Michael Pillsbury, a Pentagon consultant and author of the recent book 100 Year Marathon, said Chinese military hawks, known as "ying pai,†told him they are ready to provide arms to Hawaiian independence activists in retaliation for U.S. arms sales to Taiwan.
What could POSSIBLY go wrong?
Regards the particular little bit of cheer in that quote, I'm a little skeptical of this sentiment being a real thing, at least with regard to the politburo members who would have to approve such a risky move. However, given the outright seizure of Philippine atolls, and moving the border with India unilaterally, it bears scrutiny. In any event, it certainly continues China's policy of trolling us. Far less asinine brinkmanship can easily lead to epic miscalculations.
1
I suspect that the local independence movement (which doesn't have, as near as I can tell, the least bit of violent tendency... at least so long as haoles don't try to surf from their bit of beach!) has too much experience with the Chinese to be enticed by such an offer.
Seriously, these guys are about on the same level as the guy who says that the gold fringe on the flag in the courtroom means it isn't a legitimate court and thus he isn't obliged to pay his income tax. ;p
I don't mind admitting that the kingdom of Hawaii got a bit of a raw deal, but at the same time... in Texas, Santa Ana was legitimately elected and we didn't just secede, we actually -shot him- in the bargain. And looted his peg leg. So I don't have a whole ton of time for people complaining about the legitimacy of a monarchy...
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at Wed Feb 11 03:48:02 2015 (ZeBdf)
2
The question of the legality of secession was settled definitively in 1865.
3
I don't really understand claims about the "legality" of secession. I've seen it stated several times, usually without qualification. It seems like a content-less statement to me: You could as easily say that 'revolution is illegal', or 'war is illegal'. It would take a very unusual government to be okay with secession (since the de-facto constitution of most governments is that a political class owns tax-slaves and territory by force of arms - they're not going to let their livestock just leave.)
I'm not apologizing for the South in the US Civil War. I'm also not signalling approval of this particularly harebrained secession movement. On the other hand, I could easily envision circumstances where some sort of secession/and the resulting civil war would be preferable to the alternatives, and just as "illegal". (Say, some sort of genocidal communist state is ruling the country with an iron fist from some geographically well defined portion of our territory, etc.)
Posted by: eccentricorbit at Wed Feb 11 16:43:07 2015 (GtPd7)
4
I suppose you could say that if you lived under a government that allowed free secession of member territory, you wouldn't have much to worry about from them. They would possibly be the only government in the history of mankind that took the derivation of their power from the consent of their citizens seriously!
On the other end of the continuum, you have the Berlin Wall!
Posted by: eccentricorbit at Wed Feb 11 16:48:16 2015 (GtPd7)
5
The basic point of the Hawaiian independence movement isn't that they want to secede - it's that the accession was invalid in the first place, because the government that agreed to it wasn't the legitimate government of Hawaii. You could argue that the whole thing was a coup engineered by the US... except that when it happened the US didn't particularly want to take Hawaii and didn't change their mind until three years later, at which point the coup government was still in power. So yeah... not likely that it went Exactly As Planned, no?
That also runs straight into Texas as an example, and the US in general for that matter - but when someone who is pushing for Hawaiian independence says "the legitimate government was overthrown!" and you respond with "I have no problem with that," you can -hear- the little pop as their mind blows...
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at Wed Feb 11 19:05:59 2015 (zJsIy)
6
Hawaiian succession would be an insult to The One! He once spoke of "57 states" in the US, and succession would be a step away from His ordained path...
Posted by: Siergen at Wed Feb 11 19:52:17 2015 (/CwtH)
EccentricOrbit: the EU treaty contains language which seems to permit individual nations to change their minds and to leave the union. The process as described is rather arcane, but it's there.
And that isn't a dead letter, either. There's a good chance at this point that the UK is going to use it and leave. Greece is another which may decide to dump it.
8
Hawaiian succession is inevitable. As the new island to the southeast of the Big Island rises the others are eroding away until they become atolls like Midway or ultimately guyots. This has been going on for millions of years.
Secession however, is not so clear cut. being a product of politics as opposed to geology.
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at Wed Feb 11 20:50:48 2015 (ohzj1)
9
Technically, the EU is still more of an economic league of nations than a country. It might get there eventually, but nobody would have signed on without a way of backing out.
The original states in the US were pretty clear on "we can't break apart or the rest of the world will come and take us over." One of the unacknowledged causes of the Civil War was that Americans were no longer quite as sure that Europe could come take them over. (Seeing as, in the 1850's, it sure seemed like individual states had to be able to do better than those European clowns.)
Hawaii, OTOH, would seem to be pretty clear on the fact that they kinda need something comparable to the US Navy to avoid getting picked off by the Russians or the Chinese.
Posted by: Suburbanbanshee at Thu Feb 12 10:23:12 2015 (ZJVQ5)
10
The delusion that Hawaii could gain independence but retain some kind of security relationship with the US is usually in operation there. (Some even envision charging the US rent for the bases! It's almost cute.)
