VT Investigations: VT has traced the ICBM technology used by North Korea, and these are not just advanced missiles but “top of the line” Soviet technology, using engines well beyond American capabilities. North Korean nuclear armed missiles are not just capable of hitting the United States, they are capable of getting through American missile defenses as well…with a high chance of success.

They are so good because they come from Ukraine, from the missile factory above, according to the New York Times in an article we quote below.

But what we also know is that North Korea’s nuclear arsenal largely comes from Ukraine as well, from Soviet missiles abandoned there that were later supposedly transferred to the US for dismantling but never made it.  All records were destroyed, according to IAEA investigator and VT editor Jeff Smith.

Smith says the guts of these weapons, pits of both plutonium and uranium, were traded, hundreds of them (350).  Some, particularly those of plutonium, were “pit matched” and remachined in Mali with data supplied by traitors at the very highest levels of the US Department of Energy and the White House, Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43.

These nukes were used on 9/11, dropped on Syria, Donbass, Yemen and used in terror attacks like Khobar Towers…all covered up by the same press that is attacking Russia.

This trade spread further.  Most know of the South African nuclear program begun in 1975 in partnership with Israel and their joint nuclear test on Prince Edward Island in 1979.  From VT:

Here we tripped over some involved in the planning of 9/11 but much more as well.

What we want to get around to is the Gaddafi story.  Bush and Cheney loved Gaddafi who was, at the time of 9/11, involved in a nuclear weapons partnership with Germany and Israel, partnered with Johann XXXXX of Johannasburg.

XXXXX was arrested and removed from custody by the Mossad.  He is now living in Israel.

Germans supplied the centrifuges for the “factory” in South Africa while Gaddafi funded the operation.  Israel had built and tested one bomb already, I might correct, tested 1 bomb on September 22, 1979 on a barge of Prince Edward Island.  9 more were left, 13.2 kiloton gun type bombs based on Peladaba pits from Katanga ore, according to VELA.

Armscorp, weapons stored and transported by Blatchford (according to the owner of that company, a longtime friend).  Those weapons were removed when South Africa changed government, 3 going to Univ. of Chicago (one pit made into a “plowshare” and on display), 6 others disassembled and 3 purchased by Britain and shipped to Oman, where they disappeared.

They were purchased, according to multiple sources, by Thatcher for 17 million pounds through a UAR.  We followed that funding as well….to a certain political candidate and something else.

South Africa had housed both chemical and bio-warfare facilities for other governments, where testing was done in Angola.  A fake version of these events is recorded through the Reconciliation Commission.  The truth is endlessly darker.

Some Sources for SA’s Nukes and Israeli Johann Meyer’s arrest”

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna5908143

Zelensky’s Nukes

Over recent days, Ukraine has been trying to acquire new nuclear weapons as announced by President Zelensky repeatedly.  The story, however, is far deeper.

2014 put Ukraine into the hands of a consortium of rogue states led by Israel which includes Turkey and Saudi Arabia, the “big three” responsible for 9/11 but also includes the Republic of Georgia…

with its massive bio-weapons capability…

Azerbaijan…armed by Israel and recently backed by Turkey in its war against pro-Russian Armenia.  Turks, in 1915, killed 6 million Armenians, a real holocaust that some (irresponsible and bad people) claim was copied later by Israel.

Azerbaijan opened two former Soviet fighter bases to Israel for attacks on Iran.  Turkey allowed transit of Israeli planes and armaments were shipped in by Germany with the aid of Israeli torpedo boats to the port of Poti, Georgia, starting in 2010.

One of the first acts of the new Maidan regime in Kiev was to arrange for the downing of MH 17, aided by Israel (AWAC capability), Azerbaijan and Georgia and approved by the CIA who turned off the AEGIS radar in Romania to allow the interception.  More on this at VT today.

Previously, the pro-Russian government of Ukraine had sold 3 nukes to Iran…long story there.  This was done during Operation Desert Storm “just in case” the US decided to use its fleet to invade Iran.  Iran was going to load the 3 thermo-nukes on high speed boats and set them off amid America’s carrier battle groups (3) on station.

As for North Korea:

Their first failed nuke was purchased from “businessmen” from South Africa and Zimbabwe.  They had recovered the weapon from the shallow water off Diego Garcia after a nuclear armed American B 52 caught fire and dropped its bomb load.

BROKEN ARROW, THE MOST DANGEROUS WEAPONS OF ALL

The first nuke was a destroyed American nuclear pit bought from arms dealers and delivered on an Israeli Dolphin submarine supplied by Germany (claimed to be the DVD by now more than just Shrimpton) to aid in the illegal nuclear weapons trade.

Some say an Israeli submarine modified by Germany was used to hit the Pentagon on 9/11.  We tend to agree.

But the heart of the North Korean program, nuclear and missiles, is Ukraine, a program that blossomed after the 2014 coup.

North Korea’s Missile Success Is Linked to Ukrainian Plant, Investigators Say

A photo released by North Korea’s state news agency in July purported to show a test of a Hwasong-14, thought to be capable of reaching the mainland United States.

