Delimiting The Iranian Defence Shield


18/12/08


Resolution of neutron bomb assault upon Pyongyang or Tehran, to double bogchain (nunchaku) stealth attack, on Natanz, Iran.



In this essay, I describe what to do, should a nuclear strike from a country such as Iran be threatened or active, but retaliation from other states is insufficient or unavailable. The essay shows how the extent of what now appears to be the NATO missile defence shield toward Russia is unlikely in these terms to protect from nuclear assault, and neither is it necessary for that purpose, against my far more efficient, defensive striking protocol.

First we factor out the most highly improbable methods to counter or pre-empt a nuclear missile attack from Iran on Israel, or North Korea upon Japan. Japan has no nuclear missiles, so they can’t shoot straight back. However, that isn’t such a problem, as the country is so well embedded in the democratic and financial world, that missile support would be easy for them to acquire, if America wasn’t keen, a European country could probably persuade the USA to shoot down Pyongyang without a lot of effort. Israel has its own missiles and warheads. Intelligence suggests that they have access to a selection of warheads, and this gives much greater effectiveness as a striking capability. However, general opinion is that they have chosen not to assemble a large arsenal, and again, like Japan, should be encouraged to call on America or Europe if they require additional support.
Russia, while consistently refusing to consider to attack either country, doesn’t like states that upset the international balance of peace or security. Russia has invested many years of manpower on intelligence and military strategy, during the cold war, as we saw in the suffocating embrace of the KGB throughout, at the time, within the Soviet Union. So they are very familiar with this kind of risk.

Whatever, for someone such as myself to find a way to summon a missile attack on either target, isn’t remotely probable; similarly with a missile submarine strike. To call up a dedicated bomber aircraft strike, or mobile army group, while less unlikely, requires complex protocols to be satisfied. Basically the state, Russia for instance, needs to be under very imminent threat of attack, or say if missiles have been launched toward them, before arming and enabling. They could extend defensive cover for other countries with close ties, and this is how I suggest Japan could be further protected.
The country would be of great value to Russia, and so once threatened, Japan could use their diplomatic good standing to call on Russia for assistance.

Now here we see a problem, as the US missile defence shield, will prevent Russia from defending a friendly country, thus either America controls the diplomatic ties between Russia and its allies, or America controls the diplomatic ties between Russia and its allies! It isn’t difficult to see how America can now try to delete the relations Russia has with other countries, by impeding their ability to protect them.
It follows then that unless Eastern or other countries accept American military protection, which implies some governance, they must arm themselves with nuclear missiles! So America then will have a wide array of nuclear capable allies, camped around Russia. Then the USA has contingencies in place in the form of the missile shield, to prevent Russia fighting back, should any of them choose to make demands of Russia or actually attack the place!

I noticed the Venezuelan leader, Mr Hugo Chavez recently called upon Russia to send over a fleet of military ships, while probably concealing what may not have been a very exciting gold for platinum certificates trade! So, while Russia is seen to need support or allies, there was a clear example of how Russia is expected to hop around if they want the assistance of Mr Chavez or his friends.
Any CIA commentator will tell you, that shows that the support of such states isn’t likely to be terribly strong or reliable.

While the Soviet Union represented a group of states, unwilling or unable to contribute in financial investment terms to a field of democratic and wealthy countries, groups and companies, it was not really feasible for the West to make according treaties that would render the world much safer. But since the collapse of the USSR, and whether or not Russia’s form of democracy is complete in western eyes, Russia has elections, life there is now far more comfortable and attractive, and of course, Russia has much that it is able and is willing to contribute to world financial and social life.
So to try to encircle the country, and remove its allies, doesn’t relate to any weakness in world security for which Russia is directly responsible.

