Re: Will WWIII start March 2006?

Idiots- Iran of shure would calculate for the echo. As long as they just
built nuke reactors for
producing electricity there should not be any concerns. Iran simply is not
strong enough for
any WWIII. So such a war will not begin in IRAN you can be shure. It is
self - inerest because
any attack would result in the complete destruction of the agressor. No
rational thinking government
in the world is interested in the own knock - out. Therefore this will not
happen. Any atomic war
has no winners - only loosers. But of course a hitler type tyrann could
produce a huge damage if not stopped. As i heared russia is envolved in the
built of this reactor. You can be shure that russia
would correct Irans possibilities before things run out of control.

Joe


"Jack Sarfatti" <sarfatti@xxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:dNalf.23573$BZ5.2144@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: December 5, 2005 10:57:53 PM PST
> To: Kim Burrafato <lensman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Fwd: Israel Builds up its Stockpile of Deadly Military Hardware
>
> Memorandum for the Record
>
> WWIII in March 2006?
>
> Get ready. March 2006 is Point of No Return though it may take Iran
> another 2 years to get an operational nuke to hit Tel Aviv with. I
> discussed this with .... at lunch today before his show. He was already
> aware of all this. He also had Congressman ... on. ... also mentioned
> ... on radio today in connection with ...
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: ...
> Date: December 5, 2005 6:47:53 PM PST
> To: sarfatti@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Israel Builds up its Stockpile of Deadly Military Hardware
>
> Hi Jack,
> Israel is fully capable of taking care of the Iranian nuclear problem.
> My opinion is that they will stage a surgical strike against the nuclear
> facilities in Iran with deep penetrating nukes. Remember when they took
> out Saddam's nuclear breeder reactors in Baghdad? You might want to pass
> the following info on to ..... The organization that wrote this article
> has a leftist slant so they made snide remarks about the mil-industrial
> complex, etc. The info on the military hardware is correct though.
> ...
>
> From: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO505A.html
> Israel Builds up its Stockpile of Deadly Military Hardware
>
> A massive buildup in military hardware has occurred in preparation for a
> possible attack on Iran.
>
> Israel has recently taken delivery from the US of some 5,000 "smart air
> launched weapons" including some 500 BLU 109 'bunker-buster bombs.
>
> http://www.f-16.net/f-16_armament_article9.html
>
> The (uranium coated) munitions are said to be more than "adequate to
> address the full range of Iranian targets, with the possible exception
> of the buried facility at Natanz, which may require the [more powerful]
> BLU-113 bunker buster ":
>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/gbu-28.htm
>
>
> "Given Israel's already substantial holdings of such weapons, this
> increase in its inventory would allow a sustained assault with or
> without further US involvement." (See Richard Bennett,
> http://globalresearch.ca/articles/BEN501A.html )
>
>
> Gbu 28 Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28)
>
> The Israeli Air Force would attack Iran's nuclear facility at Bushehr
> using US as well Israeli produced bunker buster bombs. The attack would
> be carried out in three separate waves "with the radar and
> communications jamming protection being provided by U.S. Air Force AWACS
> and other U.S. aircraft in the area". (See W Madsen,
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD410A.html
>
> Bear in mind that the bunker buster bombs can also be used to deliver
> tactical nuclear bombs. The B61-11 is the "nuclear version" of the
> "conventional" BLU 113. It can be delivered in much same way as the
> conventional bunker buster bomb. (See Michel Chossudovsky,
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO112C.html , see also
> http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=jf03norris ) .
> According to the Pentagon, tactical nuclear weapons are "safe for
> civilians". Their use has been authorized by the US Senate. (See Miochel
> Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405A.html )
> Moreover, reported in late 2003, Israeli Dolphin-class submarines
> equipped with US Harpoon missiles armed with nuclear warheads are now
> aimed at Iran. (See Gordon Thomas,
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/THO311A.html
> Even if tactical nuclear weapons are not used by Israel, an attack on
> Iran's nuclear facilities not only raises the specter of a broader war,
> but also of nuclear radiation over a wide area:
>
> "To attack Iran's nuclear facilities will not only provoke war, but it
> could also unleash clouds of radiation far beyond the targets and the
> borders of Iran." (Statement of Prof Elias Tuma, Arab Internet Network,
> Federal News Service, 1 March 2005)
>
>
> Moreover, while most reports have centered on the issue of punitive air
> strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, the strikes would most probably
> extend to other targets.
