meaning for the Maury Island and Roswell events was revealed by me, as the Quaantiners’ response to Hiroshima and Nagasaki perpetrated by the quarantined—our miserable CCCs.
And I have revealed how neutrino beams could disengage fissile material and such making the nukes in solos and on bombers impotent. Perhaps even this factor made the initial WTC7 nuke fizzle, as I have detailed.
So all this great, public decrease in the number of nukes may be put out for public consumption, when OTHERS have, in effect, been reducing them ever since 1945.
Anonymous Physicist
despite the fact that we now have 5,113 nukes.
Really. What happened to the other 5 or 6 thousand nukes that we used to have in addition to the 5,113?
Obviously it is not likely they would tell the truth about the # of nukes.
But I was indicating that there is a whole 'nother parameter here. The # of operational nukes...
A.P.
Post a Comment
<< Home