We return to weapons permission. Nuclear weapons protocols, stem to a great extent from the Cold War, and so could lead to a large scale conflagration. Thus to require a small, controlled strike is likely to be refused on the grounds of escalation. But this leads to imply that if a strike is necessary, and the powers refuse to act, we are then only left with the option to acquire our own nuclear weapon, without permission of the International Atomic Energy Authority, the IAEA. So to the world of terrorists and insurgents we may believe ourselves condemned. This simply won’t do, and here we must be prepared to watch some of our friends be fried, should unsympathetic or constrained governments refuse to make an effective nuclear strike. Why, you may ask, would America, for instance, not counter strike against Iran, should Iran manage to disable Israeli weaponry, and fire an attack?

I here apply some speculation, for instance, were the Neo-Cons, through Mr McCain to have won the last election. The impression given by the religious right, so important to George Bush’s previous presidential appointment, concerning the “end of times”, and consistent American fascination with religious apocalypse, points to a traditional tendency toward large scale nuclear conflagration.
We may be told to assume that would be represented as a bombastic attempt to scare against an attack, or a willingness to hit as hard as the enemy, but for me, a Republican administration, as it was, would only wish to lead from a strike to more strikes, and then to an escalated war.
Prepared for some tolerance of losses, we can disregard most vaunted permissions to access or have fired on our behalf, a missile or a large bomb owned by the Russian Navy, or American nuclear armed military body, or whoever. However, it would not be appropriate to then assume I could not be able to acquire a very limited weapon, should Israel or Japan find themselves compromised, and no state power apparently willing to assist.

On the strength of that, to quote British Radio 1 DJ, Pete Tong, “We continue...”
Weapons, and at the moment we require nuclear weaponry, need delivery systems. Now missiles, bombers, submarines, land launchers are out as options. Firstly because they wouldn’t be allowed, since they all will be dedicated to structured and established military groups. Secondly, we can’t acquire even one, for as soon as a delivery instrument is purchased, we then become listed, and other states then take an interest, it’s a matter of course, not avoidable.

What if, I may hear, we get hold of a new land launcher or bomber aircraft, off the register? Sometimes it is not made explicit that certain weapons are being purchased or developed illegally, but believe me, brethren, to initiate a nuclear arsenal, however small, by attempting to cheat is only likely to lead to horror. Disregarding Soviet espionage, a good example is that of Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent.
The scientist who developed their bomb, and I hear that it is crap, as far as nukes go, prostituted himself across Iran and North Korea!
India, assuming they reacted through fear, had their own bomb ready around the same time. Now here we can see an important concept, reminiscent of Zen Buddhist non-duality.
If either have not the bomb, and the other does, then the weaker side assumes they cannot fight.  If both have the bomb, neither can fight, as neither can afford the damage of a nuclear conflict.
It was not necessary for India to have their nuclear weapon at all! Pakistan is predominantly Islam, India Hindu and Buddhist. So what advantage would it serve for Pakistan to bomb and take over India, full of people with little in common now with the Pakistanis? Who was it anyway, that enabled the countries to be so well informed of eachother’s nuclear weapons development, that they both had a bomb ready within days? Why don’t we invent names for the persons? Say, they are called John and Michael.

So, let’s assume Pakistan threatens India, that has no nuclear weaponry. Are they really likely to shoot down Bombay, or somewhere? Much less so, were India not nuclear armed and capable.
Please notice two important words here; “Armed” and “Capable”. But what, someone may argue, if Pakistan invade? I’m not really bothered about that. Should they do so, fight them back!
Nuclear protocol implies that other than mutual nuclear assault, only defensive use in the event of violent invasion is likely to require the launching and detonation of nuclear missiles.
Further, the invasion really has to be dangerously offensive, deeply harming and further threatening the population, who would have to be unable to defend or protect themselves, before India would be able to convince anyone but their close friends that they would be right to launch a nuclear strike. With the case of the Cold War, should the USSR have mounted a successful invasion of America, making the country a slave of Kremlin socialist repression, then for America to prepare to launch to prevent that would have been understandable. But that would have been unlikely to succeed, since the Kremlin would already have control of the USA.
In contrast, Pakistan wouldn’t be able to turn the Indians into Moslems! The Pakistani government has enough difficulty controlling its own territory! As soon as you leave Hyderbad or Islamabad, the populous decide very much for themselves how they worship, live or stew lamb. Even Peshawar is a doss! (You may notice a little prejudgement is implied by the penultimate sentence).
(Doss; slang term which means loafing in a mellow way!)