> While a ground war is contemplated as a possible "scenario" at the level
> of military planning, the US military would not be able to wage an
> effective ground war, given the situation in Iraq. In the words of
> former National Security Adviser Lawrence Eagelberger:
>
> "We are not going to get in a ground war in Iran, I hope. If we get into
> that, we are in serious trouble. I don't think anyone in Washington is
> seriously considering that." ( quoted in the National Journal, 4
> December 2004).
>
>
> Iran's Military Capabilities
> Despite its overall weaknesses in relation to Israel and the US, Iran
> has an advanced air defense system, deployed to protect its nuclear
> sites; "they are dispersed and underground making potential air strikes
> difficult and without any guarantees of success." (Jerusalem Post, 20
> April 2005). It has upgraded its Shahab-3 missile, which can reach
> targets in Israel. Iran's armed forces have recently conducted
> high-profile military exercises in anticipation of a US led attack. Iran
> also possesses some 12 X-55 strategic cruise missiles, produced by the
> Ukraine. Iran's air defense systems is said to feature Russian SA-2,
> SA-5, SA-6 as well as shoulder-launched SA-7 missiles (Jaffa Center for
> Strategic Studies).
> The US "Military Road Map"
> The Bush administration has officially identified Iran and Syria as the
> next stage of "the road map to war".
> Targeting Iran is a bipartisan project, which broadly serves the
> interests of the Anglo-American oil conglomerates, the Wall Street
> financial establishment and the military-industrial complex.
> The broader Middle East-Central Asian region encompasses more than 70%
> of the World's reserves of oil and natural gas. Iran possesses 10% of
> the world's oil and ranks third after Saudi Arabia (25 %) and Iraq (11
> %) in the size of its reserves. In comparison, the US possesses less
> than 2.8 % of global oil reserves. (See Eric Waddell, The Battle for
> Oil, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/WAD412A.html )
> The announcement to target Iran should come as no surprise. It is part
> of the battle for oil. Already during the Clinton administration, US
> Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated "in war theater plans" to
> invade both Iraq and Iran:
>
> "The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the
> President's National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman's National
> Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central
> Command's theater strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy
> of dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as
> those states pose a threat to U.S. interests, to other states in the
> region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment is designed to
> maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on either
> Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM's theater strategy is interest-based and
> threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS,
> is to protect the United States' vital interest in the region -
> uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf oil.
> (USCENTCOM,
> http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/chap1/stratgic.htm#USPolicy
> , emphasis added)
>
>
> Main Military Actors
> While the US, Israel, as well as Turkey (with borders with both Iran and
> Syria) are the main actors in this process, a number of other countries,
> in the region, allies of the US, including several Central Asian former
> Soviet republics have been enlisted. Britain is closely involved despite
> its official denials at the diplomatic level. Turkey occupies a central
> role in the Iran operation. It has an extensive military cooperation
> agreement with Israel. There are indications that NATO is also formally
> involved in the context of an Israel-NATO agreement reached in November
> 2004.
> Planning The Aerial Attack on Iran
> According to former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, George W. Bush has
> already signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran, scheduled for
> June.(See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/JEN502A.html )
> The June cut-off date should be understood. It does not signify that the
> attack will occur in June. What it suggests is that the US and Israel
> are "in a state of readiness" and are prepared to launch an attack by
> June or at a later date. In other words, the decision to launch the
> attack has not been made.
> Ritter's observation concerning an impending military operation should
> nonetheless be taken seriously. In recent months, there is ample
> evidence that a major military operation is in preparation:
>
> 1) several high profile military exercises have been conducted in recent
> months, involving military deployment and the testing of weapons systems.
> 2) military planning meetings have been held between the various parties
> involved. There has been a shuttle of military and government officials
> between Washington, Tel Aviv and Ankara.
> 3) A significant change in the military command structure in Israel has
> occurred, with the appointment of a new Chief of Staff.
> 4) Intense diplomatic exchanges have been carried out at the
> international level with a view to securing areas of military
> cooperation and/or support for a US-Israeli led military operation
> directed against Iran.
> 5) Ongoing intelligence operations inside Iran have been stepped up.
> 6) Consensus Building: Media propaganda on the need to intervene in Iran
> has been stepped up, with daily reports on how Iran constitutes a threat
> to peace and global security.
