And the difference between a nuclear and an atomic bomb is??
The atom bomb is a nuclear weapon that uses nuclear fission as its source of energy.
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom_bomb_(disambiguation)
The NeoCon’s Project For A New American Century (PNAC) is likley on the minds of many of Mr. Martenson’s learned readers. As the Project plan is about 20 years old, a refresher may be in order, this quoted from author Steve MacMilllan’s excellent analysis entitled: “The Neoconservative Hit List: Iraq, Libya and now Syria? A Plan for Global US Military Supremacy” “…1997 witnessed the birth of one of the most pivotal American think tanks in modern times, …shaped the foreign policy of the United States (U.S.) for decades… The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) was founded by William Kristol, the chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle during the Bush senior administration, and Robert Kagan, a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The PNAC group’s stated objectives included the desire to shape a new century favourable to American principles and interests; along with challenging regimes hostile to U.S. interest and values"1 Tragic beyond words, this drive towards Pax Americana/Hegemony is alive and well in 2017. A Dr. Strangelove’s blood-filled fantasy of American rule. The perceived prize for winning the cold war. The document lists a number of regimes that the group viewed as; deeply hostile to America ;NORTH KOREA, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria…; (p.63 &; p.64)…1 [nations also referred to as members of the Axis-of-Evil”] And this: "…Wesley Clark, disclosed a plan circulating around the Pentagon in 2001 to attack 7 countries in 5 years…"1 Why Now Indeed? …the NeoCons are clearly behind schedule, Late in their goal to destroy all nations refusing to hail the New Caesar. Perhaps President Trump was coerced to follow the lead of the Military Industrial (and Congressional) Complex, or else “join the Dead Kennedys”. In any case- China and Russia clearly know the score, and will not sit by idly by forever. Let’s speak up now while we still can. 1 http://journal-neo.org/2014/10/09/the-neoconservative-hit-list-iraq-liby…
The war games have been going on sense 1979 or later when I was in South Korea.
Here’s another: Russia Tests Nuclear-Capable Underwater Drone (The Diplomat)
Slapping a cobalt jacket on the thing is just mean.
Quote:
Based on information on the slide, the new weapon could be equipped with a thermonuclear warhead with a layer of cobalt-59, “which on detonation would be transmuted into highly radioactive cobalt-60 with a half-life longer than five years,” the BBC reports. A prototype is slated to be built by 2019 with first tests occurring sometime around 2019-2020, according to the paper.
For some reason this song comes to mind.
There is an ongoing grownup strategic conversation that came out of “Game Theory”, this is about a point in time in space when both China and Russia see the inevitability of a US attack and to position nuclear their submarines off each US coast, and let fly a decapitation missile strike that destroys 95 % of the US within two minutes.
The Council of Foreign Relations, John McCain and Lindsey Grahams of the world with deep state support are bringing us near this decapitation trigger threshold. We won’t see it coming and the country side will be a nuclear wasteland for 500 years or more.
This event can be averted but only if enough of the mutton minds in our midst wake up. Vegas odds are not very good.
I vividly remember the Cuban Missile Crisis even though I was not yet nine years old. Perhaps this is because my father was a young civilian scientist for the Defense Department and he knew the missiles could reach Boston. He understood what damage they could inflict. I recall him being uncharacteristically nervous and cranky during the whole event.
Since Glasnost and the end of the cold war I have not given the nuclear reality much thought. The recent anti-Russian spasm followed by the ongoing confrontation with North Korea must be working on my sub-conscious. I woke at 3:30 the other morning from a vivid dream. My wife and I were in a crowded restaurant with two of our granddaughters. It was a buffet type place and we were in line only paying attention to the food and making our choices. Suddenly a buzzing of voices swept across the crowd. People were pulling out their cell phones and tablets. Some started shouting, that the missiles are coming, we’re being attacked. Panic overtook everyone and everything. I grabbed and tightly held the hand of my older granddaughter. My only thoughts were; “Oh God! Why now? Why is this happening? I thought we beat this.”