Also of course, maintaining a nuclear weapons system is likely to drain most of the funding from other arms of the military, in less wealthy countries. So here is an idea. What if the Indians are prepared to use conventional means only, to protect from Pakistani violence? They can’t! Because they now have to commit so much of their budget to keeping themselves nuclear capable, that the conventional armed forces wouldn’t be able to defend against invasion, through lack of funding for training, weapons, transport, staff! Otherwise it wouldn’t be difficult at all to protect India from invasion.
Certainly not from Pakistan, who by now would have spent so much maintaining their nuclear weapons deterrent, they can’t effectively use any other means!
Believe me, the services of John, Michael and their friends don’t come cheaply.

Apportioning funds to keep a limited deterrent won’t work.
As electronic counter measures and missile defence systems advance and improve, more funding needs to continually be apportioned and spent. We now return to the subject of black market equipment.
I remember, I had appropriated a pirated copy of the 1986 computer space trading game, Elite. As Commander Jameson, I used a well armed vessel to trade in precious stones and slaves.
But, as other players were well aware, on clones of the software game, another vessel would be able, on occasion, to entirely rob me of my cargo and weaponry! I had very little recourse against that.

The same is true for weapons technology and the rest.
You will always be behind the game, if someone else has correctly developed, purchased and registered their weaponry. You will always need mafiosi, smugglers, prostitutes, thieves, traitors and a host of groovy couriers to convey the required information, enrichment equipment, delivery kit and all. Worse, you will need to speak to bank managers! So to compensate when things become stinky at home, people are required to discriminate for you in a professional and normally advised way. Thus you have to call upon the FSB or the CIA to do you a favour! It just gets worse and worse from there!
Why should I describe?

So I consider, for states other than those most greatly affluent, and with some mainframe of structured legal and diplomatic protocol, purchasing a few nukes isn’t really an option.
Even Britain is groaning under the weight of their security systems, for thousands of notebook computers have been left to be acquired by dope traders and al Quaeda (who never touch the stuff), the notebooks belonging to MI5, MI6 and others.

For Pakistan to have the bomb, and India to only require to worship oxen, doesn’t represent a very balanced defence equation. So then, how would a country, not terribly affluent, be able to imply a nuclear deterrent, while Iranians, for instance, rend their own hairline in order to threaten a treasured ally of America and other western countries? If we assume Iran has made a strike on Israel, but no-one will assist, and for some reason Israel cannot shoot back. We require to burn some Iranian launch site. Mossad will surely have details of where such sites may be, as will the NSA or some similar organisation, or for instance if Syria is in a friendly mood, they might suggest somewhere.
We require a nuclear weapon. The weapon fuel mass or bomb size need not be great, if we can deliver close to, or at the target. Here we have two options, we can book something with America to deliver to us, then we shoot down Tehran, if Iran has done some such horror to Tel Aviv, or Jerusalem or wherever. Failing or succeeding in preparing with America, please don’t be inhibited to speak to Moscow. If it is necessary and appropriate, they can make something available, but don’t try to play one against the other to manipulate power of financing against the threat on your country.
Russian support would quickly evaporate, and America would provide a long list of caveats, to protect from cross trading with the Russians.
We also will want to be able to enrich our own bomb. I suggest that a neutron bomb would be most appropriate and effective. I am told it is not slow nor terribly difficult to enrich the explosive material. Also, small neutron bombs, of a few kilotons can be constructed, and easily conveyed, due to their size.

