Over the years, as we have helped debunk elite propaganda, from elaborate NASA hoaxes to vaccine cover-ups, it has occurred to us more and more strongly that something is wrong with at least parts of the "nuclear narrative."

Take the latest developments. Kerry goes to Hiroshima (see excerpt above) to commemorate the war dead while the US focuses on a nuclear arsenal upgrade that will generate smaller and more efficient bombs at gargantuan expense.

Kerry won't apologize for dropping the Bomb; and those running the nuclear arsenal upgrade surely won't apologize for its complexity or cost.

The budget is apparently estimated to be $1 trillion and the program will run for three decades. But who is supervising? And who is providing the accountability?

The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability has published "Trillion Dollar Trainwreck," pleading for some sanity. Democracy Now just interviewed with the group's leader Marylia Kelley.

Kelley makes some good points. The US military-industrial complex surely deserves scrutiny beyond what it is usually subject to. Do US congressmen just take the Pentagon's word for it? It sometimes seems that way.

The threat of nuclear weapons is deeply embedded in our psyches. We make all sorts of personal and family decisions based on what we understand about them and about nuclear power in general.

Do we really have the facts? Once upon a time, we were confident about the pharmaceutical industry and its vaccine offerings. Today we are not.

One of the most prominent issues regarding the nuclear program is its secrecy. That secrecy goes all the way back to the beginning of the program in the 1940s.

In the US, we've read, revealing atomic information of any sort is punishable by death. If you are looking at this article, you're in danger.

In Japan it was even illegal to question the official story about Nagasaki and Hiroshima. This was punishable by imprisonment and execution.

The secrecy has blurred the narrative for nearly 75 years. It even makes what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki difficult to determine.

Questions have been raised on numerous fronts regarding the twin bomb blasts – about shadows supposedly etched into streets and walls, for instance. Photographs seem to have been aggressively retouched to emphasize damage. US personnel reportedly stated they were asked to exaggerate the number of dead and wounded.

Even the story of the main witnesses to the blast, a group of Jesuits, has come under scrutiny. Somehow the group emerged, unscathed and un-irradiated after the bomb blast only a few blocks away. They later attributed their good fortune to the protection of the Virgin Mary.

The main alternative theory regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that they were firebombed. How this would  have taken place without being noted – or noticed – is difficult to imagine. Yet, the damage to both small cities does seem to resemble firebombing. Wood buildings burned but stone and concrete ones did not. In Hiroshima both the hospital and the train station survived.

Is it necessary to fully resolve what actually happened so long ago? Perhaps out of decency, if nothing else, one ought not pursue it. But the questions that linger about Hiroshima and Nagasaki are representative of the larger issues surrounding "weapons of mass destruction" generally.

Are we really being told the truth? Can we fully trust the Pentagon or even Congress when it comes to these issues? For instance, how many weapons are there in the world – and how many actually work? Is there any way of knowing? North Korea has recently been in the news for claims that it has created various kinds of sophisticated nuclear weapons. North Korea can't even feed its population. Who really knows if its claims are true?

Can we look to history for an answer? Unfortunately, many of the photos and films of US nuclear tests (in particular) that are now available on YouTube and elsewhere appear to have been faked. Is it possible the fabrications or exaggerations persist today?

True, the biggest US corporations provide the product and the Pentagon vouches for the quality. But this is the same Pentagon that can't be audited because its accounting is dysfunctional. The same Pentagon that once announced it could not account for trillions in spending (right before 9/11).

Over the years, as we have helped debunk elite propaganda, from elaborate NASA hoaxes to vaccine cover-ups, it has occurred to us more and more strongly that something is wrong with at least parts of the "nuclear narrative."