Credit…Korean Central News Agency, via Reuters

By William J. Broad and David E. Sanger

North Korea’s success in testing an intercontinental ballistic missile that appears able to reach the United States was made possible by black-market purchases of powerful rocket engines probably from a Ukrainian factory with historical ties to Russia’s missile program, according to an expert analysis being published Monday and classified assessments by American intelligence agencies.

The studies may solve the mystery of how North Korea began succeeding so suddenly after a string of fiery missile failures, some of which may have been caused by American sabotage of its supply chains and cyberattacks on its launches. After those failures, the North changed designs and suppliers in the past two years, according to a new study by Michael Elleman, a missile expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Such a degree of aid to North Korea from afar would be notable because President Trump has singled out only China as the North’s main source of economic and technological support. He has never blamed Ukraine or Russia, though his secretary of state, Rex W. Tillerson, made an oblique reference to both China and Russia as the nation’s “principal economic enablers” after the North’s most recent ICBM launch last month.

Analysts who studied photographs of the North’s leader, Kim Jong-un, inspecting the new rocket motors concluded that they derive from designs that once powered the Soviet Union’s missile fleet. The engines were so powerful that a single missile could hurl 10 thermonuclear warheads between continents.

Those engines were linked to only a few former Soviet sites. Government investigators and experts have focused their inquiries on a missile factory in Dnipro, Ukraine, on the edge of the territory where Russia is fighting a low-level war to break off part of Ukraine. During the Cold War, the factory made the deadliest missiles in the Soviet arsenal, including the giant SS-18. It remained one of Russia’s primary producers of missiles even after Ukraine gained independence.

But since Ukraine’s pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, was removed from power in 2014, the state-owned factory, known as Yuzhmash, has fallen on hard times. The Russians canceled upgrades of their nuclear fleet. The factory is underused, awash in unpaid bills and low morale. Experts believe it is the most likely source of the engines that in July powered the two ICBM tests, which were the first to suggest that North Korea has the range, if not necessarily the accuracy or warhead technology, to threaten American cities.

“It’s likely that these engines came from Ukraine — probably illicitly,” Mr. Elleman said in an interview. “The big question is how many they have and whether the Ukrainians are helping them now. I’m very worried.”

Bolstering his conclusion, he added, was a finding by United Nations investigators that North Korea tried six years ago to steal missile secrets from the Ukrainian complex. Two North Koreans were caught, and a U.N. report said the information they tried to steal was focused on advanced “missile systems, liquid-propellant engines, spacecraft and missile fuel supply systems.”

Mr. Elleman’s detailed analysis is public confirmation of what intelligence officials have been saying privately for some time: The new missiles are based on a technology so complex that it would have been impossible for the North Koreans to have switched gears so quickly themselves. They apparently fired up the new engine for the first time in September — meaning that it took only 10 months to go from that basic milestone to firing an ICBM, a short time unless they were able to buy designs, hardware and expertise on the black market.

Last month, Yuzhmash denied reports that the factory complex was struggling for survival and selling its technologies abroad, in particular to China. Its website says the company does not, has not and will not participate in “the transfer of potentially dangerous technologies outside Ukraine.”

American investigators do not believe that denial, though they say there is no evidence that the government of President Petro O. Poroshenko, who recently visited the White House, had any knowledge or control over what was happening inside the complex.

How the Russian-designed engines, called the RD-250, got to North Korea is still a mystery.

Nuclear Ukraine: What Kiev’s threats to acquire world’s deadliest weapons mean

Kiev claims it could get an A-bomb, unless it receives Western protection against Russia
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has said his nation will have every right to become a nuclear power, citing a document signed by leading world states back when Kiev agreed to get rid of Soviet nuclear weapons in exchange for security assurances.

Why all the talk about Ukraine getting nuclear weapons? On Saturday, Zelensky aired the possibility of Ukraine’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. Speaking at the international Munich Security Conference, he complained that signatories of the Budapest Memorandum don’t want to conduct more consultations over Russia’s alleged breach of the agreement.

“If [consultations] do not happen again or their results do not guarantee security for our country, Ukraine will have every right to believe that the Budapest Memorandum is not working and all the package decisions of 1994 are in doubt,” he warned.The document he was referring to was signed when Ukraine agreed to relinquish its nukes. Kiev claims Russia breached it in 2014 and that other signatories bear at least moral responsibility for it.
What Ukrainian nukes?

For a short period of its history, Ukraine was a nuclear power. The arsenal was part of Kiev’s legacy after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Newly-formed independent Belarus and Kazakhstan were in a similar position, having hosted Soviet strategic weapons before the break-up.

Ukraine was technically the third-largest nuclear power at the time, a historic fact that Zelensky mentioned in his speech. It had over a hundred UR-100N intercontinental ballistic missiles hosted on its territory, almost 50 RT-23 Molodets nuclear trains, as well as a fleet of strategic bombers complete with nuclear armament.In total, Ukraine had deployed or stockpiled some 1,700 nuclear warheads, though in practice Moscow remained in control of all of them.