Now we can search for a delivery system. Best is a model based on the Lockheed F16. It is a good idea to use an older design of aircraft for such a scheme, someone can adapt the plan to more advanced jets. Also we shouldn’t become complacent, just since we may have F35s or even a stealth bomber; some other power might be able to succeed with F16s.
We may need at least ninety minutes’ flight from a near point to Natanz or Pyongyang. Unfortunately, a brief look for novel and available military hardware shows that unless you want to pay for stealth aircraft, there isn’t much to be had. Stealth jets aren’t currently very fast. Predictably, we are then expected to buy into a US security system, including missile defence and shield permissions, to make any sort of retaliatory or pre-emptive strike. Also, I believe that nuclear weaponry cannot be enabled for deployment by a B2 bomber and detonation except through NATO.
Frankly, this means that a committee will apply to Iran or North Korea for permission to bomb, allowing them to protect their precious vases and bus out schoolchildren for three or four hours beforehand.
Ergo, the use of stealth technology, allowing or requiring your B2 to circle for a few hours while Iranians fire missiles at it.

The Lockheed F22 looks good, though. It shouldn’t be required of us to have to deliver a large payload. One or two jets can precision bomb an aperture, and the third delivers the nuke.
With a neutron device, much less of the explosion is blast, so conventional bombs or aircraft borne missiles will most likely be necessary. Easily, therefore, the mission can and is even likely to fail.
Unless we are aware at the time of attack, of where to place the nuke, and can reach the point conventionally, we will only be able to strike a secondary or tertiary target.
In other circumstances, if there were many of us, or we were prevailing with a land assault, for instance, that might be acceptable. But if we are very few, it really has to be right on the nose, or we find ourselves being chased down over a long distance for no big result.

It would be offered as a target for us to bomb an access, sealing people and equipment in. This represents an appalling disaster for either side. Civilians en masse locked underground with predating military or paramilitary insurgents, remembering they like to do things like suicide bombing. The children, women, and others would perish horribly and disgustingly. The staff would probably not.
Pretty much, once a missile alert is enabled, that is the secondary objective, in the name of nuclear crisis emergency. So for this reason, direct Israeli, American, or Russian military support can turn badly against us, should we or should we not need to get into a silo complex on foot. Simply be prepared to fire on your own side. Use the nuke if necessary! So a conflict is likely to get fairly stinky, as we try to prevent NATO from balancing the war equation, in favour of the USA, rather than allow a fast, effective strike on an Iranian silo before they can launch.

I am unwilling to purchase Russian Migs. Partly since they seem tailored for the task. If anyone else wishes to buy Russian military equipment, I fully recommend that you do so.
Unfortunately, it was made clear that no-one will allow me credit for my outstanding work to bring the collapse of the Soviet Union, while British and American politicos and military staff laud themselves and eachother. An attempt to acquire Russian military equipment support is not a personal option that I relish, it presents as an impossibility, since the Kremlin has little noticeable mercy for me, thus it follows, if we are honest, that America similarly won’t be very interested to lay on a trip, unless the United States were very much beyond repair. This is because, if the Russians showed interest, Washington DC would want to compete. (Lay on a trip; hippie slang varying in extension, from donate an LSD microdot, to convey on an excursion, or explain a mostly imaginary concept).

A missile can be primed, armed, enabled, target coded and launched within ten to fifteen minutes. The inherent functions, those other than target coding are very difficult to attack by electronic or other means. Priming I’m not sure about, it may not be necessary on all missiles. Priming may relate to decrypting the arming code to activate the missile.
Targeting can be a problem, that is the weak point, certainly of an unregistered system. I doubt if Iran or North Korea have the nerve to attempt to target the missile in flight, for it can then be re-targeted upon Pyongyang. The NSA may know how a cadre controlled by the Pentagon might be able to accomplish that. Missiles can be detonated on lift off, too.

A neutron bomb will simplify that, only to enhance the electro-magnetic output of the blast, and if able to direct the stream at the open missile silo. Missile targeting codes are normally installed very shortly before launch. As for the very complicated methods to electronically manipulate or attack targeting codes while they are being imported by the missile, that is a little beyond my interest and understanding.
Early radio enthusiasts were aware that it is possible to scramble the targeting code by fair means or foul!
We could fly about the launch site, generating a jamming signal, and holding the Iranians to a threat that we would detonate a neutron bomb if they shot us down!
Presumably, physical mathematical manifolds are used to conceal the processing as a targeting code is transmitted, and the coding signal is somehow encrypted.

