Sunday, October 04, 2009

How to Anticipate and Avoid Nuclear Terror

by Bohdan O. Szuprowicz –

Nuclear Terror. It is not a question if, but when, where, and how it happens. It does not matter anymore who will do it. After development of nuclear weapons by a pipsqueak country like North Korea it is clears that nuclear proliferation is well alive and ticking.
What is unnerving and new is the fact that it may be impossible to determine who is to blame and where to retaliate or even take preventive action to avoid nuclear terror. Even if we know it is being done to support the independence of the Basques in Spain or the Zapatistas in Mexico, there will not be a distinct target to retaliate. And if we keep in mind that there are at least 40 regions in the world where insurgency is simmering and new leaders are positioning themselves to take advantage of the latest technologies, we should not sleep peacefully at night.
What is misleading is the fact that countries are tightening security measures all over the world in the belief that this will minimize or eliminate the threat. Nothing could be farther from the final truth. As we make it more difficult to obtain freedom or autonomy for so called oppressed minorities, wherever they may be, by tightening security they will sooner or later realize that only possession and blackmail with a nuclear weapon will bring them to the attention of the world. That unfortunately is the future of the nuclear proliferation genie and it is being understood by an ever increasing number of insurgent fighters and politicos.
The main issue for a small business is to make sure it survives and continues to operate when confronted with a nuclear terror situation wherever it bay be taking place. First of all organizations must determine how they are affected by a nuclear terror event. It is best to determine if the headquarters or major facilities exist near a potential nuclear terror target These include military bases, command and control centers, missile launch facilities, ports, airports, major cities administrations, power plants, public arenas, transportation hubs, and communications centers. Retaliation facilities particularly in the United States should be seen as some of the most likely targets.
Fallout radiation plumes and predominant weather patterns must then be taken into account to determine if the business is located on the path of any possible fallout or is close enough to the target to suffer damage from the Electro Magnetic Pulse (EMP) effect. Such advance analysis yields alternatives for relocating critical facilities to areas with minimal nuclear terror threats where independent backup databases can be maintained. Operations duplicated in more secure areas could provide alternative centers if primary facilities are made inoperative.
Such centers should provide fresh water, uncontaminated foods, medicines, batteries, fuels, seeds and shelter for key organization personnel. This also implies a supply of cash, barter goods and private security force with weapons and ammunition. Ability to produce energy and alcohol from local raw materials, fishing and hunting, would be an advantage. EMP effects may force operation without electric power. A critical issue is maintenance of communications with employees, clients and authorities without conventional services. This implies storage of fuels and use of crank radios, motorcycle messengers, bicycles, horses, and sailboats for communications.
What all this means is development of alternative suppliers and contacts to make sure all such products and services can be available after the nuclear terror attack. (565 words)

Syndicated by 21st Century Research
462 Lake of the Woods Drive, Venice, Florida 34293-4144, USA,Tel: 941-496-7782, E-mail: Blog:

To the editor: This article is syndicated on a worldwide basis to newspapers and magazines in return for standard fees payable at the time of publication. PayPal or checks are preferable. For exclusive North American or World rights materials on this or other topics please contact the author on an assignment basis

Another column on nuclear weapons issues

A Nuclear Poland, Perhaps?