>
>
> Timeline of Key Initiatives
> In the last few months, various key initiatives have been taken, which
> are broadly indicative that an aerial bombing of Iran is in the military
> pipeline:
>
> November 2004 in Brussels: NATO-Israel protocol: Israel's IDF delegation
> to the NATO conference to met with military brass of six members of the
> Mediterranean basin nations, including Egypt, Jordan, Algeria, Tunisia,
> Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania. "NATO seeks to revive the framework,
> known as the Mediterranean Dialogue program, which would include Israel.
> The Israeli delegation accepted to participate in military exercises and
> "anti-terror maneuvers" together with several Arab countries.
> January 2005: the US, Israel and Turkey held military exercises in the
> Eastern Mediterranean , off the coast of Syria. These exercises, which
> have been held in previous years were described as routine.
> February 2005. Following the decision reached in Brussels in November
> 2004, Israel was involved for the first time in military exercises with
> NATO, which also included several Arab countries.
> February 2005: Assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik
> Hariri. The assassination, which was blamed on Syria, serves Israeli and
> US interests and was used as a pretext to demand the withdrawal of
> Syrian troops from Lebanon.
> February 2005: Sharon fires his Chief-of-Staff, Moshe Ya'alon and
> appoints Air Force General Dan Halutz. This is the first time in Israeli
> history that an Air Force General is appointed Chief of Staff (See Uri
> Avnery, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/AVN502A.html )
> The appointment of Major General Dan Halutz as IDF Chief of Staff is
> considered in Israeli political circles as "the appointment of the right
> man at the right time." The central issue is that a major aerial
> operation against Iran is in the planning stage, and Maj General Halutz
> is slated to coordinate the aerial bombing raids on Iran. Halutz's
> appointment was specifically linked to Israel's Iran agenda: "As chief
> of staff, he will in the best position to prepare the military for such
> a scenario."
> March 2005: NATO's Secretary General was in Jerusalem for follow-up
> talks with Ariel Sharon and Israel's military brass, following the joint
> NATO-Israel military exercise in February. These military cooperation
> ties are viewed by the Israeli military as a means to "enhance Israel's
> deterrence capability regarding potential enemies threatening it, mainly
> Iran and Syria." The premise underlying NATO-Israel military cooperation
> is that Israel is under attack:
>
> "The more Israel's image is strengthened as a country facing enemies who
> attempt to attack it for no justified reason, the greater will be the
> possibility that aid will be extended to Israel by NATO. Furthermore,
> Iran and Syria will have to take into account the possibility that the
> increasing cooperation between Israel and NATO will strengthen Israel's
> links with Turkey, also a member of NATO. Given Turkey's impressive
> military potential and its geographic proximity to both Iran and Syria,
> Israel's operational options against them, if and when it sees the need,
> could gain considerable strength. " (Jaffa Center for Strategic Studies,
> http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/sa/v7n4p4Shalom.html )
>
>
> The Israel-NATO protocol is all the more important because it obligates
> NATO to align itself with the US-Israeli plan to bomb Iran, as an act of
> self defense on the part of Israel. It also means that NATO is also
> involved in the process of military consultations relating to the
> planned aerial bombing of Iran. It is of course related to the bilateral
> military cooperation agreement between Israel and Turkey and the
> likelihood that part of the military operation will be launched from
> Turkey, which is a member of NATO.
> Late March 2005: News leaks in Israel indicated an "initial
> authorization" by Prime Minster Ariel Sharon of an Israeli attack on
> Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment plant "if diplomacy failed to stop
> Iran's nuclear program". (The Hindu, 28 March 2005)
> March-April 2005: The Holding in Israel of Joint US-Israeli military
> exercises specifically pertaining to the launching of Patriot missiles.
> US Patriot missile crews stationed in Germany were sent to Israel to
> participate in the joint Juniper Cobra exercise with the Israeli
> military. The exercise was described as routine and "unconnected to
> events in the Middle East": "As always, we are interested in
> implementing lessons learned from training exercises." (UPI, 9 March
2005).
> April 2005: Donald Rumsfeld was on an official visits to Iraq,
> Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan and Azerbaijan. His diplomatic
> endeavors were described by the Russian media as "literally circling
> Iran in an attempt to find the best bridgehead for a possible military
> operation against that country."
