IMF Plots Role as World's Central Bank?

From The Daily Bell. Monday, April 11, 2011 – by  Staff Report

IMF says worth exploring borrowing from markets ... The International Monetary Fund said it was worth exploring ways that the global institution could borrow from financial markets at short notice to raise additional funding for its lending programs. In a paper that looks at progress by the Group of 20 major economies in reforming the global monetary system, the Fund said building confidence in the IMF's ability to respond to crises may warrant looking at alternative ways of fund-raising, including turning to markets. – Reuters

Dominant Social Theme: The world's economy is a disaster. The IMF is the logical choice to lead the way to a brighter banking future in a consolidated, centralized, world economy. It says so itself.

Free-Market Analysis: Can you hear the whispers coming out of the shadows? Over the past months, we have covered the IMF's increasing efforts to position itself as the world's future central bank and one-world currency issuer. We can see from the above article in Reuters – a chief mouthpiece of the power elite along with the Economist magazine – that the campaign is in no sense winding down. Now the IMF casually, oh-so-casually, floats the idea that it might tap global markets for funding.

Various speculations immediately come to mind. The first is that IMF executives are expecting something big, probably the default of Spain. The idea would be that the EU, which has been struggling with gnats such as Portugal, Greece and Ireland, simply could not handle a default the size of Spain. The IMF has been faithfully at the side of the EU, madly indemnifying Southern PIGS as they fall; but even the IMF could not handle such a bankruptcy, or so we speculate.

Of course, Spanish officials have recently issued a series of statements indicating that Spain is solvent and will remain so, which in our view means a default is almost certainly on the way. Over the weekend, EU officials claimed, as well, that the EU had turned the proverbial corner and that recessionary trends were giving away to recovery. Again, from our point of view, this almost certainly means that the EU is slumping into dire straits, maybe a depression.

Yes, the IMF may be looking ahead. It receives funds via its 150-plus member countries, but these funds will not be enough if Spain collapses, especially given the other demands the IMF is facing. A special levy could be undertaken, but a more innovative approach would be to tap the larger financial markets.

This would have several pleasant side effects. (Never let a crisis go to waste.) First it would further establish the IMF as an independent body rather than a lending facility. The IMF is actually subsumed under the UN, and subsidiary bodies such as the IMF and the WHO do not traditionally offer independent securities. To do so places the subsidiary in a new light; suddenly it is seen as an independent actor on the world stage, an entity that can raise its own funds and therefore determine its own course of action.

That's one benefit. The other of course is that such independence generally puts the IMF on the road to further independent courses of action; if the IMF has ambitions of becoming the world's central bank (and it has bluntly affirmed it) then intermediate steps are a necessity. Issuing its own securities is a good way to acclimate the larger populace to the idea that someday the IMF can issue its own currency. (In fact, in a sense it already does via its SDRs.)

Important stuff in our view. But like so many things, the IMF's musings received a lot less play than, say, who has been excommunicated from The American Idol TV program (a story much in the news). This is unfortunate. The IMF matters. (We wish it didn't.) The IMF in fact is continually involved these days in a concerted and deadly serious campaign to refashion itself. One may find American Idol a most important TV event, but surely the creation of a new monetary system is worth paying attention to as well?

It began with a series of leaks in 2010 picked up by the media about how SDRs could become the world's new currency. Brazil and Chinese central bankers even went on the record as saying SDRs could furnish a global currency, among alternatives. Then came the jaw-dropping statement by American Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner (pictured above with Dominique Strauss-Kahn) that the US too would be in favor of a "basket of currencies" that could constitute a new world money. Free-market thinkers were flabbergasted of course. Why would the US trade in its reserve dollar currency – a currency so strong that the US can print virtually all it wants without creating price inflation – for a basket of currencies it didn't control?

As always when such cognitive dissonance arises, the mainstream media eventually shuts up. There are no answers after all. It makes no sense, unless one grants that there are larger forces at play here; if one does that, then one is a "conspiracy theorist" and therefore the mainstream media will do almost ANYTHING to avoid connecting the dots.

