The US and UK lost three nuclear weapons each!

Part 4 - What went missing on Prime Minister Thatcher’s Watch?

I have already discussed in Part 3 of this series how the British Government manage d to acquire 3 ready- to- use nuclear bombs from Pelindaba under the nose of the United Nations. These three nukes were part of a total consignment of 9 that were destined to travel from South Africa to Chicago in the US. It became apparent that Maggie Thatcher had made an arrangement with the Government of South Africa and the United Station for three of these be acquired and shipped to Oman for storage. The main purpose was to have these weapons on stand-by for possible use on Iraq.

These weapons were then shipped in standard 20 foot containers and manifested as metal cylinders and not nuclear weapons. This would have been in violation of international regulations regarding the shipment of dangerous good. The weapons were then placed into private storage in Oman and left for Dr.David Kelly to carry out an inspection in order to accept the consignment prior to final payment. Dr David Kelly was the only person in mainstream UK MOD tasked with being in the loop for that covert offshore procurement of battlefield nukes from Apartheid South Africa.

Dr Kelly did carry out that inspection and final payment was made by the British Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) using money from the Ministry of Defence (MOD). This process was a direct breach of normal protocol in the purchase of munitions, even more so with the fact that this was money being paid to the private sector.

Sometime after Dr Kelly had inspected the three weapons they apparently went missing. It became apparent that when these weapons were no longer required they continued on their journey to Chicago and when the containers were offloaded and checked, it was found to contain only concrete and not bombs! So what happened to the security system for looking after such dangerous weapons and how did the switch take place?



It would appear that three trucks with containers onboard left the private storage facility and were replaced with three trucks and containers that only contained concrete. We must fully understand that these operational nuclear weapons were highly mobile and did not present any problem. It became apparent that these weapons did in actual fact end up in Iraq and it was believed that this formed part of the final intelligence brief leading up to the war.

Prior to the outbreak of the war these three weapons were transported to Syria in three separate ambulances as they were extremely mobile (as we have already discussed). What happened to these weapons after that is anyone’s guess but one could associate an attack by the Israeli Air Force on the Syrian Nuclear Facilities in 2007 a possible clue.

What did transpire after the war was that the British Government found out that these weapons had in actual fact left Iraq prior to the war but did not reveal this to the rest of the world. Likewise both the US and UK kept this entire fiasco top secret from the eyes of the United Nations and their respective media etc.

Before looking into who knew what and who received what let’s just make it clear that this war in Iraq had a main focus of establishing a regime change. It was Bush’s intention right from the onset and Tony Blair was very much aware of the US stance and also agreed with it. The Secret Downing Street Memo proved beyond a shadow of doubt that whatever the outcome the US and UK would end up going for the final option of a regime change.

Finally we come to the question of how much money was placed into the Conservative Party Funds for their 1992 election campaign (as a direct result of this nuke deal). We already know that Tony Blair got a 1 million pound bonus which was disguised as a donation from the tobacco industry but what about the Tory Party?

Tory funding of their 1992 General Election Campaign –
Origins of Mystery Donation of £17.8 millions:

If we can recall HANSARD 22nd June 1993 we can find the following:

Column 197

Mr. Hoyle: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall tell him what information is now given to us. We understand the expenditure and what Tory central office receives. In 1992, central office received £20.7 million. When we asked about that and about company donations, the Tory party told us to look at company accounts.
I repeat: in 1992, the Tories received £20.7 million. When the records were checked by Companies house, only £2.9 million was shown in company accounts. That means that there is a deficit of £17.8 million. We want to know where that £17.8 million came from.

It is very clear where this money came from as well as the token offer given to Blair.
Right from the onset a small group of people in both the US and UK knew of this deal and how the weapons that the British Taxpayer had paid for had gone missing. On this side of the Pond we can be rest assured that the following people knew: Thatcher (Mother and Son Mark), David Cameron, the nobleman with the initials of KW, John Major and his senior guys. On the Labour Party side of the fence it would have been Tony Blair and his close team followed by Gordon Brown. As we already know Thatcher put in an appearance at Number 10 Downing Street when they both came into office…..once can assume it was not to congratulate them!

We now have to ask some serious questions……did we go to war for these weapons (WMD) and if so then all those involved in this charade must be guilty of not only gross neglect but also for the unnecessary lost of millions of people(Including troops). Everyone knows the money is blood money and everyone knows that nothing will be done about this incident. How can we truly vote for any of these monsters who knew an awful lot but kept it to themselves? What we can see here is the fact that the tax payers money was not only totally abused, but some of it ended up in the party fund election drive. How corrupt can one become?

It was interesting to hear the reason for David Cameron going to South Africa. His office insisted the visit by the 23-year-old future leader was a "fact-finding mission" that took place 20 years ago, and the Thatcher government was opposed to sanctions against South Africa at the time. I think we can assume it was to do with the “Nuke Deal” before the regime change and also to raise money for party funds!

Perhaps when you vote next time you will hesitate before ticking the box?


Peter Eyre – Middle East Consultant – 5/3/2010