> In Baku, Azerbaijan Rumsfeld was busy discussing the date for deployment
> of US troops in Azerbaijan on Iran's North-Western border. US military
> bases described as "mobile groups" in Azerbaijan are slated to play a
> role in a military operation directed against Iran.
> Azerbaijan is a member of GUUAM, a military cooperation agreement with
> the US and NATO, which allows for the stationing of US troops in several
> of the member countries, including Georgia, Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan.
> The stated short term objective is to "neutralize Iran". The longer term
> objective under the Pentagon's "Caspian Plan" is to exert military and
> economic control over the entire Caspian sea basin, with a view to
> ensuring US authority over oil reserves and pipeline corridors.
> During his visit in April, Rumsfeld was pushing the US initiative of
> establishing "American special task forces and military bases to secure
> US influence in the Caspian region:
>
> "Called Caspian Watch, the project stipulates a network of special task
> forces and police units in the countries of the regions to be used in
> emergencies including threats to objects of the oil complex and
> pipelines. Project Caspian Watch will be financed by the United States
> ($100 million). It will become an advance guard of the US European
> Command whose zone of responsibility includes the Caspian region.
> Command center of the project with a powerful radar is to be located in
> Baku." ( Defense and Security Russia, April 27, 2005)
>
>
> Rumsfeld's visit followed shortly after that of Iranian President
> Mohammad Khatami's to Baku.
> April 2005: Iran signs a military cooperation with Tajikistan, which
> occupies a strategic position bordering Afghanistan's Northern frontier.
> Tajikistan is a member of "The Shanghai Five" military cooperation
> group, which also includes Kazakhstan, China, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia.
> Iran also has economic cooperation agreements with Turkmenistan.
> Mid April 2005: Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon meets George W Bush
> at his Texas Ranch. Iran is on the agenda of bilateral talks. More
> significantly, the visit of Ariel Sharon was used to carry out high
> level talks between US and Israeli military planners pertaining to Iran.
> Late April 2005. President Vladmir Putin is in Israel on an official
> visit. He announces Russia's decision to sell short-range anti-aircraft
> missiles to Syria and to continue supporting Iran's nuclear industry.
> Beneath the gilded surface of international diplomacy, Putin's timely
> visit to Israel must be interpreted as "a signal to Israel" regarding
> its planned aerial attack on Iran.
> Late April 2005: US pressure in the International Atomic Energy Agency
> (IAEA) has been exerted with a view to blocking the re-appointment of
> Mohammed Al Baradei, who according to US officials "is not being tough
> enough on Iran..." Following US pressures, the vote on the appointment
> of a new IAEA chief was put off until June. These developments suggest
> that Washington wants to put forth their own hand-picked nominee prior
> to launching US-Israeli aerial attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities.
> (See VOA, http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-04-27-voa51.cfm ). ( In
> February 2003, Al Baradei along with UN chief weapons inspector Hans
> Blix challenged the (phony) intelligence on WMD presented by the US to
> the UN Security Council, with a view to justifying the war on Iraq.)
> Late April 2005. Sale of deadly military hardware to Israel. GBU-28
> Buster Bunker Bombs: Coinciding with Putin's visit to Israel, the US
> Defence Security Cooperation Agency (Department of Defense) announced
> the sale of an additional 100 bunker-buster bombs produced by Lockheed
> Martin to Israel. This decision was viewed by the US media as "a warning
> to Iran about its nuclear ambitions."
> The sale pertains to the larger and more sophisticated "Guided Bomb
> Unit-28 (GBU-28) BLU-113 Penetrator" (including the WGU-36A/B guidance
> control unit and support equipment). The GBU-28 is described as "a
> special weapon for penetrating hardened command centers located deep
> underground. The fact of the matter is that the GBU-28 is among the
> World's most deadly "conventional" weapons used in the 2003 invasion of
> Iraq, capable of causing thousands of civilian deaths through massive
> explosions.
> The Israeli Air Force are slated to use the GBU-28s on their F-15
> aircraft. (See text of DSCA news release at
> http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2005/Israel_05-10_corrected.pdf
> Late April 2005- early May: Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
> in Israel for follow-up talks with Ariel Sharon. He was accompanied by
> his Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul, who met with senior Israeli military
> officials. On the official agenda of these talks: joint defense
> projects, including the joint production of Arrow II Theater Missile
> Defense and Popeye II missiles. The latter also known as the Have Lite,
> are advanced small missiles, designed for deployment on fighter planes.