© 2009 by Bohdan O. Szuprowicz

Or nuclear Czech Republic? Or both. The decision by President Obama to abandon a missile defense system in Europe may have triggered off a worldwide nuclear weapons proliferation scramble. At least 30 countries refrained from developing their own ”nuclear deterrent” in previous years lulled into security by promises of protection by the United States. That kind of luxury seems to have come to an end while nuclear terror potential grows more ominous every day.
Poland is in the forefront of this controversy primarily because of the insensitive way it was informed about the withdrawal. ”Treason, sold-out, knife-in-the-back” are the comments seen throughout the Polish media. The Polish Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, refused to take the call when President Obama tried to reach him on 17 September...
Political pundits and observers are beginning to wonder whether the timing of that call was deliberate. In the history of Poland, 17 September 1939 is a date that went down ” in infamy”. That’s when the Soviet Union betrayed the non-agression treaty of 1932 and stabbed Poland in the back by invading it from the East soon after Hitler attacked earlier that month from the West, North and South.
But that’s not all. Russian Prime Minister Putin praised Obama for a ”correct and brave” decision. That same Putin refused to apologize to Poland for the Soviet invasion during the 70-year commemorations of the start of World War 2 only two weeks before. To add insult to injury Russia nevertheless plans to counterdeploy their anti-missile missiles in Kaliningrad even if the Polish defense system is scrapped.
Poland, which for centuries was regarded as a ”bulwark of Christendom” repelling Moslem and barbaric invasions from the East, now feels betrayed, abandoned and unimportant. It is indeed insulting when a pipsqueek state like North Korea gets more attention and even assistance just because it has shown the world that it has a nuclear weapon. Yet friendly and trusting Poland, which abolished communism, fought in Iraq, and whose soldiers died in Afghanistan, was thrown aside because President Obama would like to placate Russia and try and get Georgia and Ukraine into NATO.
Already there are voices in Polish media demanding that Poland should develop its own nuclear weapons if it is to be counted in the international scheme of things. In fact Poland knows a thing or two about nuclear weapons. During the Cold War over 100 nuclear missiles were deployed in Poland by the Soviet Union targeting 12 major Western European cities. Poland realized that if the Cold War escalated, the West would use tactical nuclear weapons to try and stop a Soviet invasion. Poland would have become a devastated nuclear battleground of the first magnitude.
Suggestions about going nuclear have been appearing in Polish media for years and were even subject of satire in cabarets. Now it has become a more serious discussion and at the same time there are ideas how to go about it. Some suggest immediate construction of domestic nukes. Others propose not to waste time but simply buy some ex-Soviet nuclear weapons in the black market from the Russian Mafia.
There is little question that both Poland and the Czech Republic are industrialized countries with adequate technology to develop nuclear weapons within months or even weeks. They also have an advantage that few other would-be nuclear states enjoy. There are uranium mines in the Czech Republic which have been exploited for years to provide basic materials for the Soviet nuclear weapons program . The Czechs also proliferated nuclear skills by concentrating Chinese uranium ores in the 1960’s, when China developed its own nuclear bomb technology originally obtained from the Soviet Union..
The nuclear weapons genie has been let out of the bottle many years ago. It has been kept in check through relatively sensible deterrence policies of an exclusive nuclear club. Today, with the emerging threat of nuclear terror of undetermined origins, nuclear weapons geopolitics is undergoing a rapid change. Unilateral disarmament as an example for would–be nuclear states and terrorists is a very uncertain path to a more secure future.(680words)

Syndicated by 21st Century Research
462 Lake of the Woods Drive, Venice, Florida 34293-4144, USA,Tel: 941-496-7782, E-mail:, Blog:

To the editor: This article is syndicated on a worldwide basis to newspapers and magazines in return for standard fees payable at the time of publication. PayPal or checks are preferable. For exclusive North American or World rights materials on this or other topics please contact the author on an assignment basis

A nuclear weapons column being distributed

How to Stop Iran Acquiring Nuclear Weapons

© 2009 By Bohdan O. Szuprowicz

The only way is to denuclearize the world. There are no other alternatives despite wishful illusions of some diplomats and politicians. Just look at the map.

Iran is surrounded by nuclear weapon-wielding states and powers. Across the northern horizon, Russia and Kazakhstan had nuclear-weapons for decades throughout the Cold War. There is talk about loose warheads and materials from those areas on the black markets of the world. United States controls Afghanistan in the East and Iraq in the West. This implies nuclear weapons whenever a need arises. U.S. aircraft carriers and submarines armed with nuclear weapons cruise the Persian Gulf to the South and have done so for years.

Pakistan, India, and China, all nuclear powers, loom farther to the East. Syria has known nuclear ambitions and North Korea contacts just to the West of Iraq. Israel, with a nuclear strike force is poised to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities with deep bunker penetration weapons. U.S. Navy, off Lebanon and bases in Turkey, are just minutes of missile flight time away.

You can’t really blame Iranian leadership for feeling somewhat restless and eager to go nuclear. We may not like it, but those are the nuclear geopolitics realities of that region. Nuclear weapons are now symbols of military and national power. Nuclear disarmament is political castration in the geopolitics of the 21st century.

There are over 23,000 nuclear weapons in the world and experts claim disarmament of those could be accomplished in a matter of days. But there are also over 40 conflicts around the world that could escalate into nuclear blackmail if political solutions are not found and those may take years if ever to resolve.

Nuclear testing is used to check out new designs and to send political messages that others pay attention to. South Africa developed nuclear weapons independently although it since gave them up. North Korea demonstrated that you do not have to be a rich and sophisticated country to achieve “nuclear power” status and reap political benefits.