The sad thing is that the native Hawaiian community (which is a lot smaller than you'd think - maybe 10% of the population, though with a good amount of "mixed" also in there) is actually missing out on stuff because of this stupidity. Currently they're not recognized as an indigenous tribe at all. The federal government has noted that they'd be happy to sign them up so that Hawaiians would be available for the same kind of benefits that native indigenous folks can get, but the community's split between "let's go for it and get some recognition" and "no, because that would be admitting that the US's rule of Hawaii is legitimate" (i.e. can't be independent if you're a dependent...)
There are enough part-Hawaiians here that if the independence movement had any traction among them, it would be something serious instead of a joke. But enthusiasm among them is essentially zero, partly because they're also members of a larger culture, partly because the US is pretty darned good, and partly because there's a lot of suspicion that if the native Hawaiians were in charge, they'd define "native Hawaiian" pretty darned narrowly. There's some flat-out racism involved too, of course...
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at Thu Feb 12 17:41:03 2015 (zJsIy)
11
Haole Mackerel, I had no idea Hawaiian politics were that messed up Av.
Posted by: Mauser at Thu Feb 12 23:03:40 2015 (TJ7ih)
12
Well, don't get me wrong. Texas has its own crazy militia types, but if you talk about them it's not really "Texan government". Hawaii's actual government is full of Democrats, but kind of on the conservative side for that; they're not so much San Francisco as "virtually all of our grandparents were screwed by plantation owners", so it's kinda understandable. Also funny sitting around and watching them say "we shouldn't build anything new, damned greedy developers" and then wondering why the rent is so high and everyone's poor. Heh.
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at Fri Feb 13 04:47:18 2015 (ZeBdf)
As far Steven's theory the seccession is somehow magically shut because some bunch of random people killed a whole bunch of other people in the 19th Century is really precious. It's not like Soviet Constitution contained a way for Kazakhstan to seccede, but one day it just did. The trick here is to catch a moment when Washington D.C. is powerless to do anything about it, then declare seccession and occupy all of federal property in Texas. Voila. What are they going to do, nuke Dallas?
Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at Fri Feb 13 22:50:42 2015 (RqRa5)
Pete, the state of Arkansas tried something a bit like that in 1957, and Eisenhower sent in the 101st division. No, they wouldn't nuke Dallas, but there are a lot of things less extreme than that which could be done.
The trick here is to catch a moment when Washington D.C. is powerless to do anything about it,...
You're going to be waiting a good long time, I'm afraid.
15
I've been informed that Kill Haole Day is grossly exaggerated. Certainly nobody's ever tried to kill me except through lousy driving, which is not unique to Hawaii though it certainly is widespread. (Generally if I'm driving I'm in no hurry, so I let people in, and I get a lot of "shaka" (think a Hawaiian thumbs-up) thrown my way in return...)
There's no mechanism for secession in the constitution. So you'd have to amend the constitution (possible though pretty darned unlikely; everyone would need to be happy to see you go), or manage it through force alone... or attack the legitimacy of the government's control of your territory, which is something that was easier to do to the Soviet Union than it is to the US (even in Hawaii...)
Texas secede? Hell, we like the place. Suits us just fine. Same taste in flags even. Maybe if we could trim the sideburns a little we'd like it even more...
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at Sat Feb 14 05:50:09 2015 (zJsIy)
The question is : "What is Russia's new ICBM called?"
Wow. There had been reports that Russia was developing a new heavy ICBM to replace the old R-36 (NATO reporting name SATAN). However, it was assumed that the new heavyweight missile would be a bit smaller than the massive old cold war relic, perhaps something with a payload along the lines of the MX-Peacekeeper.
SARMAT, the replacement has a declared throw weight of 10 tonnes and can hit targets in the US while firing over the south pole. That is the opposite direction most US early warning radars point.
R-36 (SS-18 SATAN) being launched (via the Military today article)
22,046 pounds is an awful lot of ordinance. Keep in mind that the R-36, is, by a WIDE margin the most powerful ICBM in the world. It has a "throw weight" (as reported to comply with the START treaty), of 8.5 tonnes. There was an improved version with a payload of 9.5 tonnes that was cancelled. Reportedly, this was cancelled in order to comply with arms limitation talks. Wikipedia lists some payload options that were cancelled to comply with the 10 warhead treaty limit.
Three of these versions would carry regular warheads—38 × 250 kt yield, 24 × 500 kt yield, or 15–17 × 1 Mt yield. Two modifications were supposed to carry guided warheads ("upravlyaemaya golovnaya chast")—28 × 250 kt or 19 × 500 kt.
Note that one of the two latest versions of the R-36 is a single warhead version as well, carrying a huge 20 megaton warhead that was, in part developed to maximize EMP effects. These huge warheads were removed and stored in 2009 as the Russians sought to maximize the number of warheads given the 10 warhead limit and the dwindling number of serviceable missiles. The R-36 was manufactured and serviced in Ukraine and recent events....well...the replacement program is a rather high priority. It need not, however be a challenging one. The Russians are quite capable at rocketry and the characteristics are a modest improvement on 1970's technology, but without parts made in Ukraine. Indeed, it appears that testing will begin this year. There is more on this (in Russian) here (google translate version behind spoiler tag)
Test an intercontinental ballistic missile "Sarmat", which will replace the IDB "Voivod" ("Satan"), to be held in this year, said on air, "Russian news service" Deputy Minister of Defense of Russia Yuri Borisov.
