WAR 09-01-2018-to-09-07-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Sorry for the delay folks, the "meat world" strikes again. Been on my phone only since yesterday so I couldn't post "normally" only respond/comment on other posts...HC

(336) 08-11-2018-to-08-17-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...8-17-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(337) 08-18-2018-to-08-24-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...8-24-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(338) 08-25-2018-to-08-31-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...8-31-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

------------------------------

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/view/...an-t-make-taiwan-a-bargaining-chip-with-china

Politics & Policy

Taiwan Is Not a Bargaining Chip With China

Betraying a longtime ally would have disastrous effects in the region and beyond.

by James Stavridis
August 31, 2018, 10:33 AM EDT

I first visited Taiwan in the 1970s as a young officer serving in an American destroyer assigned to the Pacific Fleet. A small, dynamic nation at the northern edge of the strategically crucial South China Sea, the Republic of China (as Taiwan prefers to be known) was locked in a Cold War duel of geopolitics with its vastly larger cousin across the Taiwan Strait, the People’s Republic of China.

I returned to Taiwan this week for meetings with senior officials — President Tsai Ing-wen, Foreign Minister Joseph Wu and the national security adviser, David Lee — and enjoyed seeing the extraordinary progress.

At the time of my first visit, I had my doubts about how long the Taiwanese could hold out against the mainland Chinese. But I came away with a deep respect for the courage, ingenuity and independent spirit of the Republic of China.

Now, five decades along, Taiwan continues to seek a balance between an aggressive posture that could provoke Chinese military action and simply capitulating and taking a Hong Kong-style deal for incorporation with China but retaining some semblance of autonomy. It is an increasingly difficult balance to strike.

Taiwan is a vibrant nation of 23 million people and a GDP of more than half a trillion dollars, edging toward the top 20 economies in the world. The Taiwanese produce advanced electronics, are on the cutting edge of artificial intelligence research, have dynamic maritime and aviation entities, and boast a capable military that is in the process of shifting to an all-volunteer force.

The U.S. continues to support Taiwan diplomatically, although formally adhering to the “One China Policy” demanded by the People’s Republic — meaning that any nation desiring to do business with mainland China cannot have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan. With the recent unfortunate defection of El Salvador, only 17 nations and the Holy See have formal diplomatic relations; although many — including the U.S. — have informal arrangements that are an effective substitute.

Beijing has been taking a wait-and-see approach to the issue of Taiwanese independence. While the Chinese could attempt a military action to force a merger, they would prefer a non-violent outcome. So long as Taiwan does not overtly declare independence, and other major actors (particularly the U.S.) follow the one-China policy, Beijing has been generally content to “let time do the work for them.”

But lately, there are increasing indications that China is less willing to wait: Its military has been operating around the sea and air approaches to the island; it has been putting very direct pressure on the nations that still recognize Taiwan to shift (especially in Latin America and the Caribbean); and it is increasing economic pressure on the Taiwanese. This fits with the more nationalistic style of President Xi Jinping and with Chinese ambitions to control the South China Sea, the northern gateway of which passes directly around the island of Taiwan.

What is the best U.S. strategy for dealing with this contentious issue?

First, the Washington must recognize that support for Taiwan is not a bargaining chip to be put on the table to obtain better outcomes with mainland China. The U.S. has significant disputes with the People’s Republic over trade imbalances, cyber-intrusions, intellectual property theft, North Korean bad behavior, and Beijing’s territorial claims over the South China Sea. It is certainly tempting for the U.S. to use Taiwan as leverage in dealing with those issues, e.g. telling China to modulate its positions favorably for the U.S. in return for lessened U.S. support to the island. When he was president-elect, Donald Trump mused about doing exactly that, and as the trade dispute heats up, that temptation will grow.

That would be a significant mistake.

Taiwan has been a steadfast supporter of the U.S. for decades, and continues to perform as a staunch ally in a very turbulent and vital geopolitical arena. A betrayal of trust would have a ripple effect globally, further degrading U.S. credibility as an ally. It also misreads Beijing’s intent and attitude — China has no interest in a deal involving Taiwan. The claim to the island is the ultimate red line in its foreign policy, and it is especially true that a nationalist government like Xi’s will not be part of a negotiation involving Taiwan’s status.

The Trump administration must come to understand the overarching importance China places on eventually incorporating Taiwan into its governance structure, and display sophistication and strategic patience with the situation.

This means following the approach to Taiwan that has been in place for decades with bipartisan support: helping Taiwan militarily with sensible levels of advanced military sales following the mandate of the Taiwan Relations Act; providing political support internationally, such as helping Taiwan participate in international organizations even though it is not universally recognized as a sovereign state; and encouraging robust economic exchanges between the two nations.

Good examples of this are the recent sale of $1.4 billion in advanced military hardware that was announced in 2017, and allowing high-level official visits between the Taiwan and the U.S. as permitted under the Taiwan Travel Act, which was passed this spring.

The U.S. should also encourage allies, partners and friends in the Indo-Pacific region to engage with Taiwan. Having better economic ties, and perhaps joint military training, between Taiwan and India, Japan and especially the nations around the littoral of the South China Sea would help maintain a balance between the People’s Republic and Taiwan. So long as China sees that Taiwan has robust relations in the region it is unlikely to do anything precipitous that could provoke a military confrontation.

During my recent visit, which was sponsored by both a U.S. and a Taiwanese think tank, I met with many senior officials from the government, military and private sector. The general tone is that Taiwan wants to stay cautious, balanced and sensible in its approach, and is clearly looking for peaceful outcomes. I heard from Taiwanese leaders that they don’t want to fight China, and they value a status quo that provides them the benefits of democracy and free markets. But they are nervous as they see China ratcheting up pressure militarily, diplomatically and economically.

Over time, the choices ahead about the status of Taiwan must be made by the people of Taiwan, without fear or favor in reaction to pressure from across the strait. The Trump administration is so far taking a sensible approach in supporting the island and providing advanced technology for defensive military systems. It must resist the temptation to use Taiwan as a bargaining chip with China.

While undermining Taiwan in that way could provide some short-term relief on knotty problems between the two superpowers, it would be self-defeating over the longer term. Keeping faith with a faithful ally is the right course of action, and offers the most benefit to U.S. objectives in the region and beyond.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
To contact the author of this story:
James Stavridis at jstavridis@bloomberg.net
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm…..

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-...lan-based-on-confederation-with-Jordan-566330

Abbas: Trump offered us peace plan based on confederation with Jordan

"I want a three-party confederation with Jordan and Israel and I am asking Israel to accept such a proposal," Abbas was quoted as saying.

By Tovah Lazaroff, Khaled Abu Toameh September 2, 2018 15:36
4 minute read.

> Cracks emerge in Palestinian Authority's boycott of U.S. peace plan
> Abbas: Palestinians planning ‘fateful and dangerous decisions’

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas speaks during a news conference following the extraordinary meeting of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in Istanbul, Turkey. (photo credit: REUTERS/OSMAN ORSAL)

The United States presented Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas with a peace deal based on a confederation with Jordan, the Israeli left-wing organization Peace Now reported on Sunday.

The group publicized the possibility of a US-led confederation peace plan after it met with the PA leader in Ramallah.

Jordan immediately rejected the idea of a Palestinian-Jordanian confederation, and said the proposal was a non-starter.

Jumana Ghunaimat, spokeswoman for the Jordanian government, said Sunday that her country’s position toward the Palestinian cause remains unchanged and firm, and is based on the two-state solution, with the establishment of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders and east Jerusalem as its capital.

Ghunaimat noted that Jordan’s King Abdullah II has long affirmed there is no alternative to the two-state solution.

No video or audio clip was released from the meeting. All of the information regarding Abbas’s statements on the Trump plan was reported by Peace Now and the two parliamentarians who were present, MKs Mossi Raz (Meretz) and Ksenia Svetlova (Zionist Union).

In the meeting, Abbas referred to a conversation he had with US envoys Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt. The envoys “asked me whether I believed in a confederation with Jordan. I said, ‘yes,’ [but] I want a triangular confederation with Jordan and Israel,” Abbas said. He added rhetorically, “I asked [the envoys] if the Israelis would accept such a proposal.”

The Prime Minister’s Office had no response to a Jerusalem Post query on the matter.

Jason Greenblatt, the president’s chief envoy to the peace process, declined to confirm or deny Abbas’s claims.

”Over the past 19 months we have probed all relevant parties about many ideas and possibilities,” Greenblatt said in a statement.

“The plan, when released, will reflect ideas that we think are realistic, fair and implementable, that will enhance the lives of the Israeli and Palestinian people. We will not discuss any specific ideas or private conversations that may or may not have been had with leaders in the region.”

Abbas told the Israeli delegation that he had met with US President Donald Trump four times, and that during those conversations the American president expressed his support for a vision of two states, but that his concept of the Palestinian one was “a demilitarized state, and that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would be responsible for security.”