My preference against non linear dynamics as relating to chaos theory, is to utilise linear methods, as evinced by algebra, which take manifolds and resolve them down to their elements.
I have not yet discovered theory to describe how a manifold can resolve down toward a component strange attractor. It is likely to be required to do that to allow the attractor to independently and very parsimoniously attack the missile processors. However, this requires much preparation and practise, but the advantage is that physical addressing in computer processor terms, isn’t of primary importance.

If you believe that I have thus described how righteous members of the public in any state or country, can form groups, with assistance from commerce, to prepare neutron bombs with which to protect your nation, or your friends, you will be tragically self deceived. You are mostly a very large, homogenous and globally linked group of armchair tyrants, who use the sophisticated protective measures of such as western or Russian military bodies to wring cash, and subsequently blood from where and whom you require. If you cannot see how to profit from someone or something, you simply can’t summon any interest for them.

The Cold War, was a construct of political attempts to satisfy Americans especially, that the Soviet Union could not win a nuclear war, or take over and control the USA.
Thus, huge amounts of cash and resources were expended to maintain a deterrent. However, to prevent espionage between the two states, a very large scale intelligence effort had to be kept up. But many American defence staff weren’t concerned enough about information security, computer security, and many could be bought by the Soviets. Thus, and this is supported by maths theory, unless nearly all staff are very reliable, the weaponry takes second seat to a massive, ongoing intelligence effort, that pays into the world, and then to the states against which the weapons are constructed to protect!

The protocols, which are descendants of the flawed Cold War protocols, as above intoned, will disallow a neutron bomb from being made normally available. NATO will want things from Israel, and others, while they mutuate an agreement among the parties interested in looting from the Israeli dead. It really will be disgusting. Nothing was done to help the people in Rwanda during the 1994 massacre, or Bosnian Srebrenica in 1995, wherein, according to Wikipedia, at least 17 people were brutally murdered! Cambodians, during the 1970s Pol Pot era were traded as cattle!

So Israel, to some extent aware of this, feels it should rely on itself, and thus have the bomb. I see this as a mistake. Owning such a weapon will attract. As a strange attractor cannot help but draw fire, so, for instance, a soldier must place himself, not where he is exposed, but not fully protected, as completeness is fatal to an attractor. The heavily protected soldier becomes enslaved by his system of guards. Similarly Israel, when seeking to fully protect itself, furthers itself within what mathematicians call solution space. The Israeli Ministry of Defence is expected to report how they have solved a threat, that at the time that they created their nuclear arsenal, was not physically real.

But manifolds don’t tend toward solutions. That’s the big secret. Industry, commerce, nuclear weapons proliferation, social behavioural practises, all to a greater or lesser extent follow manifold theory.
They all develop and consume us as they expand. “solutions” are proffered in order to create more problems, generating development contracts and wealth for we who have the means to profit.
Further, of bombastic claims about what has been termed a “Ricci Solution”, where I found that this should be the only popular reference for a solution, rather than the large number of commercial ventures that have for a few years called themselves “solutions”, culminating with an Apple computing equipment shop chain. This solicits, with full vulgarity, something otherwise truly worthwhile.

From this we can see, that it implies that the hitherto monstrous, many fanged, consumer of humanity and our resources, that is the manifold, may only be so as it is forced into the service of the power users, the greedy, such as Halliburton, or American banks like Merrill Lynch, for many years a huge cash cow for the NeoCons, or the inversely manifolding police state that was controlled by the Soviet Union Komisariat, the KGB. However, manifold theory is like advanced theology, or deeply researched political theory or law. We cannot make accurate judgements unless we have masses of knowledge and experience, and there are very few who have the breadth and depth of capacity to describe a manifold, once it is developed across a field of information.
Not so with the strange attractor. Using the concept of an attractor, we can easily decide and make numbers of assertions. If we do not attempt to form a global solution from an attractor, we can simply develop theorems using object oriented reasoning, or the systems analysis method called Unified Modelling Language, or UML. We will find our theorems can be used to create systems that are highly tolerant of faults! I should add here, that I have no formal, and scant personal research background in the subject of manifolds, and a little knowledge of attractors also.

