Monday, January 15, 2007

"Low charge" nuclear weapons...?

I am so sorry to top dr. elsewhere's moving remembrance of King, but a mystery has arisen. Barely an hour ago, I popped over to Drudge (he links to Ebert), where the top story promoted the new nuclear scenario on the Fox series 24:
As Washington continues to raise concerns about terror threats on The Homeland -- a recent CIA report outlined a scenerio of possible "series of explosions using 'low charge' nuclear weapons" -- Hollywood and FOX-TV are set to up the ante with the new season of 24!
(Emphasis added.) The article hints that the FOX series will offer an "instant pre-play" of some real-life nuclear event, which the Powers That Be seem to know all about beforehand.

The reference to "a recent CIA report" about "'low charge' nuclear weapons" had me firing up Google. And I found...nothing.

Am I that out of it? Have my Googling skills atrophied? I've heard nothing about this report! Have you?

The only Google hits go back to a CIA report made available to Newsweek back in 2002; see here, for example. The wording is the same, but the date is off. (Incidentally, the nuke-themed Sum of All Fears was released in 2002; Drudge mentions that film for no discernible reason.)

Within minutes, this strange item disappeared from Drudge's front page. Usually, the top story, when replaced, moves lower down on the page. In this instance, the nuke/24 piece vanished entirely. (You can still find it via Drudge's archive.)

I couldn't care less about the travails of Keifer Sutherland (although my ladyfriend may feel differently), but this putative CIA report has aroused my respectful attention. Can anyone get me up to speed? Is Drudge talking out of his multi-tasking arsehole? If the report is real but not a public matter, could Drudge have learned about it legally? Why does his bizarre promotional squib remind me of Hanussen's "prediction" of the Reichstag fire?

10 comments:

sunny said...

Perhaps he's talking about a fictional report within the show?

I hope.

Anonymous said...

wow! that IS pretty creepy!

however, most of what drudge references is the promotion of the series (doncha just know he's on payroll?). and as for the 'recent' cia report, as bad a faux journalist as drudge is, claiming the 2002 report as 'recent' would not be that far out of line for him.

so, perhaps one interpretation is that drudge is shilling for fox (altogether too believable) and spiced it up with the cia report piece, however unrecent 2002 really is (also too believable).

in fact, if there is coordination going on, i wouldn't be the least bit surprised if this sort of story was encouraged to keep the possibility at the forefront of the public's mind while they're building their case against iran.

let me guess; the perp is iranian?

i dunno; never watched the show myself, and sure ain't gonna start now.

still, we should definitely keep an eye on this potential parallel....

Anonymous said...

wow! that IS pretty creepy!

however, most of what drudge references is the promotion of the series (doncha just know he's on payroll?). and as for the 'recent' cia report, as bad a faux journalist as drudge is, claiming the 2002 report as 'recent' would not be that far out of line for him.

so, perhaps one interpretation is that drudge is shilling for fox (altogether too believable) and spiced it up with the cia report piece, however unrecent 2002 really is (also too believable). maybe one reason it got pulled from the line is that it is, in fact, pure shill. in other words, he got paid already.

in fact, though, if there is coordination going on, i wouldn't be the least bit surprised if this sort of story was encouraged to keep the possibility at the forefront of the public's mind while they're building their case against iran.

let me guess; the perp is iranian?

i dunno; never watched the show myself, and sure ain't gonna start now.

still, we should definitely keep an eye on this potential parallel....

Anonymous said...

I remember hearing about this earlier last Summer:

At the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center, the Heritage Foundation hosted a forum on the hit FOX-TV show "24" that can only be described as adulatory. Though the panel featured homeland security experts, the co-creators of "24" and three of the show's stars to purportedly discuss "'24' and America's Image in Fighting Terrorism: Fact, Fiction, or Does it Matter?" the event became a love-fest — a lofty, intellectual, probing one, but a love-fest nonetheless, with the amphitheater packed with rows and rows of the show's fans from the city's conservative power structure.

Front row center sat Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff gave the opening remarks. And it was a chance to see Rush gush.

"I am literally in awe of the creativity of the brains behind the program," said conservative talk radio icon Rush Limbaugh, who moderated the panel. "The vice president's a huge fan. Secretary (Donald) Rumsfeld's a huge fan."

Dig it.

Kim in PA

Anonymous said...

Well I watched enough of it to be properly indoctrinized ... :

* Terrorists are pissed off angry brown folks who live next door to you

* The good guys are free to forgive, work with and cut deals with those same angry terrorists in the interests of national security. Hell, break bread with Osama!

* Sometimes we need to make human sacrifices to protect scared soccer moms

* its ok to do criminal things if you have a national security clearance

* Tooth and Claw is the rule of the land. Anything goes if it means protecting the national security of scared shitless soccer moms. If your neighbor threatens you're clan. Crack his f*cking head open.

* its necessary at times to torture people in pretty frightening ways regardless of the fact that a person will say anything when they are in pain

* one efficient way to kill bad guys is to chew his jugular off.

* Be afraid. Boo. Boo. Boo. Kill stuff that gives soccer moms the willies

Being psychotic is now hip! Gotta love American entertainment!

Anonymous said...

This is anony from 9:41... gotta take back my harsh judgement on 24. The show may be a bit more complicated than I thought. In the end jack shoots an American agent to protect the life of an ex-terrorist who beheaded Americans who served in war with the agent.

And then after all of that double-dealing to get the bad guys, they still pull off their nuke attack.

I think the point of the show is we're in a catch 22... we're fucked.

Anonymous said...

About two hours ago a stealth bomber flew over my house with a fighter escort - about an hour after 24 ended.
Creepy.

Maybe that's the plan - use 24 to make everyone nervous and get the nuke issue into the zeitgeist to prep us for the next attack.

Anonymous said...

My problem with the show is they just blew up Valencia. Someone check the credits for disgruntled CalArts alumni!

Joseph Cannon said...

Valencia?

Man! I should have watched!

Anonymous said...

"a recent CIA report outlined a scenerio of possible series of explosions using 'low charge' nuclear weapons" -- "
Possible? yes Probable? maybe.

Possible = hypothetical, but it plants a seed.

Your article reminded me of an article I read some time ago...

"Are you brainwashed?"
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/brainw.htm

It has an interesting section on "movies in your head"

"Feed them ideas and you have their hearts and hands" - author unknown.