The United States is hostile toward the Palestinians and wants to “shut down the peace process,” Abbas said.

He charged that the peace process was frozen because Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had refused to meet with him. The Russians tried twice to bring him and Netanyahu together, but Israel refused, Abbas told the group.

The Japanese, the Dutch and the Belgians also tried and failed, Abbas said, adding “I have a problem [solely] with Netanyahu but not with the Likud.”

Abbas reiterated that the PA security services coordinate daily with Israel’s security establishment, and that he and his people do everything possible to ensure that no Israeli will be harmed.

He added that he also met with the head of the Shin Bet (Israel security agency) on this issue. When it comes to security, Israelis and Palestinians agreed on 99% of the issues, Abbas said.

He ended the meeting with a wish for a good New Year and hoped that with God’s help, this would be the year when peace is reached between Israelis and Palestinians.

PA officials in Ramallah did not comment on the purported confederation idea. idea. However, they said that Abbas told the Peace Now delegation that the Palestinians’ goal was to establish an independent Palestinian state on the 1967 “borders” with east Jerusalem as its capital. Abbas, according to the officials, said that he supported security and stability for Israelis and Palestinians as part of a two-state solution.

Abbas also reportedly told the Peace Now delegation that there have been no contacts between the Palestinians and the US administration since December 2017, when President Trump announced his decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Abbas told the Israelis that a Palestinian state would “promote peace in the world.”

If the Trump Administration is looking at the idea of a confederation, it is not the first time the issue has been raised.

In 2012, Palestinian Authority officials confirmed to The Post that the PA was studying such a possibility.

They added, however, that such a step could only take place after an Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines and the creation of independent Palestinian state within that border.

Earlier this month, Dr. Khalil Shikaki, director of the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah, and Dr. Dahlia Scheindlin from the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research at Tel Aviv University, presented data obtained in June on public opinion with regard to the confederation idea.

They asked respondents about a confederation idea which would include residency rights for Israelis within Palestinian areas and vice versa. Some 68% of Israeli Arabs, 31% of Israeli Jews and 30% of Palestinians said they favored such a plan.

The concept of a confederation, which would mix sovereign statehood with some aspects of shared governance, has been on the table since the aftermath of the 1967 Six Day War.

But Jordan’s decision to disavow any connection to the West Bank and the 1993 Oslo Accords that focused on a two-state resolution to the conflict sidelined initiatives to advance the idea.

Speculation has been high with regard to two-state alternatives under Trump because his team has reportedly been thinking out of the box and straying from details of the classic formula that have defined the two-state resolution for over the last two decades.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm…..

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://nypost.com/2018/09/01/microwaves-are-main-suspect-in-attack-on-us-diplomats-in-cuba/

Microwaves are ‘main suspect’ in attack on US diplomats in Cuba

By Michael Hechtman
September 1, 2018 | 4:23pm | Updated

The American diplomats and family members who mysteriously fell ill while stationed at the US embassy in Havana may have been zapped by microwaves that can cause brain injuries, according to a frightening report Saturday.

Doctors and scientists examined 21 of the more than three dozen people affected at the now-abandoned building, concluding that microwaves are “a main suspect” in their medical conditions, a story in The New York Times says.

“Everybody was relatively skeptical at first,’’ Dr. Douglas H. Smith, the head author of a study of the victims’ ailments, told the newspaper in an interview. “[But] everyone now agrees there’s something there.”

He added the doctors and other scientists who studied the apparent attacks are “increasingly sure’’ the victims sustained brain injuries.

Analysts cite the Frey effect, named after an American scientist who discovered that microwaves can make victims think they’re hearing loud noises like ringing and buzzing — or human voices.

Even deaf people are susceptible.

Allan Frey, 83, told The Times it’s possible microwave strikes — which can harm the brain — were set off by Cubans, possibly those supporting Russia. The goal, he theorized, was sabotaging Havana’s growing ties with Washington.

The embassy was abandoned after the attacks and is now empty.

Members of “Jason,” described by the newspaper as a “secretive group of elite scientists that helps the government assess new threats to national security,” are also looking at microwaves as a possible cause.

The State Department told The Times its own investigation has not yet identified the cause of the health problems.

The United States has explored the idea of turning microwaves into invisible bullets that can disable adversaries. Air Force scientists have tried to beam intelligible words and sentences into the heads of enemies, according to the report. And the Navy has looked at causing “painful discomfort” — possibly even paralyzing whoever the waves were aimed at, the Times added. It is not known such weapons were ever deployed.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/09/0...ead-in-apparent-insider-attack-on-monday.html

US 3 hours ago

US service member in Afghanistan dead in apparent 'insider attack' on Monday

Fox News

A U.S. service member was killed and another was wounded during an apparent "insider attack" in eastern Afghanistan on Monday, according to a statement from U.S. Forces Afghanistan.

“The sacrifice of our service member, who volunteered for a mission to Afghanistan to protect his country, is a tragic loss for all who knew and all who will now never know him,” Resolute Support and U.S. Forces Afghanistan Commanding General Scott Miller said in a statement. “Our duty now is to honor him, care for his family and continue our mission."

The service member who was wounded in the attack is in stable condition, U.S. Forces Afghanistan said. The name of the fallen service member will be released "24 hours after next of kin notification," officials said.

Fox News' Lucas Tomlinson contributed to this report.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...o-as-u-s-halts-military-funding-idUSKCN1LJ14X

World News September 3, 2018 / 4:24 AM / Updated 3 hours ago

Pakistan girds for 'exchanges' with Pompeo as U.S. halts military funding

Asif Shahzad, Kay Johnson
4 Min Read

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan’s new foreign minister said he will “have exchanges” with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo over Washington’s cancellation of a $300 million disbursement for the Pakistani military when he visits Islamabad on Wednesday.

Adopting a tougher line with an ally that U.S. President Donald Trump considers unreliable, the United States halted the disbursement of Coalition Support Funds due to Islamabad’s perceived failure to take decisive action against Afghan Taliban militants operating from Pakistani soil.

The United States has now withheld $800 million from the CSF so far this year.

The latest move comes just as the less-than-one-month-old government of Prime Minister Imran Khan faces a looming balance of payments crisis that could force it to seek a fresh bailout from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), or other lenders.

“On the 5th, the American (secretary of state) Pompeo will be arriving, and we will have a chance to sit down with him. There will be exchanges,” Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi told reporters late on Sunday night.

“We will take our mutual respect for each other into consideration and move forward,” he added.

Qureshi argued that the U.S. was not justified in cutting the $300 million because it was intended to reimburse Pakistan’s military for money spent fighting the Taliban and other militants threatening U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

“It is not aid. It is not assistance, which was suspended. This the money, which we have spent. This is our money. We have spent it,” Qureshi said. “We did it for our betterment, which they had to reimburse.”

Officially allies in fighting terrorism, Pakistan and the United States have a complicated relationship, bound by Washington’s dependence on Pakistan to guarantee a supply route for U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

U.S. officials have repeatedly accused Pakistan of playing a double game, by covertly providing safe havens for Afghan Taliban insurgents and fighters from the Haqqani group, who are waging a 17-year-old war against Afghanistan’s U.S.-backed government.

Pakistan consistently denies providing safe havens for the militants.

In an editorial on Monday, Pakistan’s English-language Dawn newspaper railed against the Trump administration’s decision to halt the disbursement of funds.

“The U.S. has delivered an object lesson in how not to conduct diplomacy,” Pakistan’s English-language Dawn newspaper said in an editorial on Monday.

It went on to speculate whether Pompeo would “try and bully the Pakistani leadership during his visit or if he will be deployed in a more traditional ‘good cop’ diplomatic role.”

Pompeo will be accompanied by top U.S. military officer, General Joseph Dunford, for talks with the Pakistani leadership.

Relations between the new Pakistani government and Washington got off to a rocky start last month when Qureshi publicly disputed that Pompeo had brought up the thorny issue of terrorist havens in a phone call with Prime Minister Khan.

The Pakistani side later downplayed the issue after Washington shared a transcript of the call, Pakistani media reported.

The Trump administration a year ago resolved to take tougher line with Pakistan than previous U.S. administrations.

In his first tweet of 2018, Trump slammed Pakistan, saying the country has rewarded past U.S. aid with “nothing but lies & deceit.” Washington announced plans in January to suspend up to roughly $2 billion in U.S. security assistance to Pakistan.

(This version of the story restores reference to foreign minister in paragraph one.)
Editing by Simon Cameron-Moore
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...country/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.59dfb23c82b0

World Views Analysis

All of Africa is now competing for Chinese money. Except for one country.

By Rick Noack
September 3 at 8:58 AM

As more than 40 African heads of state arrived at the China-Africa Cooperation summit Monday, one figure stood out: $60 billion. That's how much additional funding Chinese President Xi Jinping promised the continent as the two-day summit got underway.