Among others in seeking to protect themselves, to greater and greater extent from a perceived threat, ostensibly from Iran or North Korea, we attempt to enclose Russia.
But because the Soviet Union democratised, the threat they are supposed to represent to us is inferred upon them by us in the west. And please don’t try to shit us all by claiming that to protect Europe or the USA from Iran, you need to put up missile guards around Russia. That really shows how hugely developed is the western military manifold and how global its requirements, simply to summon the nerve to take on a pimp like Ahmadinejad, or his insane old Ayatollah. Manifolds betray; America wouldn’t benefit from waiting out Ahmadinejad, and the fatsos in America and Europe are profiting from the dispute between America and Iran, thus we are all shit scared of Ahmadinejad! I am a stock market investor, so I share your fear. Believe me, I’m pooing my pants.

To complete a protective shield for the west, that no-one at all would be expected to be hurt in a missile conflict with Iran, we need to utilise a huge manifold around the world!
Since manifolds tend away from completeness, we may be observing the solution in construction! Thus, with global completeness, all that a mumbling, incoherent, infant molester, such as the crippled, bed wetting President Kim Jong Il requires is a few nukes, and the entire world shits its pants! A solution! However, recent film shows Mr Kim dancing vigorously, and leaping across rivers, with health and joy!

Yes I can take the piss out of spastics, in the term as those who have little use of their limbs. Many have spent their lives on their asses, before a stroke or some illness, getting fat and weak.
Much like our crucially important military, commercial or political workforce. As have their ancestors. And wearing yourselves thin, labouring for a family is equally risible.
Claiming to slave yourselves to support your family, home, motor car, lifestyle, social life, doesn’t impress me, since you are elaborately concealing a falsehood.
If you are hoping to reveal what that falsehood might be, rather than admit to it, this document shows how you won’t be able to rely on a missile shield to protect yourselves when you do.
Any fool can predict that to protect your face, hundreds of vigilantes and hunky, blonde, male heroes would kit themselves with a small neutron bomb and a supercharged Porsche, and your boyfriends will finally prove that they aren’t Nazis!

This is the solution point, idiots! We now default against creating a neutron bomb, and using a fast car with which to deliver it, or an attack helicopter, because so many others are capable of that!
Thus we resolve down from nuclear weaponry, normally only available to government military groups, heavily secured and encrypted, on the safe assumption that the groups will let their bum boys set one off if they have the readies! (Readies; available cash) Private security firms come to mind at this.
We discharge the assumption that we are to do it, and it takes out the neutron bomb from the logical equation, at least for now; we then resolve down toward identity!
To confirm the discharged assumption, observe that a neutron bomb shouldn't be deployed unless necessary! If so, it is likely to be someone else’s problem!
(No probabilistic caveats to that last argument, please!)

We resolve down, by default against using a neutron bomb, not because it is for someone else to do so, or even some government to sanction, but because we are prepared to arm and deliver a device ourselves! Then and only then does the protocol pass to the default weapon, which, I use, by inducing my identity to the protocol, in the form of my personal selection of weaponry, double bogchain, also known as the nunchaku!
Girls and boys, never think that if you can’t get hold of a gun, you can allow some lunatic to arm you with a katana, a Japanese samurai sword. They make far more powerful attractors than is healthy.
After use, the wounding is obvious, and they can’t be carried everywhere discreetly, certainly not kept so. They are dangerous to the operator as much as the opponent, and also, the clean curve of the blade is uniquely identifiable to forms of radar or some detector.

