Inside Dimona

Posted on April 23, 2006 by Sappho

dimona

What is Dimona? And how does it look like from inside?

Based on the infor­ma­tion Vanunu revealed.
A 3-D ani­ma­tion of Dimona from inside with descrip­tion of every sin­gle building.

Watch it here:

Inside Dimona

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Inside Dimona

  1. Jon says:
    April 24, 2006 at 06:11

    White House knew there were no WMD: CIA
    April 22, 2006

    The CIA had evi­dence Iraq pos­sessed no weapons of mass destruc­tion six months before the 2003 US-led inva­sion but was ignored by a White House intent on oust­ing Sad­dam Hus­sein, a for­mer senior CIA offi­cial said, accord­ing to CBS.

    Tyler Drumheller, who headed CIA covert oper­a­tions in Europe dur­ing the run-up to the Iraq war, said intel­li­gence oppos­ing admin­is­tra­tion claims of a WMD threat came from a top Iraqi offi­cial who pro­vided the US spy agency with other cred­i­ble information.

    The source “told us that there were no active weapons of mass destruc­tion pro­grams,” Drumheller said in a CBS inter­view to be aired on Sun­day on the US network’s 60 Minutes.

    “The (White House) group that was deal­ing with prepa­ra­tion for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer inter­ested,” he was quoted as say­ing in inter­view excerpts released by CBS on Friday.

    “We said: ‘Well, what about the intel?’ And they said: ‘Well, this isn’t about intel any­more. This is about regime change’,” added Drumheller, whose CIA oper­a­tion was assigned the task of debrief­ing the Iraqi official.

    He was the lat­est for­mer US offi­cial to accuse the White House of set­ting an early course toward war in Iraq and ignor­ing intel­li­gence that con­flicted with its aim.

    CBS said the CIA’s intel­li­gence source was for­mer Iraqi For­eign Min­is­ter Naji Sabri and that for­mer CIA Direc­tor George Tenet deliv­ered the infor­ma­tion per­son­ally to US Pres­i­dent George W Bush, Vice Pres­i­dent Dick Cheney and other top White House offi­cials in Sep­tem­ber 2002. They rebuffed the CIA three days later.

    “The pol­icy was set. The war in Iraq was com­ing and they were look­ing for intel­li­gence to fit into the pol­icy,” the for­mer CIA agent told CBS.

    US alle­ga­tions that Sad­dam had WMD and posed a threat to inter­na­tional secu­rity was a main jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for the March 2003 invasion.

    A 2002 National Intel­li­gence Esti­mate, to which the CIA was a major con­trib­u­tor, con­cluded that pre­war Iraq had an active nuclear pro­gram and a huge stock­pile of uncon­ven­tional weapons.

    No such weapons have been found, how­ever, and US asser­tions that they existed are now regarded as a hugely dam­ag­ing intel­li­gence failure.

    But Drumheller, co-author of a forth­com­ing book enti­tled On the Brink: How the White House Has Com­pro­mised Amer­i­can Intel­li­gence, rejects the notion of an intel­li­gence failure.

  2. Jon says:
    April 24, 2006 at 06:39

    The urgency of stop­ping the next US war in the Mid­dle East is upon us.
    By Dr. Jorge E. Hirsch
    April 23, 2006

    The US has drawn up plans to level a mas­sive aer­ial assault against Iran.

    The physi­cists include five Nobel lau­re­ates, a recip­i­ent of the National Medal of Sci­ence and three past pres­i­dents of the Amer­i­can Phys­i­cal Soci­ety, the nation’s pre­em­i­nent pro­fes­sional soci­ety for physicists.

    The let­ter echoes a peti­tion signed by over 1800 physi­cists and sci­en­tists across the US and the world

    Join Dr. Jorge E. Hirsch, Pro­fes­sor of Physics, UCSD To deliver the let­ter to Pres­i­dent Bush Wednes­day April 26, 5 PM, Lafayette Park, oppo­site the White House, Wash­ing­ton, DC.