And all of Africa is competing for it — except for one country: Swaziland, an absolute monarchy that has in recent months renamed itself eSwatini.

The tiny kingdom was absent from this week's Africa summit and appears to have no plans of attending anytime soon. It's the last African nation that still recognizes Taiwan as an independent country, much to the dismay of the Chinese leadership in Beijing, which considers Taiwan to be a wayward province.

Swaziland Foreign Minister Mgwagwa Gamedze recently reemphasized the kingdom's commitment to Taiwan, warning China that Beijing “must not play mind games because our relationship with Taiwan is over 50 years so we will not dump them . . . We have no desire to change camps since Taiwan has been good to us.”

China has halfheartedly rejected Swaziland's criticism, with Beijing's Africa envoy, Xu Jinghu, recently saying that “on this issue we won’t exert any pressure. We’ll wait for the time to be right . . . I believe this day will come sooner or later.”

The kingdom is now the only remaining African ally of Taiwan and belongs to an increasingly small pool of supporters worldwide, as China has stepped up international pressure to switch allegiances. When dealing with China and Taiwan, foreign countries have to choose between the two, as Beijing is refusing to establish diplomatic ties with nations that recognize Taiwan's independence.

China has pushed aggressively into Africa over the past 10 years, surpassing the United States in total trade volume in 2009 and funding with loans of more than $86 billion for infrastructure and other projects across the continent between 2000 and 2014 — even before the latest offer in Beijing that would significantly increase annual lending. In many cases, China has tied those investments to political commitments.

Beijing denies using financial aid to persuade nations to cut ties with Taiwan, but the Dominican Republic said in May that it switched allegiances to accept $3.1 billion in loans from China. Burkina Faso followed only days later. And after El Salvador severed ties to Taiwan in August, Taipei said the Central American country had previously asked for an “astronomical sum” in aid. More recently, major U.S. airlines bowed to Chinese demands to list Taiwan as part of China, amid the possibility of Chinese state-sanctioned boycotts.

So, why is the kingdom of Swaziland Taiwan’s last holdout in Africa? There’s mainly one reason: King Mswati III, who has ruled the country as an absolute monarch for more than 32 years and gained a reputation for enriching himself and his allies, even as his population suffers under some of the worst poverty rates in the world. Life expectancy in the kingdom has declined by 12 years over the past two decades. To escape, some Swaziland residents have fled to neighboring South Africa, where they work in mines, of which a growing number are funded by the Chinese.

While Chinese investment in Africa has triggered criticism over fears that Beijing may exploit the continent or woo nations into a “debt trap,” Mswati's critics have wistfully observed how the funding has at least for now resulted in growth and employment elsewhere.

Taiwan may regularly accuse China of using money to purchase loyalty, but to preserve the few international friends it still has, it has similarly invested into local infrastructure projects or established scholarships in Swaziland. Mswati has returned the favor by visiting Taiwan 17 times so far. The Swaziland leader is now able to reach Taipei on a nonstop flight, after he expanded his collection of expensive luxury toys by purchasing a new Airbus A340-400 from Taiwan this summer.

In Swaziland, Taiwan may have found a loyal supporter — at least as long as it's willing to back a leader with a long list of enemies and no interest in flying nonstop to Beijing.

9 Comments
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...hit-afghan-capital/ar-BBMUq6f?ocid=spartanntp

At least 20 dead as twin blasts hit Afghan capital

Abdul Qadir Sediqi
12 mins ago

KABUL, Sept 5 (Reuters) - A suicide attack at a wrestling club in a Shi'ite neighborhood of the Afghan capital Kabul and a second explosion apparently targeting emergency services and journalists killed at least 20 people and wounded 70 on Wednesday, officials said.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attack in Dasht-e-Barchi, home to many members of the mainly Shi'ite Muslim Hazara ethnic minority which has been targeted in the past by Sunni militants of Islamic State.

Last month, dozens of students preparing for a university entrance examination were killed at an educational center in the area.

Kabul police spokesman Hashmat Stanekzai said the second explosion hit as police were helping victims and a number of journalists were at the site.

Pictures showed young men in torn wrestling kit helping the wounded onto vehicles to be taken to hospital.

A reporter and a cameraman from Afghanistan's largest broadcaster, Tolo News, were killed in the second blast and four other local television crew were wounded, according to NAI, a group supporting open media in Afghanistan.

Last April, a suicide bomber apparently targeted journalists covering an attack in central Kabul, killing nine.

Wednesday's attack underlined the danger in Kabul as elections approach next month, as well as the threat facing the Hazaras, a Persian-speaking minority that has long faced discrimination and which has borne the brunt of attacks claimed by Islamic State in Kabul.

The explosion came as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that Washington's former ambassador to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalizad, would be appointed as an adviser to help with efforts to end the conflict.

Hopes of possible peace talks with the Taliban were fueled by a brief ceasefire in June, although intense fighting in the months since has dampened optimism.

In any case, any talks would not include the local affiliate of Islamic State, which has established a brutal reputation and which both the Western-backed government and the Taliban consider an enemy.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...es-with-protesters/ar-BBMUX3N?ocid=spartanntp

Iraq forces open fire during new clashes with protesters

22 mins ago

Iraqi security forces opened fire Wednesday as they clashed with protesters in the southern city of Basra, a day after six people were killed in demonstrations over poor public services.

An AFP journalist reported gunshots and tear gas were fired by security personnel as they faced off with several thousand demonstrators outside the regional government headquarters.

The measures failed to disperse protesters, who responded by hurling Molotov cocktails and letting off fireworks at the security forces.

At least one demonstrator was taken to hospital by ambulance after being hit in the head by a tear gas canister.

Basra and the surrounding province have been the focus of angry demonstrations over government neglect that have rocked Iraq since early July.

Residents are particularly angry over pollution of the local water supply, which has put 20,000 people in hospital.

On Tuesday six demonstrators were killed and more than 20 wounded during the bloodiest day of clashes with security officials, a local official and medics said.

The authorities said that 30 security personnel were also wounded in the violence "by grenades and incendiary objects".

Commander Jamil al-Shammari said an overnight curfew was being imposed and more security personnel deployed in the city.

The United Nations envoy to Iraq had called for "calm" in Basra ahead of Wednesday's clashes and urged the authorities "to avoid using disproportionate, lethal force against the demonstrators".

Representative Jan Kubis also asked the government to "investigate and hold accountable those responsible for the outbreak of violence" and "do its utmost to respond to the people's rightful demands of clean water and electricity supplies".

- 'No real bullets' -
In his weekly press conference in Baghdad on Tuesday, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said he had ordered "no real bullets ... to be fired, in the direction of protesters or in the air".

Shiite leader Moqtada Sadr said in a tweet ahead of the latest clashes that "vandals infiltrated" the protesters.

Iraq is currently in a state of political limbo.

Sadr's political bloc won the largest number of seats in national elections held in May, and he is trying to form a new government with Abadi.

The authorities have pledged to take measures to put an end to the health crisis that has ravaged the oil-rich province of Basra.

Abadi announced in the night that he had met lawmakers from Basra, who are in Baghdad for the parliament's first session since the elections.

He again indicated that water pollution would be addressed, without specifying any measures.

In July, the government announced a multi-billion dollar (euro) emergency plan for southern Iraq, to revive infrastructure and services.

But protesters are wary of promises made by the outgoing government, as negotiations drag on over the formation of the next administration.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.dw.com/en/can-germanys-far-right-afd-be-subjected-to-surveillance/a-45338416

Germany

Can Germany’s far-right AfD be subjected to surveillance?

As politicians call for the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party to be monitored by domestic security authorities, DW looks at the criteria that must be met for this to happen.

Date 03.09.2018
Author Marcel Fürstenau

This past weekend, Thuringia's AfD chief Björn Höcke took part in a march organized by the far-right, anti-Islam group, PEGIDA – an incident that shows "how the AfD and the neo-Nazis cooperate," according to Thomas Oppermann, vice president of the German Bundestag.

Oppermann is just one of the senior politicians echoing calls for the AfD to be subject to surveillance by the country's domestic security agency, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, or BfV.

The BfV's tasks and powers
The BfV is charged with collecting and analyzing information on:

1. Efforts directed against the free democratic basic order or against the existence and the security of the federation or one of its states

2. Intelligence activities carried out on behalf of a foreign power

3. Efforts jeopardizing foreign interests of the Federal Republic of Germany by the use of violence or the preparation thereof

4. Efforts directed against the idea of international understanding, especially against the peaceful coexistence of peoples

For the most part, information is gathered in two ways.