Ergo, attractors, the same.
Viewing an attractor, expanded to form a manifold, the manifold will consume information and coerce it beyond use as it progresses, that is the beauty of a manifold. If you can construct one discreetly, using attractors, you really can cover your tracks very cleanly. Manifolds can respond to and thus allow perception of things that you cannot see, such as other manifolds. But manifolds require and thus follow information toward its source. Because we normally follow from source to destination, it is difficult to cognize a manifold in action. I am happy and enthusiastic about my assertion that a manifold can be used to process and simultaneously conceal or secrete much information, partly since I assume the corrupt financial and political worlds behave similarly.
And not very concerned about global attractors, or whether I would mean to describe a manifold system, when referring to manifolds as I do. I am though, suspicious of my own motivation in claiming that a manifold can “perceive” another manifold. So I require an example. Happily, I have already described this on another page in my website.
Please see the later paragraph thirteen, in my Ring Theorem page, beginning, “On 28/8/07”; Ring Theorem

A large attractor such as a katana, is totally out of place and time, so just leave it to ‘show offs’ to leave lying about for you, if you find yourself progressing through a protocol and violent environs, toward deploying a neutron device somewhere. This reveals another device one could similarly appropriate, a gun. Do you see what I mean about the katana being an attractor? Anywhere that people are violent, murderous, torturing, paying cash, prostituting and intoxicating eachother, something like a katana may be present. If not available in physical reality...just be aware of something, the sword existed before the gun. As initial states are crucial to chaotic attractors, the stories of the origins of weaponry are always interesting and hold significance. Don’t think you will always need many armaments, should you head into a hellish...rather, into the valley of the shadow of death!

A word on shotguns, repeating shotguns especially. At times it has been easier to obtain a shotgun than an M16 or automatic weapon. Shotguns are very noisy, they make a large flash, and are very destructive to flesh. Over distance the blast weakens, and cannot compete with a bulleted gun. A repeating shotgun pretty much has pride in many Hollywood and other violent movie films.
But they are very dangerous to use on someone, and often inflict immediately fatal or untreatable wounds, causing shortly following tragedy. Soldiers in the Vietnam War would at times want to use them, however there was often trouble associated with repeating shotguns, as the soldiers would not always be issued the weapons from an armoury, but obtain their own.

So to access a target zone, without the requirement of many kinds of guns or bombs, we have now resolved to minimal weaponry! Because we can appropriate a weapon!
If metal detectors are present anywhere, wood or plastic will be necessary. I recommend wooden police nightsticks, not the shorter truncheons.
A nightstick is a little over two feet in length, made of a hard and heavy wood. There may be advanced ceramic materials in existence that will be effective too.
For the unskilled, untrained combatant, one or two nightsticks can help a lot. However, without skill or experience, you will likely get into trouble. If you have much combat skill, consider the huge effort required to protect everyone in the west from Iran’s pathetic arsenal. If you don’t expect to be caught or hurt when you are insurgent toward a likely enemy nuclear resource or violent scenario, you are surely deceiving yourself, and will more likely therefore suffer. With some ability to handle a bokken (wooden katana), escrima sticks, nightsticks, hard and heavy nunchaku, small knives, or similar weapons, and if therefore armed, you represent little overt, active threat to someone. Were you carrying a gun, you would attract.
If people search you to find something as latent as a stick or unremarkable as a four inch blade, and object to it when others are armed, we can then install a protocol, and information should pour in our direction. You see, that forms a contradiction, and attractor protocols can operate using dipolar values.

I have not so far, explained why there may be some form of violent scenario about a nuclear weapons target, that may fluctuate in activity. Neither have I described what possible use we could be if we managed to walk into Natanz, armed with a stick! But if the behaviour of the social environment were to change, for if there was a degeneration of rule cohesion and human behaviour, this could become quite possible, that demonstrations of power, and show tribunals and trials could take place around or near weapons installations. The military would be required to keep order, and they would be most securely placed around nuclear sites. How to insurge upon a missile silo isn’t the remit of this essay, but plenty of salient information is available at the Fall of Saigon page on this site.
Please see; Saifall

Finally, if we only rely upon the Pentagon or the Kremlin to ensure our protection, a serious social, financial and military degeneration would be certain to devour us.
However, I am making it clear, that neither are many survivalist ideas on kitting up with guns and ammunition, or forming paramilitary groups and the like, necessary.



Last Update: 9/5/09
Back To The First Cav Index
Back To The Main Index