Next I was lying in bed in a cold sweat with my heart pounding and my adrenaline level at maximum. Needless to say, I did not go back to sleep.
We are traveling in perilous times.
JT
Jim Quinn from the Burning Platform brings his righteous indignation to bear on this drive to war:
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2017/04/30/the-horror-the-horror/#more-148239
I’m constantly amazed by the ability of those in power to create a narrative trusted by a gullible non-critical thinking populace. Appealing to emotions, when you have millions of functionally illiterate, normalcy bias ensnared, iGadget distracted, disciples of the status quo, has been the game plan of the Deep State for the last century. Americans don’t want to think, because thinking is hard. They would rather feel. For decades the government controlled public education system has performed a mass lobotomy on their hapless matriculates, removing their ability to think and replacing it with feelings, fabricated dogma, and social indoctrination. Their minds of mush have been molded to acquiesce to the narrative propagandized by their government keepers. “The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read. The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think. The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling.” – Thomas Sowell With a majority confused, distracted, malleable, willfully ignorant, and easily manipulated by false narratives, heart wrenching images, and fake news, the Deep State henchmen have been able to control the masses with relative ease. The unanticipated rise of Donald Trump to the most powerful role in the world gave many critical thinking, anti-big government, skeptical curmudgeons hope he could drain the swamp and begin to deconstruct the massive out of control Federal bureaucracy. His rhetoric during the campaign about repealing the disastrous Obamacare abortion, cutting taxes, dismantling Federal regulatory red tape, making Mexico pay for the wall, dumping Yellen, favoring higher interest rates, and not interfering militarily in countries who are not threatening the United States, appealed to many libertarian minded people. I’ve watched with disgust over the last month as the promises of non-interventionism by a presidential candidate have been broken by the third consecutive president...
Is there a “winner” here? Aloha, Steve.
Anyone who imagines that any game-theory-driven Russia/China sub-based decapitation strike would actually “succeed” from a strategic standpoint doesn’t understand math, the current US force structure, or its capabilities.
Sure, Trump and DC would be gone, but the ~10 Ohio class subs on active patrol would make short work of both attackers. If just 15% of the surviving missiles were launched (on two submarines), the “winner” of this game-theory exercise would be at the receiving end of (about) 300 thermonuclear warheads. 300 warheads are enough to target every city in Russia that has over 50,000 people.
While KJU may or may not be a rational actor, Putin and Xi most definitely are.
There are lots of things I worry about. This scenario isn’t one of them.
Here’s some crazy-talk speculation. Anyone notice how every one of KJU’s recent missile tests have failed? As if the missiles themselves are defective. Some people think its about hacking. What if its something else - a boost-phase anti-missile capability that has not been advertised by the US. Say a ship-based high energy weapon that needs 5-10 seconds to punch through the skin of a missile during its boost phase. Or maybe a drone-based anti-missile laser that loiters over the launch site and nails the missile immediately after launch.
I don’t buy the “failed missile” thing. And that would make the THAAD deployment just a cover story. Along with the hacking, it has all been a setup to encourage KJU to chase his tail looking for zero-day bugs, traitors and incompetence.
http://www.defenseone.com/business/2016/08/pentagon-were-closer-ever-lasers-can-stop-iranian-north-korean-missiles/130845/
I also agree the highest confidence delivery system is a bomb on a cargo ship in the target’s harbor. Its not fast, but its a sure thing, and no ABM system will be able to knock it down.
I also don’t believe the launches failed. It could be that NK is blowing them up on purpose. Launch them to save face, so to speak, but destroy them while they’re in NK space so as not to risk technically threatening someone. Makes me think of a line from The Rock: “Great, we’re not gutless, we’re incompetent.” Anyway, that’s one of the many possibilities, I suppose. Us using nextgen weopons are another, as Dave mentioned above.
I believe the THAAD is stationed about 125 miles away from Seoul. I also believe the range of the THAAD system is 125 miles. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong. However, if I am correct, it would seem that THAAD is more of a dog and pony, in it’s current configuration over there.
Could just be frickin laser beams.