But here at the DB we are not so reticent. We will state boldly that that the current aim of the Anglosphere elites (that control the IMF, World Bank, etc.) is to create one-world government with all its appropriate paraphernalia including a Parliament (UN) military (NATO) police force (Interpol) court-system (ICC in the Hague) and of course the necessary economic instruments including a single currency. Within this context, Geithner's advocacy of a global currency is not at all startling. He serves at the pleasure of the elites; he supports their platforms. In fact, the American government for decades has supported elite agendas and surely cannot be said to speak for the "people" anymore.

Yet all of these conversations are sotto voce. In fact, they might not be audible at all were it not for the alternative media and the Internet. The Internet provides us amplitude that the elites find unnecessary. In fact, in the 20th century elite procedures worked very well. Delicately-made statements were offered up by the appropriate individuals, a paper trail was established; a series of meetings took place; decisions were made by "wise ones" and eventually the New York Times published the foregone conclusion in a two or three part series. On Sunday there might even be a crossword puzzle dedicated to reinforcing the meme. What fun! Who could object?

But the ‘Net, with its compulsive repurposing, has changed the context and the elite's formula of sociopolitical manipulation. What was once unseen is now clarified. What was previously all-but-inaudible now shouts from the ‘Net's electronic newsprint. The elite stubbornly refuses to change though. No, the same procedures used in the 20th century are still in play in the 21st. The same false-flags are trotted out; the same absurdities are made manifest by pliable governments. The trouble is that the Internet, in putting such manipulations in context, inevitably reveals their ridiculousness. The charade is tissue thin and ripped asunder by anyone who studies it for an hour or two.

Sometimes it takes not a bit of study. Reuters in the article excerpted above virtually lays it out for us. The G20 meets in Washington [this] week before semi-annual meetings of the IMF and World Bank where "changes to the global monetary system will be discussed by finance ministers." How much clearer can it be? Here's some more from Reuters on the just-issued IMF report and upcoming economic meetings:

Among issues being explored to update the global monetary system is whether or not to include the Chinese renminbi in a basket of currencies that make up the IMF's special drawing rights – an international reserve asset of the IMF. The basket is currently made up of the dollar, euro, pound sterling and the yen. Created in 1969, it does not reflect the rising importance of China.

One of the biggest obstacles to the SDR playing a bigger role in the global financial system was technical challenges and a "great deal of consensus-building and policy coordination," the IMF report said. The report said most of the ideas being considered to remake the global monetary system would require more collaboration among countries. In addition, some proposals would take time to implement, the report said, suggesting it could be a while before a new monetary system is rolled out.

Did you catch that last sentence, dear reader? They're not even trying to hide it. "It could be a while before a new monetary system is rolled out." Who, we wonder, is doing the rolling and why? Has there been a global upswell for a new monetary system? Are people protesting on the streets for a worldwide currency. Are the color revolutions taking place around the world because "the youth" wants the IMF to take over management of a new global money.

There is a dominant social theme at work here – a fear-based promotion presented by the power elite. The meme is that the old money system doesn't work and is driving the world to ruin; thus a new, more consolidated system is necessary. The trouble is twofold, however. First, the old system was virtually created to produce the results the world is now grappling with. Second, the same people who brought you the current ruin are now suggesting the replacement system.

A final thought occurs to us. The IMF recently came out with a report (it is hard to keep track of them) explaining how SDRs could become a world currency. One of the main stumbling blocks apparently was the lack of an SDR Treasury where SDRs – bancors, ultimately – could be stored at a rate of interest by those who held them.

At the time, several months ago (as the report was issued at Davos) the IMF claimed that such a system could only evolve over time. Yet now we see that the IMF is suddenly in crisis mode and its brain trust is suggesting for various reasons that what might have been considered as a decade-long evolution be speeded up. Perhaps by tomorrow the IMF will announce that it suddenly created an SDR-fixed income product. And later this week, they suddenly hold their first auction. Goldman Sachs shall purchase a good deal of it; European banks will buy the rest.