"This year we have planned so-called throwing test. We are moving the paper stage stage in the implementation stage. Already made some fragments of the design, all goes according to plan, and I think that we will finish the ROC in strict compliance with contractual obligations and start rapidly, methodically replace "voivode" new missile system, thereby increasing the capacity and capabilities of our strategic nuclear forces, "- he said.
Borisov said that, according to the contract, "Sarmat" entered service in 2020 the Strategic Missile Forces.
According to Borisov, the new ICBM can deliver cargo weighing 10 tons and "easy to fly" through the North and South Poles.
"Specifications, the opportunity for the rise of the payload, a breakthrough anti-missile defense is still at the" Governor "unique. And the fact that we have laid in the "Sarmatian" is even more superior to them ", - said the deputy minister.
The development of new missiles produced at the Krasnoyarsk Machine-Building Plant (JSC "Krasmash"). There you will mass-produce them.
Wrong?
This rocket is fearsome, but it is not a huge advance over the missile it replaces. However, it may itself represent a further rejection of the arms limitation treaties. and it drives home the fact that the Russians are very serious about relying on their nuclear forces.
1
From the extimations that I heard, Sarmat is clearly busting its lift-off weight targets.
Personally I do not understand what the point of the whole excercise is. They already have Yars (and Topol-M) that cover all imaginable scenarios. Some people said that Russia is having issues with getting critical stocks to make large solid motors, in particular so-called "white cellulose". It was made by a plant on Lake Baikal that enviros shut down. Sarmat is a significant step back in technology. Still, wouldn't it be more useful for the industry to develop new technologies?
Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at Sat Jan 31 22:38:38 2015 (RqRa5)
2
I dunno, I agree with you that Yars and its kin would seem adequate.
Two possible reasons come to mind. One, obvious given the fact that the R-36 is now a Ukranian project:, they need a weapon quick...the stats for this monstrosity hint that it might just be a warmed over R-36 upgrade beneffiting from 30 years of materials science.
The other possibility is entirely speculative and that is that the Russians feel they need a really big rocket for some reason. It may be that they are looking at something like launching powered hypersonic gliders that will follow a much lower trajectory than an actual ballistic path. This would be heavy, but they've looked at it as a way to get by ABM systems.
It could also be that the big 20 megaton warhead, which requires a huge rocket (and is one of their newer warheads, being developed in 1991) is something that they consider to be a real asset. It would have obvious advantages against hard targets, but in general a 20 megaton bomb is less useful than 10x1 megaton bombs.However, that weapon is described in the Wikipedia arsenal and elsewhere as being optimized for EMP. This might explain why it's so much heavier (9000kg) than the B-41, (a slightly more powerful American equivalent designed back in the '50s).
There is also the possibility that they need scads of mid-sized warheads on each missile to guarantee that if a few missiles escape a first strike they can do terrible damage, even using the treaty limits of 10 warheads per missile 3 missiles = 30 cities. However, I'd think that the RS-24 Yars and the RS-26 Rubez would be more survivable by virtue of their mobility. The "great scud hunt" of the second Gulf war was no cakewalk and was ultimately unsuccessful.
I dunno, it's big, it's scary and it's nuclear...the only thing for certain is war.
War never changes....
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at Sat Jan 31 23:37:18 2015 (ohzj1)
Over the last 3 days there's been a bit of back and forth on the veracity of this story, but as I type this it is looking like there has been an ebola outbreak within the ranks of ISIS. Now this could not happen to a more deserving bunch of scumbags, so the first impulse is to just snark.
However, this is actually a dreadful development if true.
For one thing, you will be shocked...SHOCKED to learn that ISIS, is not responding to the situation with the rational calm of a civilized military (Eisenhower with the Spanish Flu) or religious (Samaritan's Purse against Ebola) organization. Instead, they are killing the doctors who won't go near ebola patients without protective gear....so...they are killing the sane competent doctors. One of the reasons ebola spread so fast in East Africa was due to the fact the area had been ravaged by a recent war. The areas under ISIS influence are being ravaged by an ongoing one, and ISIS is being particularly efficient at spreading blood around in ways not seen since Tamerlane.
But it gets worse:
The disease will go wherever the blood is spattered and that means into the local population which means it could easily get into the waves of refugees....
...or pilgrims.
...and that has the potential to be an unspeakable calamity.
The hadj is not until September this year, but Mecca is open to pilgrims year round. (Medina too)
The Saudis have astutely banned entry to Mecca for people from Ebola affected areas. However, ISIS is not known for respecting border restrictions. Furthermore, one of the more likely ways ebola could have reached Mesopotamia is via jihadis traveling from Africa. If these people were willing to travel all the way from West Africa to fight in a war, little will stop them from making the much shorter hop to a place their faith requires them to visit before they die.
Fortunately ebola victims tend not to be terribly mobile while contagious, but given that they tend to become quite messily contagious it's easy to see where this could get out.
The doctors of East Africa are not incompetent, yet a huge number of them have died even after getting proper equipment. Samaritan's Purse and Medicines Sans Frontiers have highly trained and well equipped people yet they have both had their people infected and despite heroic efforts the disease is still ravaging the area. ISIS is ill equipped, untrained and stark raving mad.