Return Of The ABL? Missile Defense Agency Works On Laser Drone (Breaking Defense)
Quote:
The old ABL was Boeing 747 with a human crew and tanks of toxic chemicals to generate power. The new idea a high-altitude, long-endurance drone armed with a more compact electrically powered laser. But the technical and tactical challenge remains the same: building a laser-armed aircraft that can shoot down ballistic missiles at their most vulnerable, just after launch, without having to fly so close it gets shot down itself.
“The problem with boost phase is…you’ve got to get close enough,” Frank Kendall, the Pentagon’s procurement chief, told reporters at the Space & Missile Defense conference here. By closing in, he said, “you get a softer target: The booster, the rocket itself, is a lot softer than the reentry vehicles.” But if you’re close enough to shoot at a rocket right after it launches from enemy territory, you’re probably close enough for the enemy to shoot you.
cmartenson wrote:
Oddly, the South Korean position and desires do not appear anywhere in any of these main articles. It’s like they don’t even exist. No quotes from the current leadership, nothing about how the people of South Korea feel or what they want. Just chirping crickets from the press.
Not odd at all. In fact, the “western powers” have a game they frequently like to play where they make Big Decisions and hold Big Conferences that determine the fate of other people, their land, and their resources without bothering to consult or invite the people themselves. Think Berlin Conference, the British and French Mandate system outlined by Britain and France at the Versailles Treaty conference (coincidence, I’m sure), the Munich Conference, or any number of other examples. Anyone who knows the history of western imperialism knows that a good half of the world’s boundaries and borders make no sense precisely because they were drawn up at a table by some old European dudes in Paris, London, Berlin, Washington D.C., etc. There isn’t, never was, and never should have been an Iraq, for instance.
It’s, like, what we do: debate and discuss what to do with your stuff or your room without inviting you to the discussion.
/sighs
I have no verification of this so who knows if it is true. But the MSM initially reported the missile blew up shortly after take off. I have read the missile actually flew for fifteen minutes and attained an altitude of 44 miles. If this is true, it reasons to me that either NK self destructed it or something knocked it out. Either way it is quite a bit different from the narrative we are told.
What the North Korean ‘Crisis’ Is Really About (Paul Craig Roberts via the Ron Paul Institute)
Quote:
"It is about the same thing that the demonization of Iran was about. The “Iranian threat” was an orchestration that was used as cover to put US anti-ballistic missile bases on Russia’s borders. An anti-ballistic missile (ABM) is intended to intercept and destroy nuclear-armed ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) and prevent them from reaching their targets.
Washington claimed that the anti-ABM bases were not directed at Russia, but were for the protection of Europe against Iran’s nuclear ICBMs. Insouciant Americans might have believed this, but the Russians surely did not as Iran has neither ICBMs nor nuclear weapons. The Russian government has made it clear that Russia understands the US bases are directed at preventing a Russian retaliation against a Washington first strike.
The Chinese government also is not stupid. The Chinese leadership understands that the reason for the North Korean “crisis” is to provide cover for Washington to put anti-ballistic missile sites near China’s border.
In other words, Washington is creating a shield against nuclear retaliation from both Russia and China from a US nuclear strike against both countries.
China has been more forceful in its reply to Washington’s efforts than have the Russians. China has demanded an immediate halt to the US deployment of missiles in South Korea."Time2help wrote:
China has been more forceful in its reply to Washington’s efforts than have the Russians. China has demanded an immediate halt to the US deployment of missiles in South Korea."
Seems to me (in my limited understanding) that this is because China does not have as serious a “boomer” sub fleet as the Russians. If you have enough boomers out there deployed 20 miles offshore of your target, you don’t need to worry about your land-based ICBMs getting through (in terms of deterrent).
One man’s imperfect understanding and opinion…
BMD is a complicated topic. Attempts to simplify it will end up losing vital bits of information. I think PCR has simplified things to the point where what he says is wrong.
So the basic physics of the system tells us that US terminal-phase (THAAD) interceptors deployed to Korea (with an interception range of 120 miles) are no threat to intercept Chinese missiles - which are substantially farther away - unless those Chinese missiles happen to be targeted at South Korea.