1. By open, generally accessible sources, including newspapers, flyers, programs and public events

2. By the use of intelligence means including the handling of individuals recruited from the extremist scene, covert surveillance, and, if necessary, mail and telephone interception, which is subject to authorization

Bremen, Lower Saxony monitor AfD youth wings
The federal government has so far said that it does not see a case for making the far-right populist party as a whole subject to BfV surveillance – even after recent events in the eastern city of Chemnitz, where it played a part in the unrest and protests that surged against foreigners after two migrants were charged in the fatal stabbing of a German man.

The states of Bremen and Lower Saxony have meanwhile placed the AfD regional youth wings (Youth Alternative, or JA for short) under observation, with Lower Saxony's Interior Minister Boris Pistorius branding the JA an "unconstitutional organization."

An eye on the NPD

The BfV does, however, monitor other groups on the far-right spectrum such as the National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD), as well as The Right and The Third Way. But two failed attempts to have the openly unconstitutional neo-Nazi NPD banned once and for all show the kinds of limitations the agency faces.

The first attempt failed in 2003 due to the many BfV informers at the head of the NPD, and the next attempt failed in 2016 because of a lack of political relevance: the party isn't present in a single German state parliament.

Leftist organizations under surveillance
It's not just right-wing extremist groups that are on the agency's radar, though. For years, the BfV has also been observing "openly extremist structures" on the far-left of the political spectrum, including the Marxist Forum (MF), the Anti-Capitalist Left (AKL) and the Communist Platform (KPF).


DW recommends

Far-right AfD to disband youth groups over police surveillance
Two regional youth wings of the AfD are planning to close after being placed under observation. The nationalists decried the "abuse of power" after authorities cited concerns over extremist ties. (03.09.2018)

Germany's domestic security chief denies advising far-right AfD on how to avoid investigation
Critics say the far-right party exhibits anti-constitutional tendencies. Though intelligence agencies have said there is not enough evidence to prove that, others have called for individual members to be observed. (31.07.2018)

Merkel slams far-right violence in Chemnitz, Seehofer and AfD more muted
Many high-ranking German politicians joined Chancellor Merkel in issuing a blanket condemnation of racism and violence. However, anti-immigration voices in the corridors of power were less vehement. (28.08.2018)

Lessons from Chemnitz: Eastern Germany's right-wing protesters awash in anxiety
The resentments at play over migrants in Germany have reached a dangerous level following the stabbing of a German man. In Chemnitz DW's Jefferson Chase also saw how the far-right protesters are co-opting German history. (02.09.2018)

Germany's right-wing AfD seeks to expel state leader over Holocaust remarks
The leaders of Germany's nationalist AfD have asked that Thuringia state party leader Björn Höcke be removed from his position. Höcke caused a stir for his harsh criticism of Germany's culture of Holocaust remembrance. (13.02.2017)

AfD leaders and their most offensive remarks
Leading members of the right-wing populist Alternative for Germany (AfD) party have often made provocative, if not outright offensive, remarks - targeting refugees or evoking Nazi terminology. (04.06.2018)

Audios and videos on the topic

Far-right groups plan more protests in Chemnitz
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
I can hear the gnashing of teeth from the usual places now...

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://freebeacon.com/national-security/pentagon-plans-deploy-space-based-missiles/

Pentagon Plans to Deploy Space-Based Missiles

Orbiting missile defenses to counter Chinese, Russian hypersonic, ballistic missiles


PentagonGetty Images
BY: Bill Gertz Follow @BillGertz
September 5, 2018 4:57 am

The Pentagon is studying the deployment of space-based missiles and new sensors to counter the growing threat of high-speed missile attacks from China and Russia, senior defense officials said Tuesday.

Michael Griffin, undersecretary of defense for research and engineering, said a network of 1,000 missile interceptors deployed on satellite launchers, could be built for $20 billion—not at a cost of hundreds of billions as critics of space weapons assert.

Griffin, a long-time missile defense expert, said missile threats are increasing and space-based defenses are needed to counter the threats.

China has conducted "dozens" of tests of a new hypersonic missile that is designed to strike the United States, he said, and Russia also is moving ahead rapidly in building maneuvering hypersonic missiles.

"We just can't do what we need to do in missile defense without space," Griffin said during a conference on Capitol Hill.

Current missile defense sensors based on ground and at sea are not designed to detect hypersonic missiles that travel at speeds over 7,000 miles per hour.

Those sensor—radar and other electronic systems—also have limited capabilities against other types of missiles such as intermediate-range ballistic missiles.

Current missile defense interceptors are designed to attack missiles in the middle course of their flight.

"In brief, we do not have systems today that give us globally, comprehensive, persistent, timely, multi-mode awareness of what is going on on earth, everywhere, all the time. We don't have that," said Griffin, who is a key defense leader for Defense Secretary Jim Mattis' drive to produce more lethal and agile military forces.

The commander of U.S. strategic command, Gen. John Hyten, said during a recent conference that U.S. missile defenses will never hit a missile target that cannot be seen coming.

"And the Chinese hypersonic threat is one that in today's world, we cannot see coming until it's too late," Griffin said, adding that he favors deploying a new layer of missile defense sensors in space.

Also, if the United States deploys its own hypersonic strike missiles of its own, "we have to know where the targets are," Griffin said.

Space sensors will be needed to track and strike mobile missiles and launchers, he said.

Disclosure of plans to deploy missiles in space is the first time Pentagon officials have outlined current thinking on military space systems.

The comments come as both China and Russia have sought to use the United Nations to impose limits on U.S. weapons in space through arms control agreements—at the same time both Beijing and Moscow are building space weaponry. The weapons include anti-satellite missiles, lasers, and small satellites that can attack orbiting satellites.

Griffin said the current U.S.-led, rules-based international order remains in place due to American military power projection capabilities, mainly on sea and in the air. And that order is now being threatened by authoritarian states such as China and Russia.

"So it is up to us to defend that. And in order to defend that order we must now go to space … both for the sensory layer and the ability to project power," he said.

Griffin said he was "very, very tired" of critics who say the United States cannot afford to deploy space arms.

The undersecretary, a former NASA administrator, said a rough estimate for deploying space-based interceptors can be calculated on the $20,000 per kilogram is costs to send material into low earth orbit.

Thus a force of 1,000 space-based interceptors each weighing 1,000 kilograms would cost $20 billion, he said.

"We've paid a lot more and gotten a lot less in the Defense Department over the years," Griffin said.

Congress, in last year's defense authorization bill, directed the Pentagon to draw up proposals for space-based missile defenses.

John Rood, undersecretary of defense for policy, said during the conference that his office is working on plans for missile defenses in space, including both sensors and interceptors, noting threats from China and Russia and their hypersonic missiles.

Hypersonic missiles are being developed by both countries, Rood said. "Certainly these are separate programs, separate countries pursuing separate activities but nonetheless we’re concerned about both."

Space-based defenses will provide advantages for dealing with those threats, he said.

"We have been looking at that question and trying to examine what the appropriate capability mix would be," Rood said. "Space-based interceptors and sensors provide persistent, continuous coverage. They can engage missiles launched by any adversary any where on earth."

Griffin, Rood, and Lt. Gen. Sam Greaves, director of the Missile Defense Agency, spoke at a conference sponsored by the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance.

The officials' remarks previewed the Pentagon's forthcoming study called the Missile Defense Review that is expected to be made public in the next few weeks.

Also, if the technology is affordable and effective, space based defenses also will permit so-called "boost-phase" defense—attacking missiles before they are launched, or shortly after launch in the boost phase of flight.

Boost phase defense is "very attractive because it both avoids debris but also thins out the missile threat before mid-course and terminal defenses have to deal with it," he said.

Current mid-course and terminal defenses including the 44 Ground Based Interceptors in Alaska and California, Army THAAD and Patriot missile defenses, and the Navy's Aegis sea-based missile defenses.

Currently, early warning satellites and communications satellites are used to detect missile launches and guide interceptors to destroy enemy missiles.

The Pentagon also sees space-based missile defense as a mission for the new space force that President Trump has announced will be created in the future.

Rood said before the new space force is set up a sixth branch of the armed forces a space command will first be created, along with a space development agency that will assist in developing and deploying forces and weapons.

"Space is an increasing focus at the Defense Department," Rood said. "As directed by the Congress, we're looking very seriously at capabilities that could be employed for space-based missile defenses, whether that be sensors or other capabilities," he said.

Greaves, the Missile Defense Agency director, said rapidly preparing to counter advanced missile threats such as hypersonic weapons is one of three priorities for his agency.

"The threat is coming, we know it is. It's not fantasy," Greaves said. "Those with access to reliable intelligence information have seen and know that threat is demonstrating itself and will be operationalized very soon."

Asked about concerns that China and Russia may oppose the new U.S. military space programs, Griffin dismissed those nations' concerns as irrelevant.

Space-based defense are needed in response to publicized threats from Russia's President Vladimir Putin, who earlier this year bragged of building a multi-thousand-mile hypersonic nuclear strike weapon, and by the dozens of successful Chinese hypersonic strike weapon tests over the past decade.