The question of how it got there is troubling as well. While the most likely vector was jihadis traveling from the infected area it is conceivable that given their megalomanic outlook ISIS was trying to weaponize the bug. Ebola is a poor bioweapon (though its terror potential is considerable) and the chances of ISIS being able to successfully transport and deploy the thing is quite remote. However given that they are stark raving nutters the chance that they might try and fail spectacularly has always been much higher.
While there have been rather more spectacular incidents involving Russian poking of NATO and nearby countries in recent months, this would seem to be one of the more worrying. If the Russian subs are are able to elude detection in the Irish Sea and Gulf of Mexico, then there may be a bit of a problem with our and our allies anti-submarine measures that warrants some attention.
It appears that the Treasury Department is equipping its bank inspectors with survival kits.
The survival kits must come in a fanny-pack or backpack that can fit all of the items, including a 33-piece personal first aid kit with "decongestant tablets,†a variety of bandages, and medicines.
The kits must also include a "reusable solar blanket†52 by 84 inches long, a 2,400-calorie food bar, "50 water purification tablets,†a "dust mask,†"one-size fits all poncho with hood,†a rechargeable lantern with built-in radio, and an "Air-Aid emergency mask†for protection against airborne viruses.
They are also being delivered to what is described as "every major bank".
"This is extremely dangerous, with tensions as high as they are now. We may not live through these days:.....
Well that's encouraging.
As a response to the continuing violations of the INF treaty by Russia, the US is considering redeploying the old Gryphon nuclear missiles to Europe. The Gryphon was just the USAF's name for the Tomahawk launched from a truck rather than a ship (it also had a different nuclear warhead). Thus, although all of the Gryphon's were destroyed in accordance with the INF treaty (save for a few in museums) fitting some Tomahawks with the W-80s still in the active stockpile would be a quick, easy response in kind.
Deploying nuclear missiles to Europe would cause some concern, but might not actually be particularly destabilizing. The Gryphon is useless against moving targets and, in any event, anything it could hit could be hit my other US, UK, or French nukes. It would seem that such a deployment ought to be less of a concern than the 70 to 90 B-61 bombs we still store under joint control with Turkey.
"Woah.Wait. Back up! Please clarify that last bit."
Yes. The Turkey that's being run by that fellow Ergodan still has joint custody of over 50 US nukes.
It's unclear why anybody thinks that this is a good idea.
1
The clock is ticking for Putin; if things continue as they are, he's going to be defeated by a coalition of Alberta, North Dakota, and Western Australia.
I don't know how this is going to play out. He's not crazy, but he's playing a zero-sum game, and that is dangerous in itself.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Fri Dec 12 09:47:43 2014 (PiXy!)
2
OPEC is doing a better job of hurting Putin than Obama is.
Posted by: Mauser at Fri Dec 12 16:42:37 2014 (TJ7ih)
3
Oh, absolutely. Self-serving as the Saudis' moves are, they certainly hurt Putin's expansionist goals, where Obama has done, at best, nothing at all.
I really wish the best for the Russian people; they have been poorly served by their leaders for so much of their history.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Fri Dec 12 20:34:58 2014 (PiXy!)
Not that I'm not appalled, but when everyone is looking at only one thing, it is often prudent to look around.
There may only be one story tonight, but there are other things that might be worth paying attention to.
First, some good news on the Ebola front, where it seems that the rate of new cases in Liberia and Guinea is no longer rising. While not lowering it is the first encouraging news out of those ountries since this calamity began.
The article notes that the survival probability for people outdoors in a 746 to 870 mile radius was zero. "Based on the actual level of China’s one million tons TNT equivalent small nuclear warhead technology, the 12 JL–2 nuclear missiles carried by one JIN nuclear submarine could cause the destruction of five million to 12 million people, forming a very clear deterrent effect.†[/quote]
This seems to imply that the MIRVs in the JL-2 submarine launched ballistic missile have a 1 megaton yield...6-50 times what is reported. This is not beyond the realm of possibility as the old W-56 warhead of the Minuteman had a yield of 1.2 megatons with a weight of 600-680 pounds depending on variant. The JL-2 is broadly comparable in size to the Trident, which can carry up to 10 of the heavier (but much less destructive) W-88 warheads. The difference in 'splody to weight ratio between America's 60's era warheads and the ones developed in the 80's may have to do with a decision to make the bombs as "clean" as possible to reduce global fallout. This seems to involve using a lead as opposed to enriched uranium casing in the bomb. The latter can double or even triple yield at the cost of a much greater amount of radioactive fallout (at least that is the impression given by open source info on the subject). If China is going all in for maximum yield, maximum fallout, their weapons would be more destructive than the US, UK and French weapons by 2-3 times for a given weight. This is probably less important than the contamination of the target country that is implied.
1
Every time Western journos fall over backwards to report on Kasparov's pronouncements, I just have to ask what that noxious gasbag did exactly to make it happen. He has zero credibility. I would rather ask what Navalnyi says, crazy as he is. At least his opposition to Putin appears to be motivated by a genuine concern for freedoms in the country rather than crass opportunism and sucking money of gullible westerners and their NGOs.
Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at Fri Nov 21 01:07:35 2014 (RqRa5)
2
Pete, Kasparov emerged from Cold War U.S.S.R. during a period in which Western journalists were completely given over to the idea that anything from the Soviet Union was superior than anything from the U.S. A lot of that sentiment still carries on. In the 80's, the Soviet Union was more technologically advanced than the U.S., according to the media. Post-collapse, the lack of technological superiority was then better than the U.S's reliance on technology...which is a major reason why the press was so heavily invested in the Deep Blue chess matches. Kasparov *had* to be better than the machine, not for humanism, but because the machine was American.
That's my take, anyway.
Posted by: Ben at Fri Nov 21 16:36:34 2014 (S4UJw)
3
His chess prowess is quite good, for a human. I was just curious how he managed a transition to a respected politician.
Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at Fri Nov 21 18:53:53 2014 (RqRa5)
First off, one of the 'Brickmuppet's Crack Team of Science Babes' has some thoughts on science reportage....
Of course the 'Science Babes' are just the imaginary braniac waifus of a lonely male blogger who has a sick fetish for smart girls, so it is likely that their supposed views on such microagressions are no different than any member of the macho women haters club....
The Russians, always eager to remind us that we are loved, have decided to regularly send nuclear capable bombers to patrol the Gulf of Mexico.
In unrelated news PRAVDA is running the headline Russia prepares nuclear surprise for NATO. It should be noted that the use of the words "nuclear" and "surprise" next to each other is generally frowned upon. However, there are always translation issues and the Muscovites probably have a different style guide. In any event, given the relative parity in acknowledged warheads the Russians are unlikely to do anything really stupid unless they think our deterrent is seriously unreliable for some reason.
"If you talk about it openly, you cross the line and unnecessarily antagonize," Greenert said at a forum in Newport, Rhode Island. "You probably have a sense about how much we trade with that country. It's astounding. "
In all seriousness the old Golf class boat is almost certainly not a cause for concern so it should not affect ones real-estate purchases in any way. However there are all sorts of other issues that might persuade one to overcome ones dread of dealing with a condo association in order to move into more secure environs. (Like they say....)
While looking for info on the Ukranian situation I blundered into this,
It's an interesting post on penetration tests that the Soviets did matching their 14.5mm anti-tank rifles against captured German tanks.
First is a "heavy tank". I have no idea what it is, aside from that it's German. Here are the results with a 14.5 mm AT rifle:
Lower front plate (45 mm at 10 degrees): does not penetrate
Turret rear (28-30 mm at 10 degrees): penetrates at 200 meters, 100 meters at a 30 degree angle
Turret platform side (28-30 mm): penetrates at over 300 meters, 100 meters at a 30 degree angle
Lower hull side (28-30 mm): penetrates at over 400 meters, 100 meters at a 30 degree angle
This is a bit better than I would have thought.
The performance against what are described as medium and light tanks is correspondingly better. I would not want to face these in a Panzer2 or even some modern APCs, and certainly not in a Humvee.
The"rifles" are beasts of course, with the lighter, single shot version weighing nearly 41 pounds and being 79 inches long. I suppose if one put a bayonet on one it would be a serviceable pike. These were obsolescent later in the war, but it is apparent that they were still quite effective weapons if used well. I knew these guns were still in use around the world as antimaterial rifles, but the linked post gives a much greater appreciation of how fearsome they can be.
2
Well...Yeah.
Bur for irregular warfare they can still be used to some effect, and are cheaper to maintain and feed.
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at Wed Oct 29 20:17:24 2014 (DnAJl)
3
The 14.5mm round is still in common use in vehicle machine gun KPV(T).
Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at Wed Oct 29 22:38:19 2014 (RqRa5)
4
I don't know that I'd want to take the old MN 91/30 out against a tank, even if it is theoretically possible to penetrate the rear turret armor. "Don't shoot it, you'll just make it mad!"
Give me a top-attack-profile guided missile any day. Preferably one with fire-and-forget performance. Pop up, pop off the shot, hit the dirt until the booms stop...
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at Thu Oct 30 02:05:32 2014 (ZeBdf)
5
Similar anti-materiel rifles are still being made, in that caliber and 20 mm. The main one that comes to mind is the Denel NTW-20. It is a beast.
Posted by: Mauser at Thu Oct 30 05:33:26 2014 (TJ7ih)
6
The Barrett Long Rifle has a similar capability. (It fires .50 BMG.) And it's in active use by American snipers.
While all eyes are on the Ebola situation, one should keep in mind that as things stand now, Ebola is not at all likely to infect and kill you.
"But...but..."
So cheer up.
There are other things to worry about....
NATO countries have been responding to incursions by Russian military assets almost daily. Now the Russians are sending their bombers in groups of 8. Note that a Tu-95-MS (Bear) bomber can carry 16 KH-55 (Kent) nuclear tipped cruise missiles.
Math can be unpleasant.
I'm unfamiliar with this site and unsure if it is reads as the Twenty Committee or is looking at foreign policy from a female perspective. However, it does have an interesting overview of Poland's current preparations for hostilities with Russia, which it increasingly views as possible.