Western powers were naturally all too eager to get rid of the dangerous stockpile and make Russia the only Soviet successor state with a nuclear deterrence. Realism politics voices making a case for a nuclear Ukraine were not heeded, for better or for worse.
What is in the Budapest Memorandum? Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan agreed to dismantle their nuclear arsenals and sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), which allows only five nations in the world to possess nuclear weapons: China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US.

So-called Budapest Memorandum on security assurances – three identical documents with different names of the countries – were signed by the disarming countries as well as the US, the UK, and Russia.The document signed by Kiev explained how the US, the UK, and Russia made several commitments regarding Ukraine, including to its “independence and sovereignty” and “the existing borders” of the nation.

They also pledged not to use the threat of military force of economic coercion against Ukraine and to use their position at the UN Security Council in her defense “if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.”

Kiev has been arguing since 2014 that Russia breached the agreement when it “occupied” Crimea and parts of Eastern Ukraine.

Moscow denies this. The people of Crimea, it argues, exercised their right of self-determination under the UN Charter, when they voted to break away from Ukraine and rejoin Russia. The conflict in Donbass, Russia further states, is a civil war launched by Kiev against breakaway regions and not an international conflict.

Did the West fail to defend Ukraine? Some politicians overstated the commitments made by the US and the UK in the Budapest Memorandum. Yulia Tymoshenko, former prime minister of Ukraine, claimed in 2014 that “by declaring war [on Ukraine, Russia was] also declaring war on the guarantors of our security, the United States and Britain.”

Legal scholars pointed out that the memorandum doesn’t oblige the US and the UK to defend Ukraine from a foreign aggressor. It just gives them an extra justification to do so, should they choose to intervene militarily. In other words, it’s a security assurance, not a security guarantee, unlike NATO’s mutual defense commitment or the US obligation to defend Japan, for example.

Ukraine go nuclear now? Legally speaking, nothing stops Ukraine from withdrawing from the NPT and developing its own nuclear weapons. North Korea successfully walked this path despite all international efforts to stop Pyongyang.

There are also the examples of India and Pakistan, who developed nukes for their mutual deterrence, and Israel, which maintains strategic ambiguity on a nuclear arsenal that it is widely believed to possess.

Kiev’s technical capability to produce a nuclear device is another matter. Ukraine has a developed civilian nuclear industry, with some legacy reactors at power plants built in Soviet times as well as nuclear research facilities. It also inherited a well-developed aviation and space industry capable of producing ICBMs and other delivery vehicles.
On the other hand, Ukraine never had facilities for uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing, which are needed to produce weapons-grade materials for the cores. Neither did it have factories that produced actual nuclear weapons in its territory.

It has had uranium mining operations since the 1950s, but the production significantly dipped over the past years. The mines require huge investment.

Some Ukrainian officials like retired General Petro Garashchuk claimed that Ukraine has retained enough of the technical expertise to obtain a full range of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Which may be true, an expert told RT.

“Technically, Ukraine has an industry that with some changes should be able to create nuclear weapon systems,” Ilya Kramnik, a researcher at the Center for North American Studies at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations, told RT.

But more importantly, Kiev will not be able to do so secretly. At the very least, it would need to conduct tests to confirm its designs actually work. Other parts of a successful nuclear weapons program would likewise be detectable both by Western nations and by Russia. There is little doubt that Moscow would take the threat of Ukraine secretly going nuclear about as well as Israel treats the possibility of a nuclear Iran.

And if Kiev were to openly declare its intention to redevelop a nuclear capability, it would likely not be able to get its Western backers on board with the plan.
“I personally believe that there is not a single nuclear power, which will help Ukraine walk this path,” Kramnik said. “Simply because nobody wants to deal with the inevitable wake of problems, which will arise the day it becomes known for sure that Ukraine is developing nuclear weapons.”

Rather than offering their approval and help, the US and its allies are more likely to work against it, potentially imposing economic sanctions. Ukraine’s current state of economy and the government’s reliance on foreign aid make Kiev’s chances of doing what Pyongyang did doubtful.

If the proposal is unrealistic, why did the president mention it? It’s not like it’s unprecedented. As was said earlier, the idea has been floated in Ukraine for years, including lately by Kiev’s ambassador in Germany, Andriy Melnyk.

One assumes people in Kiev know all the obstacles they will face if Ukraine went rogue on nuclear weapons, including from the nations that are now among its vocal supporters and major financial donors.

One possible explanation came from Zelensky’s own mouth in Munich.
“Give us unconditional money. Why every time they allocate us this or that sum, [they say] you have to implement one, two, three, four, five, seven, eight, ten reforms?” he demanded during a panel discussion after the speech.

“Look, there is also the war. Is there any other nation in the world, which has such a strong army in the east and which implements reforms? This is not easy,” Zelensky added.
So given the circumstances, Ukraine’s nuclear ambitions – as with many other emotionally charged ideas it has expressed before – may be part of an attention-seeking campaign, and not an actual roadmap. However, this does not change the fact that the dangers of potential nuclear proliferation are widely perceived as an issue of maximum concern.