The only US interceptors that can threaten Russia and China (by destabilizing MAD) are the US midcourse-phase interceptors (called GMD). But those are not the missiles being deployed overseas. The US has exactly 36 midcourse-phase interceptor missiles, deployed in California and Alaska.
The overseas deployments are all “point defense” interceptors, good only to protect the nearby cities. THAAD interceptor missiles deployed near Seoul can only intercept missiles that are targeting Seoul.
Midcourse defense explained: https://www.mda.mil/system/gmd.html
Lastly, GMD has had a spotty record in testing. I’m not sure I’d put much faith in its ability to defeat a missile launch from a major power. THAAD looks to be quite a bit more capable, but it is also solving an easier problem, and as I mentioned, it only protects a few nearby target cities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Based_Midcourse_Defense
Davefairtex gives a good description, and generally speaking I think he’s correct. However, there are two ‘gray areas’ that are worth mentioning. First, while it’s true only the GMD interceptors are capable (in theory) of directly protecting the U.S. from Russian and Chinese ICBM’s (ICBM’s being the ones that would be used against U.S. soil), the THAAD system CAN provide some protection for U.S. allies, U.S. bases and posts overseas, and certain U.S. pacific territories (Guam?). That may not mean much for protection of the 50 U.S. States, but it does matter in terms of overall military balance. Second (and perhaps this is what concerns China more), the THAAD system’s radar is designed to interoperate with other missile defense systems like Aegis and Patriot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defense#Produc…). Even if THAAD can’t shoot down Chinese missiles, it could potentially still use its radar to track them and pass that information to other missile defense systems that CAN engage them. So as much as I dislike the Chinese gov’t and their own ulterior motives, I admit they do have SOME legitimate concerns about THAAD upsetting the balance of MAD.
That all being said, I fully agree that PCR is oversimplifying missile defense, and in some cases gets things outright wrong. For example, he says “An anti-ballistic missile (ABM) is intended to intercept and destroy nuclear-armed ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) and prevent them from reaching their targets”… despite the fact that not all ballistic missiles are ICBM-range missiles (as Davefairtex alluded to, THAAD is in fact meant for intermediate and shorter-range ballistic missiles and only in the terminal phase of flight). And from what I take from other writings of his I’ve read, PCR seems to put every event & political move into the context of “TPTB/elites’ diabolical master plan”. Yeah… sometimes there IS a sinister motive, but a lot of the time it’s just a blend of arrogance, selfishness, realpolitik considerations, or plain old reactionary knee-jerk responses. For him to say THAAD has nothing to do with North Korea is even more shortsighted than those who say THAAD is ONLY about North Korea. In my view, the THAAD move is in the short and medium term about NK. Longer term I suspect it’s much more about steadily increasing the general U.S. presence closer to a potential future adversary than any specific pre-emptive nuclear strike plan. Unless the leadership has been getting a wildly over-optimistic summary of their missile defense capabilities, they HAVE to know U.S. missile defense wouldn’t amount to much versus China and Russia.
Generally I view PCR the same as I view George Friedman, Jim Rickards, and certain other ‘experts’ in geopolitics… there’s useful information to be gained, but it takes effort to filter out the useful stuff from their personal biases or world views. So while I share PCR’s view that the elites are too reckless and have too much power, I have to agree and say that I found this particular article of his to be useless.
If we wanted to use the proven & capable THAAD systems to protect the continental US from attack, we’d have to deploy interceptors near every major city. And if the THAAD interceptors deployed near a given major city ran out because of too many attacking missiles, that’s it for the city. Another city’s THAAD interceptors wouldn’t be able to help. That’s why we haven’t done this. It just costs too much.
GMD interceptors have the promise to be far more economical. Every GMD interceptor can intercept long range missiles targeting anywhere in the entire continental US. But GMD’s record in tests where a GMD interceptor is asked to actually intercept attacking warheads - the results are not great.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Based_Midcourse_Defense
So we’ve deployed 36 expensive, poorly-performing GMD interceptors, crossing our fingers that they might actually work if called upon to defend the continental US, and we’ve deployed the much more reliable THAAD, Patriot, and Aegis/SM3 interceptors to protect specific targets (like Seoul, probably Tokyo, Southern Europe, and other allied targets).