...In other words, the agreement’s language lays out a blatant attempt to administratively annex Abkhazia into Russia proper. The Abkhazian separatist "parliament†was given two weeks to discuss the treaty. However, Moscow does not expect any negative reactions from Sukhumi about this agreement (vedomosti.ru, October 13). And indeed, it is difficult to imagine what Tbilisi can do to avert this looming annexation of Abkhazia—a region where thousands of Russian occupation troops are stationed.
...a Chinese attack sub—a so-called hunter-killer, designed to seek out and destroy enemy vessels—slipped through the strait above water and disappeared. It resurfaced near Sri Lanka and then in the Persian Gulf, say people familiar with its movements, before returning through the strait in February—the first known voyage of a Chinese sub to the Indian Ocean.
Iran of course is quite happy to use Chinese purchases get around the arms embargo it's suffering under because of its nuclear weapons program.
That nuclear weapons program seems to have some relationship to what on the surface are two completely unrelated stories
The North Koreans reportedly have developed a miniaturized nuclear warhead light enough to fit on a missile. (The original WSJ piece is here, but behind a paywall). This, of course, is of no use to them without a missile that could deliver it. In no doubt unrelated news, North Korea is building a test rig for a tube launched ballistic missile. This is odd as North Korea has no ballistic missile submarines...aside from the Golf class SSB they bought a few years ago...but using those 40 year old hulls is so far fetched as to be laughable. The tube test could be for a land based missile or some other project, though the Global Security report does mention sightings of a submarine firred out with a launch tube. Meanwhile Iran is also testing a similar type of launch tube, allegedly with help from North Korea. This aparrent technical exchange brings us to the buried lede in the story about the North Koreans small warhead.
Such nuclear warheads would be small enough to fit on a ballistic missile and would be a major improvement to Pyongyang’s weapons technology. Gen. Scaparrotti said he believed North Korea also had developed a launcher that could carry an ICBM with a miniaturized warhead…
Gen. Scaparrotti said North Korea may have gained know-how on warhead-miniaturization technology through its relationships with Iran and Pakistan
Emphasis mine...
Pakistan makes sense, but if Iran does not have a nuke yet, how are they offering advanced technical assistance on nukes?
Which brings us to the Jeffry Goldberg piece in The Atlantic the other day which is notorious for quoting two senior administration officials as referring to Israel's Prime Minister as "Chick*****t". However, there is a much more troubling bit in the tirade by our administration against an ally.
I ran this notion by another senior official who deals with the Israel file regularly. This official agreed that Netanyahu is a "chickenshit†on matters related to the comatose peace process, but added that he’s also a "coward†on the issue of Iran’s nuclear threat. The official said the Obama administration no longer believes that Netanyahu would launch a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to keep the regime in Tehran from building an atomic arsenal. "It’s too late for him to do anything. Two, three years ago, this was a possibility. But ultimately he couldn’t bring himself to pull the trigger. It was a combination of our pressure and his own unwillingness to do anything dramatic. Now it’s too late.â€
Emphasis mine...
So we have an administration official bragging about how they successfully pressured the Israelis not to take out Iran's nuclear program...then ridiculing him for being such a shmuck as to give into their pressure...and gleefully reporting that there is nothing the Israelis can do about Iran's nukes...because "it's too late".
That does not actually induce 'the warm fuzzies'.
What if some of those later, more successful North Korean nuclear tests were joint tests with Iran and Iran has therefore already tested their bomb? Of course there would need to be some evidence of Iranian scientists present at North Korea's nuclear tests for that silly theory to have any merit.
Via Eaglespeak comes this interesting piece on China's current political direction. It's only 8 minutes, I strongly suggest you watch the whole thing.
The most worrying bit is the mention towards the beginning where the guest mentions the current emphasis on an unsavory strain of Howard Zinnesque nationalism that focuses on China's victimhood. That tends to lead to rather dark places. Note though, that there are promising signs as well pointing to less bellicose influences.
The two Koreas shocked everyone on Saturday when a North Korean military delegation led by Hwang Pyong-so, Choe Ryong-hae, and Kim Yang-gon arrived in Incheon, South Korea on an unannounced trip. Although the North Korean leadership structure is highly opaque, Hwang Pyong-so is widely believed to be the second highest ranking official after only Kim Jong-un.
It's unclear if this is a sign of a major change (for good or ill) or if it is meant to reassure the ROK government that the status quo is unchanged, but it certainly bears watching.
Posted by: Wonderduck at Wed Oct 1 19:21:40 2014 (BCjxQ)
4
A quick Wikipedia check showed that the dimensions (e.g. displacement, width, draft, propulsion power) of this "destroyer" are within spitting distance of the USS Intrepid (CV-11).
