MONOLOGUE WRITTEN BY CLYDE LEWIS

In recent years, people immediately surmise that literally secretive that goes on out of Groom Lake or over the surrounding range complex of Area 51 has to do with aliens or at least aircraft that we reverse-engineered from aliens.

However, a week ago something happened at Area 51 that has been certainly kept secret from the public but after some digging, there may be something far more chilling to reveal than alien pilots testing their latest saucer.

According to a blog that monitors Area 51 radio broadcasts, there was an active test of what some are saying was a B-21 Raider which is a hypersonic next-generation bomber.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxOh6pkmjfY

Many NOTAM or Notice to Airmen warnings were issued August 10th and 11th that restricted air space over the Nevada Test and Training Range.

A handful of interesting Notices To Airmen had been published that identify distinct restricted areas within the Nevada Test and Training Range that were placed off-limits to any air traffic at any altitude. Keep in mind, these NOTAMs are for military aircrews — not civilian planes.

In addition to these NOTAMs, there was an increase of odd Janet flights out to Area 51 and surrounding installations such as Tonopah Test Range Airport. This unusual activity is largely understood to be indicative of a major test event, or test events, occurring out of and over Area 51 and/or other parts of the surrounding area.

There was a test flight was up over Groom Lake under the call sign Romeo, and flying along with it under the call sign Juliet 41.

The airspace that was restricted was relatively small but the ceiling was unlimited.

While all this can be seen as routine, it is interesting to see that Area 51 is again active testing new generations of weapons.

Meanwhile, in Northwestern Russia, there was a deadly explosion at a naval weapons testing range which created a brief spike in radiation levels.

Last week’s mysterious accident on the White Sea, along with changing or contradictory information from Russian authorities, has led to speculation about what happened and what type of weapon was involved and has even raised comparisons to the 1986 disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.

The first word of the explosion came from the Russian Defense Ministry, which initially said the August 8 blast of a liquid-propellant rocket engine killed two people and injured six others. It said in a statement that no radiation had been released, although the city administration in Severodvinsk reported a brief rise in radiation levels — a contradiction that recalled Soviet-era cover-ups of disasters like Chernobyl.

Two days later, Russia’s state-controlled nuclear agency, Rosatom, acknowledged that the explosion occurred on an offshore platform during tests of a “nuclear isotope power source,” and that it killed five nuclear engineers and injured three others. It’s still not clear whether those casualties were in addition to the earlier dead and injured.

Russian authorities then closed part of Dvina Bay to shipping for a month, an apparent attempt to keep outsiders from seeing an operation to recover the missile debris.

Neither the Defense Ministry nor Rosatom identified the type of weapon that exploded during the test.

But Rosatom’s statement said the explosion occurred during tests of a “nuclear isotope power source,” which led observers to conclude it was the “Burevestnik” or “Storm Petrel,” a nuclear-powered cruise missile. NATO has code-named the missile “Skyfall.”

The missile was first revealed by Russian President Vladimir Putin in his 2018 state-of-the-nation address, along with other doomsday weapons.

President Donald Trump backed that theory Monday, tweeting, “The Russian ‘Skyfall’ explosion has people worried about the air around the facility, and far beyond. Not good!” Trump added that “the United States is learning much from the failed missile explosion in Russia. We have similar, though more advanced, technology.”

Both the U.S. and the Soviet Union worked on nuclear-powered missiles in the 1960s, but they abandoned such designs as too unstable and dangerous to operate.

When he spoke about the prospective nuclear-powered cruise missile, Putin claimed it will have an unlimited range, allowing it to circle the globe undetected by missile defense systems. He said the missile had successfully undergone the first tests, but many observers have remained skeptical, arguing that such a weapon could be very difficult to handle and pose a threat to the environment.

Two Russian research stations that monitor radiation levels went silent in the days after the nuclear missile explosion.

Arms control experts believe the outage could be part of a Chernobyl-style operation to cover up the extent of the blast after the Russian government at first refused to reveal the explosion had come from a nuclear source.

All this has happened since both Russia and the United States backed out of the INF treaty.

We have arrived at a time in history where the threat of a massive nuclear disaster has returned.

For the three decades, the INF Treaty remained in force, NATO and the Russian Federation benefited from the absence of intermediate and shorter-range missiles. During that time, there were no war scares, no fears of surprise missile strikes against command bunkers and cities, and no need for new and better undefinedEuro-missiles.undefined These days are now gone.