Also, North Korea is developing long-range nuclear missiles and Iran too is working vigorously to produce long-range missiles, he said.

In the context of those threats, "somewhere well down on my priority list is what other people think," Griffin said. "We just cannot afford to do that."

The United States should not be allowed to be drawn into discussions, he added.

Rood, the undersecretary for policy, said his office has addressed those kinds of questions.

Building a space-based sensor system for missile defense is not provocative, he said. "I don't regard it as a provocative act to observe the missile flights that are potentially threatening to the United States," he said.

Griffin was asked if lasers could be used against advanced missiles and said directed energy does not appear to be a very good option for countering hypersonic missiles.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2018/9/5/arming-ukraine-practicalities-and-implications

Arming Ukraine: Practicalities and Implications

Brendan Chrzanowski
September 5, 2018

America’s recent decision to authorize the sale and delivery of Javelin anti-tank missile systems to Ukraine was shortsighted and dangerous to all parties involved.[1] The provision of the Javelin weapons system, in particular, serves as little more than a symbolic gesture. In the end, the authorization will likely prove a maneuver in optics, not strategy. Furthermore, recent developments suggest the Ukrainian government, in an effort to secure the deal, may have interfered with the ongoing special counsel investigation in the United States.[2]

The following delineates the reasoning behind this conclusion, puts forward some of the stronger arguments in favor of the authorization, and describes why they are misguided. Amid the fraught U.S.-Russia relations of late, it is vital for American policymakers to consider each geopolitical decision with the utmost care, ensuring the best interests of the United States and her allies are always kept in mind.[3] An appropriate policy would include forgoing any further sale of lethal weaponry, replacing it instead with increased funds and non-lethal materiel such as counter-electronic warfare (EW) technology and the deployment of additional troops on a strictly train-and-advise basis.

The conflict in Eastern Ukraine has claimed over 10,000 lives and forced over a million more to flee their homes.[4] Taking these figures into consideration, it is evident that decisive action is necessary; thus far, however, the United States has taken the wrong approach. Arming Ukraine with Javelin anti-tank missiles runs the risk of reigniting what has become a relatively static engagement between the Ukrainian Army and Russian-backed separatists.[5] Skirmishes occur on a daily basis, and casualties continue to accrue, but a sudden injection of Western munitions into the hands of the Ukrainian Army is likely to prompt a disproportionate response from the side of the Russians, a reaction not without historical precedence.[6] Assuming the Russians respond not in kind, but with asymmetric force, where does that leave the United States? Is the United States to perpetually provide bigger and better arms as the process persists in some sort of vicious iteration of Robert Jervis’s spiral model?[7] For now, Russia has far more at stake in this conflict. With his population’s support and at least six more years at the helm, Vladimir Putin can and will broaden his country’s efforts in the region if need be.[8] Even if the United States were committed to meet every response with more firepower, the Russians have the overwhelming advantage of geography. Russia’s shared border with Ukraine, one that is reportedly near-impossible to effectively monitor, enables expedited resupplies.[9] Putin’s relative autonomy in terms of foreign policy decisions also adds to the potential for a rapid response.

Furthermore, it is prudent to consider how Ukrainians may interpret the signaling of receiving lethal arms from America. Inspired by the renewed and augmented support of the Americans, this move could embolden Ukrainians to begin launching assaults, thus producing an avoidable escalation scenario. Many like to frame the conversation as providing so-called defensive weapons rather than offensive, but in reality, there is no logical distinction between the two.[10] The Ukrainians using these weapons to go on an offensive, making the U.S. an indirect accomplice in violating the Minsk Agreement, remains a real possibility and a real concern of those monitoring the situation closely.[11]

From a purely practical standpoint, providing Ukraine with Javelins makes little sense. While the provision of such weapons would certainly generate substantial repercussions due to the symbolism of the action, their usefulness on the battlefield would be virtually imperceptible. In fact, former commander of U.S. Army Europe remarked in 2015 that the Ukrainian Army having Javelin missiles “would not change the situation strategically in a positive way.”[12] Ukraine has no need for Javelin missiles, as it already produces its own comparable varieties of anti-tank weaponry.[13] The Ukrainian Army is well-equipped for situations that require anti-tank capabilities, thus it is redundant to provide them with more. Furthermore, the conflict has largely steered away from tank warfare, further highlighting the superfluity of Javelin sales.[14] The provision of other lethal arms in general is similarly excessive.

Since the outbreak of the conflict, the Ukrainian Army has improved its capabilities in almost every aspect of warfare by orders of magnitude. Ukraine’s current air, land, and sea means are unrecognizable in comparison to those of 2014.[15] If anything, the United States should be increasing support to help Ukraine counter the innovative electronic warfare the Russian-backed separatists are waging in the east.[16] An electronic warfare package would be immensely more advantageous to the effort in Ukraine. The package could include products such as the THOR III, CREW jammer, or MODI II systems, as well as a contingent of U.S. electronic warfare specialists to train Ukrainian soldiers using a strategy akin to the one released by the Pentagon in 2017.[17] This recent Department of Defense approach lays emphasis on the integration of burgeoning electronic warfare capabilities throughout the gamut of military operations, the use of cost-effective technology in lieu of conventional arms, and the coordination of preparedness training for the rigors of conflict in the electromagnetic spectrum.[18]

These systems, among others, could make a genuine difference in an electronic warfare space currently dominated by the Russians.[19] As an added benefit, Ukrainian troops could later be debriefed by their American counterparts on how the technology fared in real-world application against the current leader in electronic warfare tactics, providing valuable insight to be used in future strategic planning. To further assist, the United States could take the advice of a February 2018 Carnegie report, which suggests the problem the Ukrainian Army faces now is not one of hardware, but of structure, and a key component of successful reform is the expansion of Western training efforts.[20]

It is also imperative to acknowledge the likelihood of American-made weapons systems winding up in the hands other than those for whom they were intended. Time and again, U.S.-supplied weapons are either stolen from the anticipated beneficiary or never make it there in the first place. In just the last decade, this happened in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Mexico.[21]

In Ukraine, the worry would be that the Javelins provided by America could make their way into the arms of either some sort of extremist Ukrainian militia such as the Azov Battalion or the very same Russian-backed separatists the weapons were meant to combat.[22] The Ukrainian Army has lost control of countless weapons that have then found their way onto the streets and online marketplaces.[23] In one instance, Ukrainian Army vehicles were taken by separatists in broad daylight and subsequently paraded about.[24] More importantly, non-lethal U.S. military equipment, such as mortar-tracking radar technology given to Ukraine in 2015, was stolen by the separatists not long after delivery.[25] Assuming such a risk with lethal weaponry is needless and should, under present circumstances, be avoided.

The advocates of arming Ukraine cite a number of well-intentioned, yet nebulous and, in some cases, erroneous motives for their position. The primary argument is that the United States must support the independence of a democratic, potential future NATO member.[26] The problem with this particular belief is that the United States is and has been supporting the independence of Ukraine for years.[27] Since the outset of the conflict, the United States has provided over $1.3 billion in monetary assistance, training, and non-lethal materiel such as radar, surveillance, and vehicles.[28] As argued above, there is no practical need for the provision of lethal arms, so the support for Ukrainian independence is, in effect, being realized. Another argument for arming Ukraine is that doing so strengthens NATO; however, one can argue persuasively that Ukraine is doing just fine without American anti-tank missiles.[29]

In the same vein as the strengthening NATO argument, champions for the arming of Ukraine insist that lethal arms from America will enhance European security. European allies of the United States tend to have a different opinion.[30] Representatives of countries located within Europe, such as the former president of France, Francois Hollande; German Chancellor, Angela Merkel; and U.K. national security official, Mark Sedwell, have publicly stated their qualms with a U.S.-provided lethal arms package, echoing the concerns outlined above.[31] Also coming from within Europe, the European Council on Foreign Relations has published objections to the idea.[32] In a broader sense, current French president Emmanuel Macron has recently called for Europe to achieve greater defense autonomy and rely less on the United States. In his remarks, he suggested a move towards security cooperation with the Russian Federation if the situation in Donbas deescalates.[33]

ARMING UKRAINE IS SYMBOLICALLY MORAL, BUT CHANCES AN INCREASE IN HOSTILITIES THAT COULD DEVOLVE INTO A TIT-FOR-TAT PROXY WAR, OR WORSE.
There is no rational basis for providing Ukraine with Javelin missile systems, or any other lethal weaponry. Such a move has no positive effect for the Ukrainians on the battlefield. Instead, the United States is undertaking several wholly preventable risks with the prospect of realizing zero strategic ends. The Ukrainian armed forces are capable of sustaining their mission domestically. Arming Ukraine is symbolically moral, but chances an increase in hostilities that could devolve into a tit-for-tat proxy war, or worse.