Posted by: Peter the Not-so-Great at Wed Oct 1 19:49:06 2014 (2eP1J)
While the world focuses on the current bombing campaign and the fact the the POTUS doesn't know that if your hands are full, you don't salute, there is news from the continent of Asia that as of this writing is getting little coverage in the US press. It is eliciting some interest in India though:
Xi Jinping tells People’s Liberation Army to be ready to win regional war
There is another factor that might cause China to feel that there is a narrow window of opportunity for action and it again involves India. In 2012 there was a major scandal in India when it was revealed that India's ballistic missiles were unreliable, and India's nuclear deterrent was almost entirely delivered by Jaguars and Mirages which cannot really threaten China. India is modernizing its forces with a new class of missile submarines. These are fitted with four tubes carrying a total 12 SLBMs with a modest 750km range. However, in a few years, these will be swapped out for 4 of the K-4 missiles with a 3000+KM range. India currently has 90-110 warheads, most of which can't reach China. In a decade or less, if present trends continue, they will have a credible second strike capability with the ability to do China serious harm.
Despite some nontrivial internal issues, China is in ascendance and has become a major world power, but its chance to completely secure it's position is threatened by two developing nations poised to experience growth comparable to what China achieved over the last 30 years. This will happen just as China hits a 20-30 year demographic arrestor switch on it's growth. Chinese leaders may perceive a narrow opportunity to become THE power, as China was for most of it's history, but that opportunity (if it exists at all) is a fleeting one and it will soon be surrounded by new major powers.
I said poweRs.
Because India is not the only country in the area that is ascendant.
100 years ago this year, Germany had become alarmed at Russia's rapid industrial and military progress. They decided that they needed to nip that in the bud before Russia fully modernized and became a serious threat. Certain members of the German general staff decided to take a pro-active approach. That decision did not end well.
One factor has not been mentioned, and that is the USA. Well, there is another opportunity that will likely have a limited duration. The current astonishing display of foreign policy fecklessness is unlikely to continue to anything like the same degree past January 2017, regardless of who succeeds the current resident of the white house. In the intervening time however, it is quite possible that the USA has been largely discounted as a factor in the Politburo's risk assessment.
With regard to the terrifying risks involved in seriously poking India, we should not be limited to looking at the problem throufgh our eyes and weighing the costs with our value system. We look at the term "limited nuclear exchange" and see an oxymoron. However, it should be remembered that Xi Jinping is an admirer of Mao, who led 1 successful war against India and fought a guerilla war against Japan. However, Mao killed far more of his own people than Japanese or Indians, and he did it in the name of national greatness. The notion that the Chinese leadership is willing to take a gamble of this sort when the potential payoffs are so high should not be dismissed out of hand. They have 4000 years of history that tell them that China's proper place is as the Middle Kingdom..the center of the world. More disturbingly, with over a billion people....the way they may look at it ...they have spares.
UPDATE: With regard to the border dispute, it appears that the crisis, is, at least for now, winding down.
1
India just put a probe in orbit around Mars, so their rocket and guidance technology is clearly up to snuff now, and it's just a question of deployment. Which has got to have China's totalitarian leadership feeling twitchy. Never mind all the other reasons they have to feel twitchy just from trying to hold down their own populace.
India is a chaotic mess compared to China, but its people have far more freedom, so it provides a good and much-needed counterbalance.
And the fecklessness of the present US administration cannot be overstated. With all that's going on in the world, Obama finds it a priority to hector the Chinese leadership on CO2 emissions. Even as someone who agrees that global warming is a real problem, this seems ill-considered.
2
Well, they just test fired an SLBM that works too which is a pretty challenging achievement. Regards the Mars shot, note that their space rockets (hand built for each shot, fueled on the pad) aren't the same as the IRBMs which are solids that sit in tubes for years on end.
Still, in a few years they'll have a very credible deterrent.
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at Wed Sep 24 21:16:11 2014 (DnAJl)
3
PSLV has 2 solid stages, FYI. It's actually one of most franken-rockets in the world. It has a solid core with liquid boosters on the 1st stage. The core burns out before the boosters and flies as a ballast until the whole stage separates. Not sure if laugh or cry about that.
As far the "Freedom" that Pixy mentioned, so far it only resulted in more socialism. While Chinese are building wealth, Indians put a 100% tax on "luxuries" (such as semi-decent cars). That is not a recipy for economic might, and thus a military power.
Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at Wed Sep 24 21:39:50 2014 (RqRa5)
4
Pete, you're right. What they've chosen to do with their freedom has often been counter-productive. Still...
5
Well, Frankenrocket got to Mars, so there's that.
Actually, Frankenrocket got to Mars is a great title for something.
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at Wed Sep 24 22:02:36 2014 (DnAJl)
6
By the way, the 1962 debacle provided for some interesting reading. The order of forces involved on both sides was about the same scale as currently involved in the war in Ukraine, or perhaps 1.5 to 2x larger. Same magnitude, anyway. They used less heavy weapons, but fought in very challenging conditions, where basic equipment (such as clothing) and things like hot food became significant factors. You aren't much of a soldier if your frosted feet have to be amputated, you know. Hopefuly Indians drew lessons other than working on nukes.
Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at Thu Sep 25 12:22:52 2014 (RqRa5)
Give Us Your Tired, Your Poor, Your......Nuclear Missiles
It appears that if Scotland goes all independent tomorrow they have declared that they will be a nuclear free zone. The UK's nuclear deterrent is mainly concentrated in their ballistic missile submarines...which are based in Scotland. Some accommodation can likely be made but this would give the Scots a huge leverage over the UK England's nukes.