Conclusion: One is struck by how fast events are moving. The power elite is hardly bothering to pretend anymore. One paper suggests decades; another paper indicates that instruments might have to be collated tomorrow. Yesterdays' blueprint is applied today; but we can see the articulation beneath the surface and the connections to the Man Behind the Curtain. The great and invisible Oz is neither of these things anymore, but merely visible and obvious. What we tend to see is desperate men running as fast as they can before time runs out.

__________-

Related:

Is a New Reserve Currency Really Necessary?

China Trade-Deficit = Zero Treasuries-Buyers

From BullionBullsCanada, Sunday, 10 April 2011

by Jeff Nielson 

It really is time for Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve to abandon the absurd myth that someone other than Ben Bernanke is still buying U.S. Treasuries.

In a recent commentary, I pointed out the obvious implications to the U.S. Treasuries market (as well as for the other sovereign deadbeat-debtors) of the catastrophe in Japan, and the enormous amount of domestic wealth which would need to be repatriated to fund reconstruction. Not only does this take Japan completely out of the market as a buyer of U.S. Treasuries, but they will undoubtedly be forced to liquidate much of their holdings in U.S. debt (assuming they can find anyone foolish enough to buy it).

Now we have China disappearing from the list of “potential buyers” of those bonds as well. Despite the fact that China’s economy had ceased to be export-dependent at least as far back as 2008, we continued to see media talking-heads parroting the myth that not only was China’s economy “dependent” on U.S. consumption, but that China was “forced” to plow most of its “vast trade surpluses” into Treasuries – as the only means of preventing the appreciation of the renminbi.

Over the weekend, China’s government announced its first quarterly trade deficit in seven years. With that single announcement, both of those preceding myths have now been permanently dispelled. Despite its trade-deficit, China’s economic growth leaves all other nations in its dust. So much for being “export-dependent”.

Similarly, how many Treasuries is China “forced” to buy with a zero trade-surplus? Obviously zero. Thanks to the runaway-inflation caused by the reckless money-printing of Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve, there are no longer any nations in the world with both large trade- and budget-surpluses, meaning there are no more potential “big buyers” for U.S. Treasuries.Thus while the supply of U.S. Treasuries continues to be ramped-up to new records on a quarterly basis, there is no demand. Period.

This makes the Federal Reserve’s 2011 “April Fool’s” joke that it was about to stop buying Treasuries even less-funny than its 2010 “April Fool’s” joke that it had stopped buying Treasuries. Try to be original at least!

All that happened in 2010 after the Federal Reserve pretended to stop buying Treasuries in 2010 is that it had to illegally counterfeit the money to continue monetizing U.S. debt (which explains why it is fighting with all its might to avoid any meaningful “audit”). Thus, if we get a similar announcement in the weeks ahead, all that it will signify is that the Federal Reserve has again gone from its legal-counterfeiting operations back to its illegitimate money-printing.

It was one thing for the Treasury Department to radically revise its procedures for conducting Treasuries auctions back in 2009 – so that no one knew any longer who was buying U.S. Treasuries. Back then, at least there were some plausible buyers whom could be pointed to by Fed officials, so that their denials of illegally counterfeiting money to buy U.S. Treasuries would at least be possible.

Now, with no potential buyers, more new Treasuries supply coming onto the market than at any time in U.S. history, and with much more short-term debt to roll-over than at any time in U.S. history, there is absolutely no one in sight whom the Fed-liars can nominate as “mystery buyers” of U.S. Treasuries.

Thanks to the “economic terrorism” which Wall Street bankers have inflicted upon European debt-markets, between fiscal “austerity” and “bond-bailouts” for Wall Street’s victims, there arezero European  dollars available with which to buy Treasuries either.

This means that if the Federal Reserve proclaims “an end to QE II”, this will amount to a formal declaration that the Federal Reserve is illegally counterfeiting money, to use to prop-up U.S. debt-markets – in order to avoid the complete collapse of the U.S. Treasuries market. Since this would immediately be followed by the complete collapse of the U.S. dollar, and then the U.S. economy as well, I very much doubt that we will see such a declaration.

Instead, just as they did when they abandoned their farcical “exit strategy” in 2010, Fed-liars will again invent some pretext to explain why they had to do (another) 180-degree turn – and try to make it sound plausible enough so that even the sheep won’t figure out that this has all been another, big, Federal Reserve farce.