An entirely new U.S. policy towards Ukraine is unnecessary. Rather, the existing policy of supporting Ukraine is in need of amending, which can be achieved by a collaborative approach on the part of Congress and the executive branch. A three-pronged strategy is the best means of modifying the current U.S. strategy.

First and foremost, the U.S. must transition from the provision of lethal means, to non-lethal aid paired with an advisory presence focused on countering Russian electronic warfare capabilities. Next, in lieu of any further weapons deals, Congress should author and pass a bill that allocates increased funds to be used in providing Ukraine with non-lethal materiel, surveillance drones, and, most importantly, counter-electronic warfare technology. Finally, Congress should petition the president to authorize not only the aforementioned equipment-provision bill, but also the deployment of additional troops, with a non-combat mandate, to assist the Ukrainian military with training and structural reforms.

Brendan Chrzanowski is a Navy veteran and a student in the NYU Global Affairs graduate program.

NOTES:
[1] Olearchyk, R. (2018, March 2). US approves sale of Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine. Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/content/841b0ee4-1dfc-11e8-aaca-4574d7dabfb6; Miller, C. (2018, May 01). U.S. Confirms Delivery Of Javelin Antitank Missiles To Ukraine. Retrieved from https://www.rferl.org/a/javelin-missile-delivery-ukraine-us-confirmed/29200588.html

[2] Kramer, A. E. (2018, May 02). Ukraine, Seeking U.S. Missiles, Halted Cooperation With Mueller Investigation. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/02/world/europe/ukraine-mueller-manafort-missiles.html

[3] Isachenkov | AP, N. V. (2018, April 11). US, Russia trade rhetoric, edge toward showdown over Syria. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...d2e19b79966_story.html?utm_term=.b22472b1dde0

[4] UN. (2017, June 13). Conflict in Ukraine enters its fourth year with no end in sight – UN report. Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=21730&LangID=E; Eckel, M. (2017, December 20). U.S. Envoy Says 2017 Deadliest Year In Ukraine Conflict, Warns Of Spiking Violence. Retrieved April, from https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-russia-volker-2017-deadliest-year-spiking-violence/28927525.html

[5] Raphelson, S. (2018, January 10). 'Simmering Conflict' In Eastern Ukraine Remains At An Impasse. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2018/01/10/5771...ict-in-eastern-ukraine-remains-at-an-impasse; CFR. (2018, March 12). Global Conflict Tracker- Ukraine. Retrieved April 09, 2018, from https://www.cfr.org/interactives/global-conflict-tracker#!/conflict/conflict-in-ukraine

[6] Menon, R., & Ruger, W. (2017, October 11). The Trouble With Arming Ukraine. Retrieved from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2017-10-11/trouble-arming-ukraine

[7] Jervis, R. (1978). Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma. World Politics, 30(2), 167-214. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2009958

[8] Morozov, V. (2017, May 1). Russian Society and the Conflict in Ukraine: Masses, Elites and Identity. Retrieved from https://www.e-ir.info/2017/05/01/ru...nflict-in-ukraine-masses-elites-and-identity; Mearsheimer, J. J. (2015, February 18). Opinion | Don't Arm Ukraine. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/opinion/dont-arm-ukraine.html; Troianovski, A. (2018, March 19). Putin's reelection takes him one step closer to becoming Russian leader for life. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...b51e028b845_story.html?utm_term=.a1a1e2c1008b

[9] UAWire. (2016, July 20). OSCE: Ukraine doesn't control 408 km of its border with Russia. Retrieved from http://www.uawire.org/news/osce-408-km-of-the-ukrainian-russian-border-is-beyond-ukraine-s-control

[10] Pifer, S., & Talbott, S. (2016, July 28). Time to Give Ukraine Defensive Weapons. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/time-to-give-ukraine-defensive-weapons; Kosinski, M., & Browne, R. (2017, December 23). US to provide anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, official says. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/22/politics/us-ukraine-anti-tank-weapons-russia/index.html

[11] BBC. (2015, February 12). Ukraine ceasefire: New Minsk agreement key points. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31436513; Milakovsky, B., Raitasalo, J., Ayoob, M., Smith, J. M., & DeBevoise, N. (2017, August 28). The Real Danger of Sending U.S. Arms to Ukraine. Retrieved from http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-real-danger-sending-us-arms-ukraine-22088?page=2

[12] Babb, C. (2015, December 10). Gen. Ben Hodges on Russia, Islamic State, and Women in Combat. Retrieved from https://www.voanews.com/a/hodges-talks-to-voa-russia-islamic-state-women-combat/3096724.html

[13] Army Technology. (n.d.). Corsar Anti-Tank Missile System. Retrieved April 09, 2018, from https://www.army-technology.com/projects/corsar-anti-tank-missile-system; Army Recognition. (n.d.). Stugna Stugna-P anti-tank guided missile technical data sheet. Retrieved April 09, 2018, from https://www.armyrecognition.com/ukr..._specifications_description_information.html; Malyasov, D. (2015, October 04). The new Ukrainian anti-tank guided missile system based on CF MOTO TRACKER. Retrieved from http://defence-blog.com/news/the-ne...-missile-system-based-on-cf-moto-tracker.html

[14] Roblin, S., Raitasalo, J., Ayoob, M., Smith, J. M., & DeBevoise, N. (2018, January 6). Ukraine Is Building Its Own Tank-Killer Missiles to Fight Russia. Retrieved from http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...ame=true&height=900&width=600&caption=Ukraine

[15] Bielieskov, M., Rubel, R., Goldstein, L. J., & Mohib, H. (2018, February 27). Ukraine's Military Is Back. Retrieved from http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/ukraines-military-back-24674

[16] Ripley, T. (2017, September 19). Russia steps up electronic warfare campaign in eastern Ukraine. Retrieved from http://www.janes.com/article/74206/russia-steps-up-electronic-warfare-campaign-in-eastern-ukraine

[17] USMC. (2010). THOR III System. Retrieved from http://www.marcorsyscom.marines.mil/Portals/105/PMMC3/MC3PDF/3 1 THOR III CREW FACT SHEET.pdf; USMC. (2010). CREW Jammer. Retrieved from http://www.marcorsyscom.marines.mil/Portals/105/PMMC3/MC3PDF/2 1 CVRJ CREW FACT SHEET.pdf; McCaneyNov, K. (2015, November 2). Marines award $73.2M deal for backpack electronic warfare devices. Retrieved from https://defensesystems.com/articles/2015/11/02/marines-ew-backpack-sierra-nevada-contract.aspx; Pomerleau, M. (2017, December 08). Marines: New electronic warfare tech can't lead to 40 lb packs. Retrieved from https://www.c4isrnet.com/electronic...ronic-warfare-tech-cant-lead-to-40-lb-packs/;

[18] Osborn, K. (2017, September 6). Reinventing electronic warfare. Retrieved from https://defensesystems.com/articles/2017/09/06/dod-electronic-warfare.aspx

[19] Heininger, C. (2018, February 6). U.S. Army's new electronic warfare capabilities hit the ground in Europe. Retrieved from https://www.army.mil/article/200175...arfare_capabilities_hit_the_ground_in_europe; McLeary, P. (2016, September 23). Russia's Winning the Electronic War. Retrieved from https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/21/russia-winning-the-electronic-war/

[20] Akimenko, V. (2018, February 22). Ukraine's Toughest Fight: The Challenge of Military Reform. Retrieved from https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/...-fight-challenge-of-military-reform-pub-75609

[21] Risen, J., Mazzetti, M., & Schmidt, M. S. (2012, December 05). U.S.-Approved Arms for Libya Rebels Fell Into Jihadis' Hands. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/...-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html?_r=0; MacAskill, E., & Chulov, M. (2014, October 22). Isis apparently takes control of US weapons airdrop intended for Kurds. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/22/isis-us-airdrop-weapons-pentagon; Rogin, J., & Lake, E. (2015, January 08). Iran-Backed Militias Are Getting U.S. Weapons in Iraq. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/view/arti...cked-militias-are-getting-us-weapons-in-iraq; Snow, S. (2017, August 14). Taliban propaganda showcases US weapons and radios as captured war spoils. Retrieved from https://www.militarytimes.com/flash...us-weapons-and-radios-as-captured-war-spoils; Axe, D. (2017, June 03). U.S. Weapons Now in Somali Terrorists' Hands. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/2011/08/u-s-weapons-now-in-somali-terrorists-hands ; Whitlock, C. (2015, March 17). Pentagon loses track of $500 million in weapons, equipment given to Yemen. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...dc9be5a8ff_story.html?utm_term=.de9e56cb36a3; Noel, A. (2016, January 22). The US Government Accidentally Helped Arm El Chapo. Retrieved from https://news.vice.com/article/the-us-government-accidentally-helped-arm-el-chapo