> Tel Aviv and Ankara decide to establish a hotline to share intelligence.
> May 2005: Syrian troops scheduled to withdraw from Lebanon, leading to a
> major shift in the Middle East security situation, in favor of Israel
> and the US.
>
>
> Iran Surrounded
> The US has troops and military bases in Turkey, Pakistan, Azerbaijan,
> Afghanistan, and of course Iraq.
> In other words, Iran is virtually surrounded by US military bases. (see
> Map below). These countries as well as Turkmenistan, are members of
> NATO`s partnership for Peace Program. and have military cooperation
> agreements with NATO.
> Copyright Eric Waddell, Global Research, 2003 (Click Map to enlarge)
> In other words, we are dealing with a potentially explosive scenario in
> which a number of countries, including several former Soviet republics,
> could be brought into a US led war with Iran. IranAtom.ru, a Russian
> based news and military analysis group has suggested, in this regard:
>
> "since Iranian nuclear objects are scattered all over the country,
> Israel will need a mass strike with different fly-in and fly-out
> approaches - Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and other countries...
> Azerbaijan seriously fears Tehran's reaction should Baku issue a permit
> to Israeli aircraft to overfly its territory." (Defense and Security
> Russia, 12 April 2005).
>
>
> Concluding remarks:
> The World is at an important crossroads.
> The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which
> threatens the future of humanity.
> Iran is the next military target. The planned military operation, which
> is by no means limited to punitive strikes against Iran's nuclear
> facilities, is part of a project of World domination, a military
> roadmap, launched at the end of the Cold War.
> Military action against Iran would directly involve Israel's
> participation, which in turn is likely to trigger a broader war
> throughout the Middle East, not to mention an implosion in the
> Palestinian occupied territories. Turkey is closely associated with the
> proposed aerial attacks.
> Israel is a nuclear power with a sophisticated nuclear arsenal. (See
> text box below). The use of nuclear weapons by Israel or the US cannot
> be excluded, particularly in view of the fact that tactical nuclear
> weapons have now been reclassified as a variant of the conventional
> bunker buster bombs and are authorized by the US Senate for use in
> conventional war theaters. ("they are harmless to civilians because the
> explosion is underground")
> In this regard, Israel and the US rather than Iran constitute a nuclear
> threat.
> The planned attack on Iran must be understood in relation to the
> existing active war theaters in the Middle East, namely Afghanistan,
> Iraq and Palestine.
> The conflict could easily spread from the Middle East to the Caspian sea
> basin. It could also involve the participation of Azerbaijan and
> Georgia, where US troops are stationed.
> An attack on Iran would have a direct impact on the resistance movement
> inside Iraq. It would also put pressure on America's overstretched
> military capabilities and resources in both the Iraqi and Afghan war
> theaters. (The 150,000 US troops in Iraq are already fully engaged and
> could not be redeployed in the case of a war with Iran.)
> In other words, the shaky geopolitics of the Central Asia- Middle East
> region, the three existing war theaters in which America is currently,
> involved, the direct participation of Israel and Turkey, the structure
> of US sponsored military alliances, etc. raises the specter of a broader
> conflict.
> Moreover, US military action on Iran not only threatens Russian and
> Chinese interests, which have geopolitical interests in the Caspian sea
> basin and which have bilateral agreements with Iran. It also backlashes
> on European oil interests in Iran and is likely to produce major
> divisions between Western allies, between the US and its European
> partners as well as within the European Union.
> Through its participation in NATO, Europe, despite its reluctance, would
> be brought into the Iran operation. The participation of NATO largely
> hinges on a military cooperation agreement reached between NATO and
> Israel. This agreement would bind NATO to defend Israel against Syria
> and Iran. NATO would therefore support a preemptive attack on Iran's
> nuclear facilities, and could take on a more active role if Iran were to
> retaliate following US-Israeli air strikes.
> Needless to say, the war against Iran is part of a longer term US
> military agenda which seeks to militarize the entire Caspian sea basin,
> eventually leading to the destabilization and conquest of the Russian
> Federation.