The result of this is that the English, who weren't expecting this voter to go anywhere suddenly find themselves scrambling for options. Since the new base in England or Wales will take a decade to build, the plan they came up with last week is to homeport their nuclear submarines in the US in the interim. Assuming the Scots vote for independence and Congress does not balk at the proposal, I'm guessing the English boats would be in Kings Bay, Georgia, which is the only US Boomer base on the East Coast.
1
Couldn't they, you know... just keep the base? I mean, hell, we have a military base in Cuba, so we know it can be done.
In fact, that's a pretty good argument when it comes to getting Scotland to assume its share of the debt. "Oh, you don't want the debt? I'm afraid we'll be keeping the port and will continue basing our submarine fleet there..."
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at Wed Sep 17 17:45:31 2014 (zJsIy)
2
I'm bewildered by this myself. Someone in Whitehall seems to have dropped the ball.
I'm wondering if the Labour types that are running the show in Scotland are so hysterically anti-nuke that they are willing to take their third of the debt. Alternatively, there might have been some terms in the agreement on the vote that ties England's hands on the matter.
I'm guessing that the Scots actually voting to leave was just not taken seriously until as late as last week.
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at Wed Sep 17 18:27:11 2014 (DnAJl)
Military bases are legendary for providing local jobs, and I think this is just a threat by the English. "You better not vote for independence, Scots!"
Like as not, if the Scots do divorce the English, they would indeed keep the base, and England would pay Scotland for the privilege.
(The US sends a rent check to Cuba every year. And the Cubans rip it up every year. I doubt an independent Scotland would do the same, however.)
4...they have declared that they will be a nuclear free zone.
Is that declaration limited to nuclear weapons, or does it include nuclear power plants as well? (A quick check of Wikipedia shows that there are two nuclear power plants currently operating in Scotland, supplying half of their electricity; OTOH, public opinion in Scotland is strongly against nuclear power, and the Scottish Parliament voted against construction of any new nuclear power plants back in 2008.)
Posted by: Peter the Not-so-Great at Wed Sep 17 21:23:42 2014 (2eP1J)
5
With attitudes on display, Scotland is going to join PIIGS very quickly and become a true Greece of the North. Just was EU overlords in Brussels wanted.
Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at Thu Sep 18 13:09:42 2014 (RqRa5)
6
The yes vote does seem to be largely based on Trotskyite daydreaming. The no vote is a lot more pragmatic, but it's hard to campaign on "What the fuck? Are you people stupid or something?"
1
The President must be so confused right now. The world keeps not working the way he expects it to.
Posted by: Ben at Mon Sep 15 09:08:41 2014 (DRaH+)
2
The first post about the new liquid ICBM at forums NK dates to 2007. Seems to be going slow and steady, pretty much regardless of Putin. Interestingly, NPOM and Khrunichev were thought as favourites back then, with GRC Makeyev being busy with SLBMs. Well, time waits for no-one. Frankly I was very surprised when NPOM managed to launch Strela! Still, while not entirely dead yet, they are functionally dead. So, Mak it is, then.
Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at Mon Sep 15 14:34:32 2014 (RqRa5)
But... When We Started From Scratch We Did it in Three
This article discusses the state of america's aging nuclear arsenal and points out once again that the United States is no longer are making nuclear pits (the core of atomic weapons) and hasn't since 1989.
I think the article is sightly unfair to Bush (1) in that canceling the deployment of the new generation of weapons that were originally intended to come online in the early 90's was absolutely necessary to calm the Russians down after the collapse of the U.S.S.R.
In any event, there is this damning revelation at the end of the article...
In 1989 the executive branch shut down the nation's only facility to produce plutonium pits — the hearts of nuclear weapons — making us the only nuclear weapons state in the world unable to produce nuclear arms. Since then, executive branch fumbling and congressional denials have combined to prevent replacement of this absolutely essential production facility. If a decision were made today, it would still be 10 to 15 years before pit production could start.
Emphasis mine.
Although the Manhattan Project started in 1939, it was only a fact finding and technology feasibility assessment project until it got seriously spun as a weapons project in early 1942. By late 1944 and early 1945 pit production was a reality and they started out going into a previously unknown field. Thus, one can reasonably assume, given 70 years of experience and the leaps and bounds technology has made since Trinity, that, the tripling of the time necessary to do what was done with 1940s technology in 2014 is due to institutional inertia and bureaucratic asshattery. Most of the Chinese dynasties ended due to the machinations of the eunuchs and other bureaucrats in administrative empire building at the expense of the state, rendering it vulnerable to new developments. The Mandarins in Washington are a Gordian Knot that we really need to cut.
Note that this is specifically talking about plutonium pits. Plutonium is necessary for most modern weapons especially if they are lightweight and compact. However, it is my understanding that Oralloy (a type of highly enriched uranium) can be used to make perfectly effective bombs but they are heavier and less safe to store in the confines of a submarine (due to their higher radioactivity) and in any event not using plutonium would require extensive testing of new bomb designs or the use of old ones ill suited to our current delivery methods.
Plutonium weapons have to be reprocessed periodically. The plutonium builds up impurities which will eventually prevent the weapon from detonating properly.
That's not the case for uranium weapons; the metal there is stable enough to last a long time without reprocessing.