[22] Luhn, A. (2014, August 30). Preparing for War With Ukraine's Fascist Defenders of Freedom. Retrieved from http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/08/30/preparing-for-war-with-ukraines-fascist-defenders-of-freedom/

[23] Mendel, I. (2017, December 24). Taken From Ukraine's War Zone, Grenades Are Used in Crimes, Too. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/24/world/europe/ukraine-grenades-crime.html; Miller, C. (2018, March 28). Ukrainian Police Bust Online Market For Military Equipment. Retrieved from https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-police-bust-online-market-military-equipment/29130630.html

[24] Harding, L., & Luhn, A. (2014, April 16). Pro-Russian separatists seize Ukrainian armoured vehicles. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...separatists-seize-ukrainian-armoured-vehicles

[25] VICE News. (2015, March 27). Should the US Send Lethal Aid to Ukraine? Retrieved from https://youtu.be/EBdtZRmB0n4?t=1m56s

[26] Daalder, I., Flournoy, M., Herbst, J., Lodal, J., Stavridis, J., Wald, C., . . . Talbott, S. (2016, July 29). Preserving Ukraine's Independence, Resisting Russian Aggression: What the United States and NATO Must Do. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/research/...sion-what-the-united-states-and-nato-must-do/

[27] Weisman, J., & Joachim, D. S. (2014, March 27). Congress Approves Aid of $1 Billion for Ukraine. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/world/europe/senate-approves-1-billion-in-aid-for-ukraine.html

[28] Office of the Press Secretary. (2016, June 15). FACT SHEET: U.S. Assistance to Ukraine since February 2014. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.go...ct-sheet-us-assistance-ukraine-february-2014; USAID. (n.d.). U.S. Foreign Aid by Country- Ukraine. Retrieved April 15, 2018, from https://explorer.usaid.gov/cd/UKR?fiscal_year=2014&measure=Obligations; Roblin, S. (2018, March 2). Why Is the Trump Administration Selling Giant Sniper Rifles to Ukraine? Retrieved from https://warisboring.com/why-is-the-trump-administration-selling-giant-sniper-rifles-to-ukraine/

[29] Herbst, J. E. (2017, August 30). Ukraine Needs Arms, Not Cheap Arguments. Retrieved from http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraine-needs-arms-not-cheap-arguments; NATO. (2017, October 3). Ukraine three years on: A basis for optimism. Retrieved from https://www.nato.int/docu/review/20...retary-general-crimea-annexation/EN/index.htm

[30] Tamkin, E., De Luce, D., & Gramer, R. (2017, October 27). Ukraine Expects Trump to Approve Arms Deliveries. Retrieved from https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/26/ukraine-expects-trump-to-approve-arms-deliveries/

[31] UNIAN. (2017, August 01). WSJ: Pentagon offers plan to arm Ukraine. Retrieved from https://www.unian.info/politics/2058994-wsj-pentagon-offers-plan-to-arm-ukraine.html; Aljazeera America. (2015, February 5). Germany, France renew Ukraine peace push as US floats arming Kiev. Retrieved from http://america.aljazeera.com/articl...travel-to-kiev-moscow-to-push-peace-plan.html

[32] Torreblanca, J. I. (2015, February 11). Arming Ukraine is a bad idea. Retrieved from http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_arming_ukraine_is_a_bad_idea423

[33] RFE/RL. (2018, August 28). France Calls On EU To Not Rely On U.S. Defense, Reach Out To Russia. Retrieved from https://www.rferl.org/a/france-says...ilitary-defense-reach-out-russia/29456958.htm
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/deterrence-debate-ignores-the-hard-questions-about-nuclear-war/

Deterrence debate ignores the hard questions about nuclear war

5 Sep 2018|Hugh White

Andrew Davies and Rod Lyon have had an interesting debate here recently about nuclear weapons. Andrew has argued that we need to take the risk of nuclear war more seriously and that we should therefore work much harder to eliminate nuclear weapons. Rod sees the risk of nuclear war as very low, and argues that eliminating nuclear weapons would make the world more dangerous by making major conventional war more likely.

I’d like to triangulate their debate by supporting Andrew’s pessimism over Rod’s optimism about the risk of nuclear war, but offering a rather different view from Andrew’s of what we should do about it.

Rod argues that nuclear war is unlikely, and that nuclear weapons prevent major conventional wars, by extrapolating from the experience of the 73 years since nuclear weapons appeared. There’s something in what he says. It’s plainly true that since 1945 nuclear weapons have not been used, and that there have been no full-scale major-power wars, and it’s very probable that the existence of nuclear forces has helped prevent major wars from breaking out.

The question is how far we can credibly extrapolate from that. My problem with Rod’s analysis is that when he concludes on this basis that nuclear weapons prevent war, his sample size is too small. The most you can say is that they have prevented war so far, but almost all our data comes from one particular historical episode—the Cold War, the only full-scale hegemonic rivalry we’ve seen since 1945.

And as Rod himself says in his response to Andrew, every strategic contest is different and unique. The Cold War certainly was: its progress and outcome reflected the very specific strategic, ideological, geographic, economic, military and internal political characteristics of the rivals and their rivalry, and the skills and experience of those who made the big decisions on both sides.

In those specific circumstances, nuclear weapons appear to have prevented major war. In particular, it seems to me that that was because the circumstances of the Cold War created a situation in which each side was convinced that the other was resolved to fight a nuclear war, despite the catastrophic consequences, in order to prevent any significant shift in the other’s favour. Deterrence worked in the Cold War because both sides believed—or, to be more precise, believed enough—that the other wasn’t bluffing.

I’d share Rod’s optimism that nuclear weapons will keep on keeping the peace for as long as that is true. But how sure can we be that this will be so in future large-scale strategic contests between nuclear powers? And even more urgently, how sure can we be that this is true in the contests we see today?

The risk of nuclear war between, say, the US and China is not that either side will decide that it’s worth fighting one to achieve their strategic goals. The risk is that they will convince themselves that the other side is not willing to fight one to stop them, and they will turn out to be wrong.

How likely is that? How likely is it, for example, that China would come to believe that America would not fight a nuclear war to defend Taiwan? How likely is it that Washington today can display the statecraft required to convince Beijing that it would, or even understand what is required to convince China of its resolve?

I think these likelihoods are very low, in part because of the almost universal assumption in Washington that China could not possibly doubt America’s resolve in Asia. This is dangerously complacent, when the US has done so little to demonstrate that resolve, and provided so many good reasons for Beijing to doubt it. That makes the risk of nuclear war between America and China really quite high.

So what should we do about it? Andrew thinks we should redouble our efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons. I certainly agree that that would be a great thing to do, but it seems a very inadequate response to the risks we face today. After all, there’s no reason for confidence that nuclear weapons will be eliminated anytime soon.

That being so, we should focus on the more modest but more achievable task of trying to reduce the risk that nuclear weapons are used. And how could we do that? There seem to be only two sure ways.

The first would be to establish the clarity of resolve that underpinned successful nuclear deterrence in the Cold War. That’s harder for America than for China, but it wouldn’t be impossible. It must, however, be real, because bluffing is almost bound to fail. That means Americans must first debate and decide whether they really are willing to fight a nuclear war and risk losing cities to save Taiwan. The answer is most probably ‘no’.

The second would be to step back from the strategic contest that is now escalating between Washington and Beijing. Those who share Rod’s confidence that nuclear weapons prevent major war and will therefore never be used in combat aren’t much worried about increasing competition between nuclear powers, because they are sure it won’t lead to war, or that if war comes it won’t become nuclear. They are therefore less uneasy about escalating strategic rivalry, and more inclined to oppose policies that aim to prevent or limit it.

Those who, like me, see a real risk that rivalry between great powers leads to war, and that war between nuclear-armed powers can easily go nuclear, tend to place a higher priority on limiting rivalry, even at the price of making concessions that we would otherwise be very reluctant to make. Because, after all, we have to ask what is so important that we would be willing to fight a nuclear war to avoid it.

That’s a hard question, and it’s understandable that so many people prefer to ignore it in favour of debating the much easier one about whether nuclear weapons should be abolished.

AUTHOR
Hugh White is professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University. Image courtesy of Airman Magazine on Flickr.

RELATED POSTS

In defence of nuclear deterrence

On the eve of destruction? (Part 2)

On the eve of destruction? (Part 1)

If the US nuclear umbrella folds … The choices for Australia

How to negotiate with North Korea
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.realcleardefense.com/ar...t_is_real_the_solution_is_complex_113768.html

The Drone Threat Is Real. The Solution Is Complex.