The INF Treaty was Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev’s most historic achievement. They didnundefinedt care for nuclear theology and war-fighting plans. They agreed that a nuclear war could not be won and must never be fought, and they were both in a position to override their nuclear-military-industrial complexes.

The INF Treaty was the result.

This time the question is whether or not we will survive it.

A nuclear disaster does not have to happen with intent – it could happen because of a miscalculation or accident.

Twenty-four years ago, mankind nearly faced nuclear extinction. It was considered one of the most dangerous moments of the nuclear age.

It was the first time a Russian or Soviet leader had used a nuclear briefcase in response to an actual alert.

It was a rocket experiment that nearly destroyed the world.

The scientists had no idea that their experiment could spell the end of civilization. On Jan. 25, 1995, Norwegian and American researchers fired a rocket into the skies of northwestern Norway to study the Northern Lights. But the four-stage rocket flew directly through the same corridor that American Minuteman III missiles, equipped with nuclear warheads, would use to travel from the United States to Moscow.

The rocketundefineds speed and flight pattern very closely matched what the Russians expected from a Trident missile that would be fired from a US submarine and detonated at high altitude, with the aim of blinding the Russian early-warning system to prepare for a large-scale nuclear attack by the United States. The Russian military was placed on high alert, and then President Boris Yeltsin activated the keys to launch nuclear weapons. He had less than 10 minutes to decide whether to issue the order to fire.

Yeltsin left the Russian missiles in their silos, probably in part because relations between Russian and the United States were relatively trusting in 1995.

Today we are not so trusting and with the events that have been happening around the world it is best that we keep our eyes open to the potential threat of what the technocrats call Hybrid Warfare.

Deep mistrust has developed between the West and Russia, and it is having a massive effect on cooperation on security matters.

Russia and the United States are investing giant sums of money to modernize their nuclear arsenals, and NATO announced that it was rethinking its nuclear strategy. At the same time, risky encounters between Eastern and Western troops, especially in the air, are becoming more and more common.

When you destroy trust between nuclear powers you recreate the possibility of nuclear disaster, either by intent, or miscalculation.

For some time now, high-level people in the US government and military who go to Congress and say that Russia is an existential threat. We have also gone through the national embarrassment of having our media push the conspiracy theory that our President is a Russian spy.

The demonization of one nation creates an air of paranoia and what was once a country that could be considered a business adversary –Russia now sees itself as a nation that needs to be on the defensive and so we are now witnessing what happens—it fits a pattern of history and it has pushed us to the brink in the past, however, now we may not be so lucky.

A hot war can come from a new cold war.

The American military-industrial complex, with a turnover of a trillion dollars annually. Their entire revenues come from serving the war capability of US government. They have a huge interest in having a major enemy.

They tried to make terrorists that enemy, but that was not serious enough, so the neocons and neoliberals had a great interest in recreating the Russian threat.

From the neoconservative standpoint, they actually regard any country with an independent foreign policy to be a threat to the United States. So that part of the equation means that they can move the cold war into a hot war, it only takes a small amount of miscalculation.

Hybrid Warfare and nuclear danger is what lies ahead. Even without arms racing, nuclear dangers will certainly rise without treaties. New technologies that lend themselves to finding and exploiting vulnerabilities are already here, and they don’t require nuclear detonations to be effective.

The boundaries of war have widened significantly with the technological investments each new era brings. Some believe war has lost the boundaries it once possessed, prompting an adoption of what some see to be a new way of war. The idea of “hybrid warfare” has become the 21st-century political obsession, and allegedly poses a problem for the United States’ military strategy against growing powers like Russia and China.

“Hybrid warfare” is a mix of conventional weapons, irregular tactics, terrorism, and criminal behavior in the same time and battlespace to obtain a group’s political objectives.

Simply put, hybrid warfare is warfare that is carried out on land air, sea, outer space and cyberspace.

For example, hackers have infected 23 organizations connected to local government in the US State of Texas with ransomware.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz4RCm_rATU

Officials indicated the attack over the weekend was co-ordinated.

The Texas Department of Information said the attack had primarily affected smaller local government departments.

In a statement, the Texas Department of Information Resources said evidence suggested the attacks undefinedcame from one single threat actor.undefined

Officials did not release specific details of the affected departments or say whether the cyber-criminals had specified a ransom amount.