The phrase “cornered rats” comes to mind when contemplating the collection of Fed-heads, hunkered-down inside their propaganda “bunker”. They have used-up each and every “tool” in their monetary tool-box. They have used-up every myth and lie which their devious minds could conjure, to try to make it sound like the U.S. still had a functional market for its sovereign debt.

Now, just as the U.S. municipal bond market teeters on the brink of an horrific collapse, we also have the debt market for the U.S.’s sovereign debt suddenly appearing every bit as fragile (i.e. ready to implode).

The debt Ponzi-schemes which have allowed the U.S. government to avoid assuming any fiscal responsibility for its incompetent management of the economy are about to collapse, and nothing can change that reality. This makes the warning of “imminent hyperinflation” for the U.S. economy more pertinent than at any time since Shadowstat’s John Williams started sounding the alarm nearly a decade earlier.

This also means the window of opportunity for U.S. dollar-holders to convert that worthless paper to gold and/or silver, on any kind of favorable terms, is about to permanently close. While most if not all of this banker-confetti is headed to zero, it is obvious that the U.S. dollar will be the first major currency to collapse.

A “trade deficit” for China equals the end of the line for the Federal Reserve’s bond Ponzi-scheme.

Silver: 'Toppy' or Just Warming Up?

From SeekingAlpha,  April 11, 2011  
By Mike Scully

“Silver feels a little toppy to me at these levels.” That seems to be the refrain of technical analysts and stock traders who are bearish on silver. Or some might say, “silver has had a huge run up and now it looks like it’s ready for a pullback.” Or, “I liked silver at $15 or $24 (sure they did), but now it’s expensive.”

Some silver bears point to the fact that silver is at a 31 year high as “evidence” that it’s getting pricey. Are we overbought at these levels? Could be. Are we in for a repeat of the boom and bust of 1980? The chart from back then looks awfully scary. Let’s take a look at a few stats from then and now to see if that’s a fair comparison.

Money Supply: In 1980 the monetary base was $200 billion. Today, it’s around $2400 billion, or twelve times the amount of high powered money in the system. If you prefer, the M2 money supply is roughly six times higher than in 1980.

CPI: The official CPI is 2.8 times higher than in 1980. If you calculate the CPI like they did back in 1980 and John Williams at Shadowstats.comdoes today (before hedonic adjustments and substitution began skewing the numbers) the CPI is about 9.5 times higher today than in 1980. That is, on average, things cost 9.5 times more than they did back then. That means $40 silver in 1980 would equate to $380 if you’re into real inflation numbers or $112 if you trust the government numbers.

Silver Stockpiles: In 1980, worldwide government inventories were around 1.4 billion ounces. Beginning in the late eighties, central banks and governments began selling their silver stockpiles into the market to make up for mine supply not meeting demand. This had two effects - it kept silver prices low and depleted government stockpiles. Today, the government coffers are basically empty and central banks are net buyers of silver.

Silver Investors: In 1980, the only buyers of investment silver were Americans and Europeans. Two rich brothers from Texas, backed by some wealthy Arabs, were able to send the price of silver up 800% in a year. Today, investment demand is worldwide with Chinese and Indian demand skyrocketing.

Inflation: Inflation was in high gear in 1980 with rates as high as 15%, and investors were pouring into precious metals to protect their wealth. Today, reported inflation is around 2% and price inflation from QE1 and QE2 is just beginning to show up in the CPI numbers. However, if you use the Shadowstats numbers, we’re actually closer to 9% and rising fast, but most American investors still rely on the government’s 2% number. Inflation is a worldwide phenomenon and 7 billion people will be looking for ways to protect their wealth.

So basically, in 2011, there is a lot more money and a bunch of new buyers chasing a lot less silver. According to the GFMS World Silver Survey, total silver investment in 2010 including coins and “implied net investment” jumped 40% to 279 million ounces, an estimated $5.6 billion inflow. That equals one coin for each adult in America with nothing left for the Chinese, Indians, Europeans, or anyone else. $5.6 billion is miniscule. It’s 1/75th of the market cap of Exxon Mobil (XOM). China could buy an entire year’s supply without batting an eyelash.