As a result nuclear-armed Iran is a foregone conclusion despite wishful thinking of world leaders or the ineffective decrees of the United Nations. It is futile to imagine that Iran can be talked out of it. Not at this stage, despite public denials of Ahmadinejad himself. And let’s not kid ourselves. His domestic enemies are also proponents of nuclear power for Iran.

Basically, however, it is most unlikely that all the existing nuclear powers and states can be persuaded to give up nuclear weapons. Nuclear powers are here to stay and will certainly proliferate in the future. The more we insist on Iran giving it up the more likely it is to develop its nuclear arsenal. If we prevent it from doing it, Iran may even set up shop abroad in some convenient third world countries where it will be impossible to discover in time. Perhaps in Libya, Hungary or Venezuela. Judging how Poland and Czech Republic were treated recently it could happen anywhere. There are 90 countries that pay lip service to nuclear disarmament but object to inspection of their nuclear development activities. Many may secretly proliferate in the future North Korea style. In 2008 alone over 200 questionable incidents were identified suggestive of questionable if not illegal nuclear materials transactions.

The most terrifying is the potential emergence of stateless nuclear terror groups that may engage in political blackmail in third countries. The “Have Nukes, Will Travel” approach may become standard once nuclear weapons development is mastered by private entities serving the highest bidder. Iran already supports terrorist organizations operating outside its borders. This is why it is critical to watch closely the dealings of Ahmadinejad with Kim-Jong-Il of North Korea, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, and Raul Castro of Cuba, who are not particular friends of the Unites States. Here is an opportunity for Iran to assist in providing nuclear weapons to other insurgents like the Basques in Spain or the Zapatistas struggling for the independence of the state of Chiapas from Mexico. It would then be simple to blackmail the United States into giving back California, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico to satisfy the long-standing Mexican Reconquista objectives.

The western powers are confronting Iran in its rush to nuclearize its arsenal. Talking to Ahmadinejad will probably be of little use, unlikely to yield an acceptable solution to what already amounts to nuclear blackmail. After all, his political motto “it is doable and we can do it”, seems to keep him in power despite known opposition. His stated objective to wipe Israel off the map needs no comment.

Let’s face it. The world is edging toward nuclear terror. It’s no longer a question of if, but when, where, and how it will happen. America, the hope and envy of the world, is a prime target, but in popular politics nuclear terror as a subject is taboo. There are no clear solutions to protect innocent populations. The visible political players are skirting the issue by paying lip service to unrealistic assumptions and economic sanctions. But there is a growing undercurrent of comprehension among men of vision and even large segments of the population that a new era of nuclear geopolitics is upon us.

If you accept the argument that we are entering a dangerous and unstable nuclear terror and blackmail era, it becomes obvious that traditional political processes are no longer adequate to navigate such unpredictable and treacherous environments. When you listen to the pronouncements of many politicians, you are lulled into the comfort of the traditional democratic process. Nuclear terror geopolitics changes all that. .When suicide bombers are in fashion, suicidal nuclear terrorists may not be far behind.

One thing should be clear, the top 400 to 600 global decision makers, whoever they may be, must be aware that a new era of nuclear geopolitics is upon us. Let us hope that while we have the chance we make sure that suitable experience and strong leadership will come into play to handle the increasingly undemocratic world of the immediate future. Adolescent leadership is just not acceptable. (1011 words)

Syndicated by 21st Century Research

462 Lake of the Woods Drive, Venice, Florida 34293-4144, USA,Tel: 941-496-7782, E-mail: Blog:

To the editor: This article is syndicated on a worldwide basis to newspapers and magazines in return for standard fees payable at the time of publication. PayPal or checks are preferable. For exclusive North American or World rights materials on this or other topics please contact the author on an assignment basis


Other columns and articles by Bohdan O. Szuprowicz available from 21st Century Research:

You Lie, Boy, A Nuclear Poland, Perhaps?, Unforgettable September of 70 Years Ago, A Nuclear Republic of Chiapas, A Cold War Affair, The Sweet Taste of Revenge, Secret Reports of a Spy from Outer Space, The Standby, The Rape of Monsignor Minet, Binki – How the life of a dog was saved, Who’s Next for Paradise? – My Suicides, The Doublecross Committee, Print-on-Demand Publishing for All,