> TEXT BOX: Israel's Nuclear Capabilities With between 200 and 500
> thermonuclear weapons and a sophisticated delivery system, Israel has
> quietly supplanted Britain as the World's 5th Largest nuclear power, and
> may currently rival France and China in the size and sophistication of
> its nuclear arsenal. Although dwarfed by the nuclear arsenals of the
> U.S. and Russia, each possessing over 10,000 nuclear weapons, Israel
> nonetheless is a major nuclear power, and should be publicly recognized
> as such.
>
> Today, estimates of the Israeli nuclear arsenal range from a minimum of
> 200 to a maximum of about 500. Whatever the number, there is little
> doubt that Israeli nukes are among the world's most sophisticated,
> largely designed for "war fighting" in the Middle East. A staple of the
> Israeli nuclear arsenal are "neutron bombs," miniaturized thermonuclear
> bombs designed to maximize deadly gamma radiation while minimizing blast
> effects and long term radiation- in essence designed to kill people
> while leaving property intact.(16) Weapons include ballistic missiles
> and bombers capable of reaching Moscow...
>
> The bombs themselves range in size from "city busters" larger than the
> Hiroshima Bomb to tactical mini nukes. The Israeli arsenal of weapons of
> mass destruction clearly dwarfs the actual or potential arsenals of all
> other Middle Eastern states combined, and is vastly greater than any
> conceivable need for "deterrence."
>
> Many Middle East Peace activists have been reluctant to discuss, let
> alone challenge, the Israeli monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region,
> often leading to incomplete and uninformed analyses and flawed action
> strategies. Placing the issue of Israeli weapons of mass destruction
> directly and honestly on the table and action agenda would have several
> salutary effects. First, it would expose a primary destabilizing dynamic
> driving the Middle East arms race and compelling the region's states to
> each seek their own "deterrent."
>
> Second, it would expose the grotesque double standard which sees the
> U.S. and Europe on the one hand condemning Iraq, Iran and Syria for
> developing weapons of mass destruction, while simultaneously protecting
> and enabling the principal culprit. Third, exposing Israel's nuclear
> strategy would focus international public attention, resulting in
> increased pressure to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction and
> negotiate a just peace in good faith. Finally, a nuclear free Israel
> would make a Nuclear Free Middle East and a comprehensive regional peace
> agreement much more likely. Unless and until the world community
> confronts Israel over its covert nuclear program it is unlikely that
> there will be any meaningful resolution of the Israeli/Arab conflict, a
> fact that Israel may be counting on as the Sharon era dawns.
>
> From John Steinbach, Israel's Nuclear Arsenal,
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE203A.html
> ============================================
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
> From:...
> Date: December 5, 2005 6:48:41 PM PST
> To: sarfatti@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Israel Air Force F-16I Soufa
>
> Israel Air Force F-16I Soufa
> Manufacturer: Lockheed Martin
>
>
> The F-16I is based on an advanced F-16 Block 52 aircraft. The Israeli
> version has integrated several new systems, developed and produced in
> Israel, required by the IAF, to maintain and enhance its operational
> capability. Despite the inclusion of many additional systems, the empty
> weight of the aircraft was maintained at the level of current Israeli
> Block 40 (Barak) F-16s. The "diet" included the use of lightweight
> materials, as well as the use of advanced avionics that offer
> considerable saving in weight and space.
>
> The Sufa version of the F-16 Block 52 has a distinctive dorsal avionics
> compartment that accommodates all of the systems of the single-seat
> model as well as some special mission equipment and additional
> chaff/flare dispensers. The Israeli model is powered by the Pratt
> &Whitney F110-PW-229 Increased Performance Engine (IPE) engine develops
> over 29,000 lbs of thrust but weighs only 3,740 lbs. It incorporates
> modern turbine materials, cooling management techniques, compressor
> aerodynamics and electronic controls - many of them derived from F-119
> and F-135 engines used in the new F-22 Raptor and JSF. The Advanced
> Block 52 aircraft use the Normal Shock Inlet (also known as the small
> mouth inlet).