However, these incidents can set a very dangerous precedent.

Nuclear weapons systems were developed before the advancement of computer technology and little consideration was given to potential cyber vulnerabilities. As a result, a current nuclear strategy often overlooks the widespread use of digital technology in nuclear systems, and therefore they too can be vulnerable to hacks and malware.

The likelihood of attempted cyber-attacks on nuclear weapons systems is relatively high and increasing from advanced persistent threats from states and non-state groups.

Digital components, material, and software can quickly become obsolete and, without proper updates and patching, they are subject to intrusion.

The truth is we are more vulnerable today for a massive nuclear tragedy than we were some 30 years ago.

It is also a bit chilling to realize that some sort of nuclear disaster or possible nuclear threat will probably be ignored by the mainstream media and therefore whatever happened the United States will become ill-prepared.

Matters of war and peace rarely merit attention amidst the sound and fury of manufactured news, moral posturing, personal scandals, and tweeting exchanges.

All of the political divide and extremist posturing is good for TV ratings and maybe partisan advantage, but it is decidedly less so for addressing issues of world relevance.

We have had three years of frenzied Russiagate reporting which of course smacks of neo-McCarthyism.

The media did not care that it generated intensifying hostility directed at a major Nuclear power. Now the Russian rhetoric has been abandoned for Nazi accusations.

Nobody sees the harm that this kind of talk will generate — they will always find an excuse to continue the anger that justifies their identity politics.

It is finally worth asking: exactly who are the extremists, aggressors, and warmongers seemingly invested in the new Cold War and why do they continue to foment such a war?

A Pentagon panel known as The Defense Science Board told the Trump administration that they need to remake our nuclear arsenal into a force that is capable of engaging in a “limited” nuclear war.

There’s only one problem with the idea of engaging in a limited nuclear war. It simply can’t be done. Any limited nuclear war would eventually lead to a full-scale nuclear war.

The lynchpin of a limited nuclear war is the tactical nuke.

These are nuclear weapons that have a much smaller yield than a strategic nuke.

Whereas a strategic nuke might have a yield of half a megaton or more, a tactical nuke is usually somewhere in the ballpark with the atomic weapons that we used on Japan, but usually smaller than that.

They’re for use on the battlefield, possibly within close proximity to friendly forces. And there’s a reason why our government has been slowly phasing them out for decades.

Just because they make a smaller crater, doesn’t mean they make a smaller impact.

When you use a tactical nuke, you’re still using a nuke. It doesn’t matter that it’s not large enough to destroy an entire city though some of them can.
By using them, you’re telling the enemy that you’re willing to use nukes. You’re saying that you’re willing to rain radioactive fallout on their territory. You’re willing to engage in total war.

The only appropriate response to that is an escalation.

The enemy has to show you that they can do the same thing. In war, both parties aren’t thinking “gee, how do we stop this?” They’re thinking, “how do we win” and “how do I get back at the other guy” and “how do I teach my enemy a lesson he won’t forget.”

The limited nuclear war doctrine doesn’t burn the bridge between conventional war and full-on nuclear holocaust. It builds that bridge.

This should be common sense.

All you have to do is imagine what would happen if Russia dropped a relatively small, 10 kiloton nuke on an American military base in Europe. Would the US government respond with surrender?

Nobody in their right mind believes that.

And let’s pretend for a moment that a limited nuclear war is possible. What would that do? It would normalize nuclear warfare. It would make nukes a viable option in every single war.

Every conflict would leave behind a trail of radioactive fallout and mass civilian casualties.

The tragic thing is that the US government and others are increasing the role that nuclear weapons play in their “national security” policies.

In a matter of minutes, as easily as sending a tweet, a sitting U.S. president could decide to launch a nuclear attack, without anyone else’s approval or authorization. In a matter of minutes, millions of lives would be lost, and millions of futures halted permanently.

No nation on earth, including the United States, would have an adequate emergency response in the event of a nuclear exchange. Most Americans don’t want us to ever engage in a nuclear war, and the vast majority of us certainly don’t want the United States to be the ones to start a nuclear war.

The United States, like every other nation, has a vested interest in avoiding a nuclear conflict.

Yet unlike other countries, we currently have no policy against starting a nuclear war or what experts call a “No First Use” policy.

This opens the door to a possible preemptive nuclear strike. That weakens our national security, and it puts all our health and safety at risk – for a nuclear war no one wants.