But it’s not today’s market conditions that excite silver investors as much as what’s in store for the future. Despite what Ben Bernanke is telling us, price inflation from QE1 & 2 is baked in the cake, and will continue to rise as higher producer costs show up in consumer prices. In 1980, Fed chairman Paul Volcker had to raise the fed funds rate to 19% to fight 15% inflation. With real inflation nearing 9% and rising fast, does Bernanke have that option? Raising rates even a few percentage points would crush the delicate housing market, bankrupt banks, collapse the stock market, and jack up the interest payments on our $14 trillion national debt.

When QE2 runs out in June, who will buy our bonds? Bill Gross won’t be buying any time soon. Japan will likely need to sell U.S. Treasuries to pay for the $300 billion reconstruction costs from the earthquake. China is getting fed up (pun intended) with our reckless money printing and is quietly shifting into hard assets. So, either interest rates will need to rise dramatically to attract buyers or the Fed begins QE3. I’ll put my money on Helicopter Ben to save the day. (And by “save the day” I mean destroy the dollar and wipe out the life savings of millions of Americans while sending silver prices through the roof.)

For those who want to trade silver or sell at these record levels because it “looks toppy”, go ahead. It may pull back off its highs. It may drop substantially (along with everything else) if the Fed actually has the stones to stop printing when QE2 ends. You may make some money if you time things right. But if silver does drop, those of us who are silver investors will not only ride out the storm, but we will be scooping up physical ounces hand over fist for when QE to infinity resumes.

Disclosure: I am long PSLV.

Additional disclosure: I am long physical silver bullion.

Dangerous Crossroads: Is America Considering the Use of Nuclear Weapons against Libya? PART II

By Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, April 7, 2011

Image: Simulated Drop of B61-11 nuclear bomb from a B-2 Spirit Stealth bomber Shortly after the commencement of the Libya bombing campaign on March 19, the Pentagon ordered the testing of the B61-11 nuclear bomb. These tests announced in an April 4 press release, pertained to the installed equipment and weapon's components. The objective was to verify the functionality of  the nuclear bomb.....  The B-2 Spirit Stealth bomber is the "chosen carrier" of the B61 -11 nuclear bombs. The B-2 Spirit Stealth bomber out of Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri was not only sent on a mission to bomb Libya at the very outset of the air campaign, it was subsequently used in the testing of the B61 Mod 11 nuclear bomb. The B61-11 has a yield of two thirds of a Hiroshima bomb. Why were these tests of the equipment and functionality of a tactical nuclear weapon scheduled shortly after the onset of the Libya bombing campaign? Why now? Is the timing of these tests coincidental or are they in any way related to the chronology of the Libya bombing campaign? U.S. Air Force Global Strike Command, which is responsible for the coordination of US bombing operations directed against Libya was also involved in the testing of the B61-11 nuclear bombs.   Both the bombing of Libya by the B-2 Spirit Stealth bomber (see image above) on March 19-20, as well as the testing of the functionality of the B61-11 nuclar bomb (announced April 4) were implemented out of the same US Air Force base in Missouri. An earlier article entitled America's Planed Nuclear Attack on Libya,  (PART I)  provided details of the Pentagon's plan under the Clinton administration to wage a nuclear attack on Libya. America's Planned Nuclear Attack on Libya PART I - by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky - 2011-03-30 Thinking the Unthinkable. The Pentagon's Plan to Nuke Libya The Pentagon had envisaged  the use of the B61 Mod 11 nuclear bomb against Libya. Categorized as a mini-nuke, the B61-11 is a 10 kiloton bomb with a yield equivalent to two thirds of a Hiroshima bomb. (See Michel Chossudovsky, America's Planed Nuclear Attack on Libya, Global Research, March 25, 2011) The Pentagon's 1996 plan to nuke Libya had been announced in no uncertain terms at a press briefing by Assistant Secretary of Defense Harold P. Smith:   "[The] Air Force would use the B61-11 [nuclear weapon] against Libya's alleged underground chemical weapons plant at Tarhunah if the President decided that the plant had to be destroyed. 'We could not take [Tarhunah] out of commission using strictly conventional weapons,' Smith told the Associated Press. The B61-11 'would be the nuclear weapon of choice,' he told Jane Defence Weekly. (The Nuclear Information Project: the B61-11) Clinton's Defense Secretary William Perry --who was present at the press briefing-- had earlier told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee that "the U.S. retained the option of using nuclear weapons against countries [e.g. Libya] armed with chemical and biological weapons."(Ibid, See also Greg Mello, The Birth Of a New Bomb; Shades of Dr. Strangelove! Will We Learn to Love the B61-11? The Washington Post, June 01, 1997) The Department of Defense's objective was to fast track the "testing" of the B61-11 nuclear bomb on an actual country and that country was Libya: "Even before the B61 came on line, Libya was identified as a potential target". (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - September/ October 1997, p. 27). (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky,America's Planned Nuclear Attack on Libya, March 2011)  While the 1996 plan to bomb Libya using tactical nuclear weapons was subsequently shelved, Libya was not removed from the "black list": "The Qadhafi regime" remains to this date a target country for a pre-emptive ("defensive") nuclear attack. As revealed by William Arkin in early 2002, "The Bush administration, in a secret policy review... [had] ordered the Pentagon to draft contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against at least seven countries, naming not only Russia and the "axis of evil" Iraq, Iran, and North Korea but also China, Libya and Syria. (See William Arkin, "Thinking the Unthinkable", Los Angeles Times, 9 March 2002). According to the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review, adopted by the Senate in 2002, Libya is on the "Pentagon's list". Moreover, it is also important to emphasize that Libya was the first country to be tagged and formally identified (at a Department of Defense press briefing) as a possible target for a US sponsored nuclear attack using the B61 Mod 11 nuclear bomb. This announcement was made in 1996, five years prior to the formulation of  the pre-emptive nuclear war doctrine under the Bush administration (i.e the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review). The Testing of the B61-11 Nuclear Bomb (Announced on April 4, 2011) What is the relevance of the history of the B61-11 nuclear bomb and earlier threats directed by the Clinton administration against Libya? Has the project to nuke Libya been shelved or is Libya still being contemplated as a potential target for a nuclear attack? Shortly after the commencement of the Libya bombing campaign on March 19, the US Department of Defense ordered the testing of the B61-11 nuclear bomb. These tests pertained to the installed equipment and weapon 's components of the nuclear bomb. The announcement of these tests was made public on April 4; the precise date of  the test was not revealed, but one can