    Let­ter to Pres­i­dent Bush:

    The Hon­or­able George W. Bush

    Pres­i­dent of the United States
    1600 Penn­syl­va­nia Avenue
    Wash­ing­ton, DC 20500

    Dear Mr. Pres­i­dent: Recent arti­cles in the New Yorker and Wash­ing­ton Post report that the use of tac­ti­cal nuclear weapons against Iran is being actively con­sid­ered by Pen­ta­gon plan­ners and by the White House. As mem­bers of the pro­fes­sion that brought nuclear weapons into exis­tence, we urge you to refrain from such an action that would have grave con­se­quences for Amer­ica and for the world.

    1800 of our fel­low physi­cists have joined in a peti­tion oppos­ing new US nuclear weapons poli­cies that open the door to the use of nuclear weapons in sit­u­a­tions such as Iran’s. These poli­cies rep­re­sent a “rad­i­cal depar­ture from the past”, in the words of Lin­ton Brooks, National Nuclear Secu­rity Admin­is­tra­tion direc­tor. Indeed, since the end of World War II, US pol­icy has con­sid­ered nuclear weapons “weapons of last resort”, to be used only when the very sur­vival of the nation or of an allied nation was at stake, or at most in cases of extreme mil­i­tary neces­sity. Instead, the new US nuclear weapons poli­cies have sig­nif­i­cantly low­ered the thresh­old for the poten­tial use of nuclear weapons, as clearly evi­denced by the fact that they are being con­sid­ered as another tool in the tool­box to destroy under­ground instal­la­tions that are “too deep” to be destroyed by con­ven­tional weapons. This is a major and dan­ger­ous shift in the ratio­nale for nuclear weapons. In the words of the late Joseph Rot­blat, Nobel Peace Prize recip­i­ent for his efforts to pre­vent nuclear war, “the dan­ger of this pol­icy can hardly be over-emphasized”. Nuclear weapons are unique among weapons of mass destruc­tion: they unleash the enor­mous energy stored in the tiny nucleus of an atom, an energy that is a mil­lion times larger than that stored in the rest of the atom. The nuclear explo­sion releases an immense amount of blast energy and ther­mal and nuclear radi­a­tion, with deadly imme­di­ate and delayed effects on the human body. Over 100,000 human beings died in the Hiroshima blast, and nuclear weapons in today’s arse­nals have a total yield of over 200,000 Hiroshima bombs.

    Using or even merely threat­en­ing to use a nuclear weapon pre­emp­tively against a non­nu­clear adver­sary tells the 182 non-nuclear-weapon coun­tries sig­na­to­ries of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that their adher­ence to the treaty offers them no pro­tec­tion against a nuclear attack by a nuclear nation. Many are thus likely to aban­don the treaty, and the nuclear non-proliferation frame­work will be dam­aged even fur­ther than it already has, with dis­as­trous con­se­quences for the secu­rity of the United States and the world.

    There are no sharp lines between small “tac­ti­cal” nuclear weapons and large ones, nor between nuclear weapons tar­get­ing facil­i­ties and those tar­get­ing armies or cities. Nuclear weapons have not been used for 60 years. Once the US uses a nuclear weapon again, it will heighten the prob­a­bil­ity that oth­ers will too. In a world with many more nuclear nations and no longer a “taboo” against the use of nuclear weapons, there will be a greatly enhanced risk that regional con­flicts could expand into global nuclear war, with the poten­tial to destroy our civilization.

    It is gravely irre­spon­si­ble for the U.S. as the great­est super­power to con­sider courses of action that could even­tu­ally lead to the wide­spread destruc­tion of life on the planet. We urge you to announce pub­licly that the U.S. is tak­ing the nuclear option off the table in the case of all non­nu­clear adver­saries, present or future, and we urge the Amer­i­can peo­ple to make their voices heard on this matter.

    Sin­cerely,

    Philip Ander­son, Michael Fisher, David Gross, Jorge Hirsch, Leo Kadanoff, Joel Lebowitz, Anthony Leggett, Eugen Merzbacher, Dou­glas Osheroff, Andrew Sessler George Trilling, Frank Wilczek, Edward Witten