>
>
> Cockpit:
> The Israeli F-16I cockpit features a helmet-mounted cueing system, color
> multifunction displays and recording equipment, cockpit lighting and
> external strip lighting compatible with night vision goggles, and
> large-capacity data transfer sets. Cockpit displays are driven by the
> Integrated color display processor (ICDP) developed by Elbit Systems,
> which drives the six multifunction color liquid crystal displays with
> 484x484 pixel resolution, built by Astronautics CA. HUDs are delivered
> by BAE Systems (initial 18-25) and El-OP (77-84). For the first time,
> the company embedded a digital map system and digital terrain flight
> algorithms into the ICDP computer. Such integration has saved
> considerable weight, wiring and logistical and technical support,
> previously required for separate systems. The Inertial Terrain Aided
> (RITA) system, developed by RAFAEL, uses proprietary algorithms based on
> accurate terrain reference navigation that improve low-level flight
> safety, and enable terrain following flight in all weather conditions,
> day or night and improve flight safety by avoiding ground collision. The
> aircraft is also equipped with a LANTIRN navigation pod, which enables
> automatic terrain following flight, utilizing a combination of forward
> looking imager and TF radar. This system enables the both crew members
> to fly safely at low altitude, as they were flying on "autopilot", and
> concentrate on the employment of mission system and weapons. The fully
> missionized rear cockpit is used for navigation and Weapon Systems
> Operation (WSO).
>
> Each cockpit has three displays and Head Up Display (HUD). Color coding
> is designed to match specific information, in different operational
> modes, to emphasize the information most important at every phase of the
> mission. All cockpit lighting, including the color displays, are
> designed to work with night vision systems. The tandem cockpit utilizes
> two fully functional positions for the pilot and weapon systems operator
> and navigator, both are equipped with the DASH-IV helmet mounted display
> and sight, developed by VCI Inc, a Rockwell-Collins / Elbit Systems
> Joint Venture which is also developing the new JHMCS helmets for the
> USAF and US Navy. The helmet display also provides critical flight and
> target information to the pilot - similar to a head-up display, but in
> any direction the pilot looks. DASH IV is a fourth generation of the
> DASH system, of which 500 are already in service. The new system offers
> several advantages compared to previous models, such the addition of a
> video camera that can record the pilot's view to the mission debriefing
> system, more accurate line-of-sight tracking, etc. The system offers
> improved tracking accuracy and a miniature helmet mounted video camera
> that records the pilot's line of sight view.
>
> Core Avionics Systems
> Another improvement over previous F-16 versions was introduced in the
> core avionics, which utilizes the General Avionics Computer (GAC)
> delivered by EFW, a division of Elbit Systems. This computer benefits
> from technology advances including increased processing speeds and
> memory capacity, by the using off-the-shelf technology, which improves
> supportability. The aircraft is equipped with a high capacity,
> ultra-fast network based on a fiber-channel backbone, which links all
> avionics modules, external stores and sensors into a unified, high
> capacity multi-channel network. Utilizing a high capacity (1 gigabyte)
> switch, the FiberChannel runs data streams over five channels with
> standards based protocols such as 1553 and 1790.
>
> The navigation equipment is based on a 7 channel GPS and ring-laser
> Inertial Navigation System (INS), an integration of systems produced by
> Honeywell, Raytheon and General Dynamics. The TACAN is provided by
> Rockwell, which also provides the ARC-217 HF radio. BAE Systems is
> providing the ILS system and an advanced IFF transponder/interrogator.
> which improves the operation of the aircraft beyond visual range, and
> enable safe employment of long range A/A missiles. The communications
> equipment is based on an integrated voice/data system, that incorporates
> RAFAEL's Green Radio, a localized and improved version of the Rockwell
> Collins ARC-210 VHF/UHF radio, equipped with a data modem, and an
> advanced data-link system, produced by IAI/MLM. These classified systems
> are believed to be more advanced to Link 16, offer integrated, secured
> and jam-resistant communications was designed to provide instantaneous
> high quality, high capacity communication between surface and air
elements.
>
> The aircraft is also equipped with an advanced data recorder, Advanced
> Data Transfer Equipment / Digital Video Recording (ADTE/DVR) developed
> and produced by Smiths Aerospace. The system uses a 15 gigabyte memory
> cartridge to store the entire flight records. The system records and
> time-stamps three video and databus channels, including video (HUD,
> helmet view, sensor view etc), audio (radio, intercom), avionics and
> sensor data (radar, digital map and flight data systems.) 3 digital
> video channels. A special mission debriefing system (SIMNET), designed
> by RADA is used to extract the data and present it for post mission
> debriefing and analysis.
> http://www.defense-update.com/products/f/f-16I-details.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



.