But SK THAAD interceptors won’t help protect US cities. That falls to the poorly-performing GMD interceptors, which (to my mind) are a very thin reed to rely on in a storm. We do not have THAAD (or SM2, or Patriot interceptors) protecting US cities, because its just too expensive to do so. So this hypothetical launch-detection radar data from the SK THAAD radar sending data to NORAD allowing…GMD interceptors to fly forth and meet them? I dunno. I’m not feeling any safer.
On 30 April 2014, the Government Accountability Office issued a report stating that the system may not be operational any time soon because "its development was flawed". It says the GBI missile is "capable of intercepting a simple threat in a limited way".[11] On 12 August 2015, Lt. General David L. Mann (commanding general USASMDC/ARSTRAT) characterized GMD as the nation's only ground-based defense against limited ICBM attacks.[11]Maybe we have a secret space program that can execute a space-based midcourse defense using some sort of (laser?) energy weapon. I certainly hope so, because the GMD system we currently have is an expensive boondoggle that probably won't work if called upon. And maybe that's really the answer. CAF is right, the secret space program exists, and that's why the Chinese don't like the THAAD radar system on their doorstep, because it makes the (hypothetical) space-based midcourse defense (SMD) that much more effective. If such a thing exists, it means the US is probably already (mostly) invulnerable to a NK missile launch. Perhaps this hitherto-undeclared SMD system has been using recent NK missile launches as target practice. Wouldn't that be interesting? It might explain why we don't appear to be spending much effort on improving the lame performance of the GMD. Good reference describing components and current capabilities of (public) US BMD systems: https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/usmissiledefense
I think even placing THAAD in major U.S. cities would still provide no protection from ICBM’s, as I understand ICBM’s are too fast at the terminal phase for it to intercept effectively (I can’t find the source article I read that from… I’ll add the link if/when I find it). Maybe they would help with shorter-range versions of sub launched ballistic missiles (SLBM’s), but based off of publicly available information it seems China and Russia only field SLBM’s in the ICBM-range category, so not much help there either.
As for THAAD radars, they are X-band radars that are capable of finer resolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea-based_X-band_Radar) so it’s reasonable to assume they could help the layered missile defense system a great deal. Of course, as you hinted the system is only as effective as its weakest link, and better radar amounts to the “Square Root of Fu**-All” if the GMD interceptors aren’t up to the task. And are they up to the task?.. because of the limited number and nature of the tests nobody really knows for sure. Successful tests show that intercepts are possible, but with only a 53% success rate for those intercept tests (according to the GMD wikipedia page) and almost all of those under ideal and/or scripted conditions, the intercept success rate in the real world would probably be significantly lower still. This is one of several reasons why I find Paul Craig Roberts’ assessment that this is all part of a specific pre-emptive nuclear strike plan against Russia and/or China to be baloney… the odds of intercept (not to mention the number of interceptors) are nowhere close enough to being in their favor to take that chance, even if some were psychopathic enough to want to do it.
Regarding space-based missile defense via energy weapon, I give that an extremely low probability of existence. Re-entry vehicles are designed to withstand the heat of re-entry and thus would probably be extremely difficult to take out with a space-based energy weapon platform based on our current state of technology. This is likely why the only recent public attempt for energy weapon missile defense was the Boeing Airborne Laser which attempts to destroy the missile in the boost phase (where it’s most vulnerable to such things). That, and you’d need not just one but a network of such satellites to provide sufficient 24 hour coverage
Here are two interesting links for those interested. The first is about THAAD and China’s concerns about it, while the second is a Nightline clip about GMD and the Fort Greely GMD site (it’s an older clip but it’s still relevant to the current state of the technology).
http://thediplomat.com/2016/02/what-is-thaad-what-does-it-do-and-why-is-…