reasonably assume that it was in the days prior to the April 4 press release by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA. Press Release, NNSA Conducts Successful B61-11 JTA Flight Test, Apr 4, 2011,) The B-2 Spirit Stealth bomber is the US Air Force's chosen "carrier" for the delivery of the B61 Mod 11 nuclear bomb. In late March or early April  (prior to April 4), the B-2 Spirit Stealth bomber from the 509th Bomber Wing operating out of Whiteman Air Force Base, was used in the so-called "Joint Test Assembly" (JTA) of the B61 Mod 11 nuclear bomb. In other words, the B61-11 was tested using the same B-2 Spirit Stealth bombers out of Whiteman Air Force Base, which were used to bomb Libya at the very outset of the air campaign. B61-11 Simulation The Joint Test Assembly (JTA) of the B61-11 This JTA testing was undertaken by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) together with the U.S. Air Force Global Strike Command, which coincidentally is responsible for the coordination of US bombing operations directed against Libya as well as ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. "The JTA was produced by the NNSA in support of the Joint Surveillance Flight Test Program between the Department of Defense and the NNSA" (Press release, op cit) The Joint Test Assembly (JTA) in the case of  the B61 Mod 11 nuclear bomb, requires testing the equipment of the B61-11 using a proxy conventional non-nuclear warhead. Essentially what is involved is to test all the installed equipment on the nuclear bomb and ensure its functionality without actually having a nuclear explosion. The JTA test "was built to simulate the actual B61-11 weapon configuration utilizing as much war reserve hardware as feasible.  It was assembled at the Pantex plant in Amarillo, Texas and was not capable of nuclear yield, as it contained no special nuclear materials."  (Press Release, NNSA Conducts Successful B61-11 JTA Flight Test, Apr 4, 2011) “JTA tests [are to ensure] that all weapon systems [e.g. B61-11 nuclear bomb] perform as planned and that systems are designed to be safe, secure and effective,”.... A JTA contains instrumentation and sensors that monitor the performance of numerous weapon components [e.g of the B61-11] during the flight test to determine if the weapon functions as designed. This JTA also included a flight recorder that stored the bomb performance data for the entire test. The data is used in a reliability model, developed by Sandia National Laboratories, to evaluate the reliability of the bomb. (Ibid)  B61 Model 11 nuclear bomb at Whiteman Air force base The B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber operating out of the Whiteman Air Force Base was reported to have "delivered and released" the B61-11 JTA at the Tonopah Test Range in Nevada, which is routinely used to test nuclear ordnance. (See Press Release, op cit.). The Tonopah Test Range while owned by the US Department of Energy, is managed and operated by Sandia National Laboratories, a division of America's largest weapons producer Lockheed-Martin (under permit with the NNSA). (See http://prod.sandia.gov/techlib/access-control.cgi/2004/042812.pdf)       Aerial View of Tonopah Test Range where the B61 11 JTA was tested using a B-2 Spirit Stealth bomber. Source NASA.  The Deployment of B 2 Stealth bombers to Libya Why were these JTA tests of the equipment and functionality of a tactical nuclear weapon scheduled shortly after the onset of the Libya bombing campaign? Why now? Is the timing of these tests coincidental or are they in any way related to the chronology of the Libya bombing campaign? It is worth noting that the U.S. Air Force Global Strike Command was in charge of both the JTA tests of the B61-11 as well as the deployment of three B-2 Spirit Stealth bombers to Libya on March 19.   "Three B-2 Spirit bombers, piloted by two men each, made it back after the 11,418-mile round trip from the Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri - where they are kept in special hangars - to Libya, where they hit targets on forces loyal to Colonel Gaddafi and back again."(Libya-crisis-B2-stealth-bombers-25-hour-flight-Missouri-Tripoli, Daily Mail, March 21, 2011)  In other words, both the deployment of the B-2s to the Libya war theater as well as the JTA  test (using the B-2 bomber for delivery) were coordinated out of Whiteman Air Force base. "Humanitarian war" is carried out through a "Shock and Awe" Blitzkrieg. Three B-2 Spirit Stealth bombers were sent on a bombing mission at the very outset of the Libya bombing campaign. According to the reports, they returned to Whiteman Air Force base on March 21st. The reports suggest that the three B-2s were carrying bunker buster bombs with conventional warheads. The report suggests that the B-2 Stealth bombers dropped 45 one ton satellite guided missiles on Libya, which represents an enormous amount of ordnance: "At $2.1bn, they are the most expensive warplanes in the world and rarely leave their climate-controlled hangars. But when it does, the B-2 bomber makes a spectacularly effective start to a war - including during this weekend's aerial attack on Libya's air defences. (Daily Mail, March 21, 2011, op cit)  While we are not in a position to verify the accuracy of these reports, the 45 one-ton bombs correspond roughly to the B-2 specifications, namely each of these planes can carry sixteen 2,000 pound (900 kg) bombs. VIDEO: Returning to Whiteman Air force base on March 21.  Whiteman Air Force Base Concluding Remarks: The Decision to Use Nuclear Weapons Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support of "authoritative" nuclear scientists, the B61-11 "mini-nuke" is presented as an instrument of peace rather than war. In an utterly twisted logic, low yield tactical nuclear weapons are presented as a means to building peace and preventing "collateral damage".  In this regard, US nuclear doctrine ties in with the notion that the US-NATO war under Operation Odyssey Dawn is a humanitarian undertaking.   The important question addressed in this article is whether the recent test of a B61-11 is "routine" or was it envisaged by the DoD directly or indirectly in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn, implying the possible deployment of mini nukes at some future stage of the Libya bombing campaign. There is no clear-cut answer to this question. It should be emphasized, however, that under the doctrine of "pre-emptive nuclear war" mini nukes are always deployed and  in "a state of readiness" (even in times of peace). Libya was the first "rogue state" to be tagged for a nuclear attack in 1997 prior to the approval of the mini nukes for battlefield use by the US Congress. The Pentagon claims that "mini-nukes" are harmless to civilians because  "the explosions takes place under ground".  Not only is the claim of an underground explosion erroneous, each of these ‘mini-nukes’,  constitutes – in terms of explosion and potential radioactive fallout – a significant fraction of the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945....  We are at a dangerous crossroads: The rules and guidelines governing the use nuclear weapons have been "liberalized" (i.e. "deregulated" in relation to those prevailing during the Cold War era). The decision to use low yield nuclear nuclear weapons (e.g. against Libya) no longer depends on the Commander in Chief, namely president Barack Obama. It is strictly a military decision. The new doctrine states that Command, Control, and Coordination (CCC) regarding the use of nuclear weapons should be "flexible", allowing geographic combat commanders to decide if and when to use of nuclear weapons:  Known in official Washington, as "Joint Publication 3-12", the new nuclear doctrine (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations , (DJNO) (March 2005)) calls for "integrating conventional and nuclear attacks" under a unified and "integrated" Command and Control (C2). It largely describes war planning as a management decision-making process, where military and strategic objectives are to be achieved, through a mix of instruments, with little concern for the resulting loss of human life. Military planning focuses on "the most efficient use of force" , i.e. an optimal arrangement of different weapons systems to achieve stated military goals. In this context, nuclear and conventional weapons are considered to be "part of the tool box", from which military commanders can pick and choose the instruments that they require in accordance with "evolving circumstances" in the "war theatre". (None of these weapons in the Pentagon's "tool box", including conventional bunker buster bombs, cluster bombs, mini-nukes, chemical and biological weapons are described as "weapons of mass destruction" when used by the United States of America and its "coalition" partners). Michel Chossudovsky, Is the Bush Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust? Global Research, February 22, 2006   Related Articles America's Planned Nuclear Attack on Libya - by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky - 2011-03-30 Thinking the Unthinkable. The Pentagon's Plan to Nuke Libya All Out War on Libya, Surge in the Price of Crude Oil... "Humanitarian Wars are Good for Business".... Speculators Applaud.... - by Michel Chossudovsky - 2011-03-18 . Insurrection and Military Intervention: The US-NATO Attempted Coup d'Etat in Libya? - by Prof Michel Chossudovsky - 2011-03-07 US and NATO military advisers and special forces are already on the ground. "Operation Libya" and the Battle for Oil: Redrawing the Map of Africa - by Prof Michel Chossudovsky - 2011-03-09 ANNEX  The B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber The B-2 Spirit aircraft is described as "deadly and effective' yet at the same time it is upheld as an instrument  of "humanitarian warfare". Used at the outset of Operation Odyssey Dawn, this aircraft has the mandate under UN Security Councill resolution 1973 to   "protect the lives of civilians". "An assessment published by the USAF showed that two B-2s armed with precision weaponry can do the job of 75 conventional aircraft. That makes it a powerful weapon to strike targets including bunkers, command centres, radars, airfields, air defences." (Ibid) The mission is said to have have dropped  a total of 45 one ton satellite guided missiles, which broadly corresponds to the 15 out of the 16 2000 pound bombs mentioned above.(Ibid)  The B-2 Spirit as carrier of the B61 mod 11 bunker buster bomb, is equipped to accommodate 16 B61-11 mini-nukes of about 1,200 lb (540 kg). See the following videos:  Northrop Grunman Video Clip on the B-2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcX9LbR4pqc Military PR videoclip on the B-2 The B-2 was brought down by the Yugoslav air defense system in 1999, which the video does not mention http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-yYHdlkn2o&NR=1 Returning to Whiteman Air force base on March 21 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lhw2yoFb7fs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVpzHAWR85g

Please support Global Research Global Research relies on the financial support of its readers. Your endorsement is greatly appreciated

Subscribe to the Global Research e-newsletter