By Ben Joelson & Sean Horner
September 05, 2018

In August, Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro claimed he was the target of a drone-borne explosive assassination attempt. While some sources assert that the entire episode may have been staged to assist Maduro in consolidating power in distressed Venezuela, the incident highlights the challenges of defending against and mitigating drone threats. The United States has experienced our own less nefarious drone incidents, including one that occurred in 2015 at the White House. Although it garnered less notoriety than the Maduro incident, a drone carrying de-activated grenades, and likely flown by an organized cartel, targeted a police chief in Baja Mexico in June of this year. These incidents bring to the forefront an issue that security professionals and governments have been struggling with since the introduction of inexpensive, and readily available, commercialized unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) or “drones” — how to identify, classify, and defend against one or many hostile drones?

The answer is complicated. Like many past technology solutions, mitigating hostile drones will require collaboration and convergence of public and private expertise, resources and technology. Throughout history, the “cat and mouse game” between adversary and defender has driven many advances in security technology—ranging from Linus Yale’s invention of pin tumbler locks in 1861 to complex electronic countermeasures aimed at defeating improvised explosive devices in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, the drone challenge is unique because it sits at the intersection of three trends: the availability and relatively low cost of commercial drones that are growing increasingly sophisticated; lessons learned from the IED-era about jamming and defeating a range of explosive devices; and a domestic regulatory and legal environment that is still playing catch up. Equally alarming is that the United States Government does not appear to have a widespread solution.

In May 2018, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) introduced a bill, S.2836 – Preventing Emerging Threats Act of 2018, which would in effect provide The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) legal authority to deter, detect, track and take action against unauthorized UAS to protect designated facilities, infrastructure and assets. The bill remains under committee review. Two months later in July, DHS Secretary Kierstjan Nielsen published an op-ed in the Washington Post, outlining how unprepared the United States Government is to deal with a hostile drone threat. Much of this lack of preparedness, especially within the private sector, stems from an antiquated Federal Communications Commission (FCC)blanket ban on all jamming activity domestically in the United States. Not long after Secretary Nielsen’s op-ed Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) introducedH.R. 6401 – Preventing Emerging Threats Acts of 2018, which was referred to The U.S. House of Representative’s Subcommittee on Aviation. While the most recent The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) carves out some exceptions for The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), other agencies, including Secretary Nielsen’s DHS and the DOJ, are largely prohibited from employing drone countermeasures. Even with an amendment to the FCC’s blanket prohibition - which was designed largely to prevent GPS jamming and other RF-spectrum activities that could negatively impact commercial flights - questions remain around the efficacy of existing technology to defeat an airborne drone threat—especially operating at high velocity and altitude.

Current Counter-UAS (C-UAS) technology ranges from kinetic options like the shotgun shells with inside nets, purchased by the U.S. Air Force in 2016 as a stop-gap measure, to directed RF-Jamming technology utilized in a series of handheld options for ground-based defenders. Due to the FCC and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) restrictions, private C-UAS technology companies have focused heavily on developing best-in-class drone detection and classification technology rather than defeat mechanisms. This technology leverages a range of sensors including ground-based radar, acoustic, RF-detection, and static cameras to identify drone incursions in designated airspace. The thought process is simple: you cannot defeat what you cannot see, and while these systems are impressive, they seem to be tailored to detect nuisance drones conducting illicit or harassing surveillance above private property. But how well can these systems detect and defeat a high-speed drone incursion intent on delivering an explosive payload? No matter how impressive C-UAS technology may be, or how effective it could be in protecting critical infrastructure and other high-value targets, many of these technologies cannot be deployed without significant changes to current laws and regulations governing the use of such technology.

Almost all commercially available technology and frankly the technology near-implementation at U.S. military installations require a human in the “kill chain.” There simply is not enough implementation data to entrust an autonomous system with classifying an aerial target and firing ammunition, net or otherwise, to bring it down. Other systems, including shoulder-fired RF-jamming devices, require an operator to visually identify a target before blasting a cone of disruptive RF noise designed to execute a “return to sender” command or force an immediate descent. These systems may work for slow-moving drones that do not present an overt physical threat, such as those flown by a nosy neighbor or backyard journalist, but questions remain around whether a ground operator could reasonably identify a target at 400 ft. of altitude and moving at a high velocity—even with early warning detection from a radar-based system.

So, what does the future of drone denial look like? It is likely that the defense industry will continue to lead the charge when it comes to developing a viable automated - and maybe one day autonomous - solution. The DoD continues to host a once-classified exercise called BLACK DART at Eglin Air Force Base to address this question. And, while some of the solutions tested there are undoubtedly classified, the future of drone denial will likely include directed energy—an area the U.S. Air Force has devoted a significant amount of resources into developing. Specifically, high-powered microwaves (HPM’s) and high-powered lasers (HPL’s), coupled with advanced tracking and classification technology, is likely where drone denial is headed... But these endeavors will be costly and prohibitive for smaller, private C-UAS companies to develop, which will most likely fall to one of the larger aerospace and defense contractors with both the budget and capacity to research, design, test, and evaluate such a system on their own.

Unfortunately, this leaves many U.S. government agencies and private sector organizations, including those who operate power plants, airports, stadiums and other mass gathering venues in the United States, without a perfect solution. Since most of the commercial denial systems are not cleared for use in the United States, and others likely carry the same restrictions as a firearm (e.g., shotgun shells), companies are left to invest in drone detection technology and notification systems that sound the alarm or instruct personnel to shelter in place—certainly less than an ideal solution, especially for defeating an explosive-laden drone. That said, as has been the trend with many other technologies, once the industry identifies a solution, these systems will likely integrate with existing drone detection technologies, making such investments extremely valuable. Perhaps companies can take comfort in knowing other first world governments (including the U.S.) still struggle with drone incursions, as evidenced by Secretary Nielsen’s note. Additional “near-misses” continue to highlight a lack of preparedness, including a 2017 incident when a drone collided with a commercial aircraft in Canada near the Jean Lesage International Airport, or when a drone narrowly missed fans at a San Diego Padres game before crashing in the stadium.

Finally, it is worth noting that while a comprehensive solution from detection to defeat is desirable, certain companies are already carving out specialized capabilities that can one day support an open-architecture ecosystem of drone detection, monitoring, navigation, and mitigation response options. In certain circumstances jamming the drone might make sense, in others, it may be enough to simply close privacy blinds to prevent surveillance or warn spectators to shelter-in-place. With over 100,000 “Remote Pilot Certificates” having been issued by the FAA, and the advent of more regular drone flights using upgraded technology, C-UAS research and development will play a key role in future security system design. Given the range of drone technology currently in use and the myriad of response and mitigation options, it is also is likely that a “system of systems” will be the best option versus one homogenous end-to-end solution. Either way, security stakeholders need to start preparing and thinking about drone threats now or face being overwhelmed by an exploding market in five to ten years.

Ben Joelson and Sean Horner are directors of the Chertoff Group's Strategic Advisory Services, advising clients on physical security risk management.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/4/americas-jihadist-enemies-dont-appear-exhausted-di/

The 'Long War' is not getting shorter

By Clifford D. May - - Tuesday, September 4, 2018
ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Seventeen years ago next week, out of a clear blue sky, Americans were massacred on a scale unprecedented since Pearl Harbor.

The Japanese attack of 1941 led to an intense but relatively brief war. By contrast, the Sept. 11, 2001, attack has led to what some call “The Long War,” a low-intensity conflict with no end in sight.

To say that the 9/11 attacks came out of clear blue sky is true literally but not figuratively. Self-proclaimed jihadists had long been using vehicles packed with ordnance and operated by aspiring martyrs as smart bombs.

That was the modus operandi in Beirut, 1983; New York City, 1993; and against the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen in 2000, to take just a few examples. Precautions should and could have been taken against the use of passenger planes as guided missiles.

But the rising threat posed by belligerent, apocalyptic, revanchist Islamic movements was discounted if not ignored by intelligence agencies, most think tanks, the media and, especially, academia — where new orthodoxies were increasingly being enforced and “politically incorrect” ideas effectively prohibited.

Even after the attacks on New York and Washington, there was strong reluctance to examine the theologically based ideologies of those waging what they called a jihad to re-establish Islamic supremacy in the world.

Instead, as early as Sept. 16, 2001, President George W. Bush spoke of a “war on terrorism,” emphasizing the weapon rather than those wielding it and their aims. He later used the phrase “Global War on Terror,” carrying the suggestion that we were only fighting fear.

In 2013, President Barack Obama declared the war over. Henceforth, “countering violent extremism” was all that was necessary. Soon, Washington was awash with “CVE experts.”

Mr. Obama then announced his “pivot to Asia,” which was really an attempt to retreat from the turbulent Middle East. His boldest move was to seek detente with the Islamic Republic of Iran, the only major nation in the world openly committed to jihad against the United States and the West.

He concluded a deal with Iran’s theocrats, the curiously named Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. It gave implicit consent to their hegemonic ambitions, funded them, and turned a blind eye to their threats against their neighbors, their domestic oppression, and their sponsorship of terrorism in the Middle East, Latin America, Europe and America. The war to which they have been contributing in Syria over the past seven years — with no serious pushback from the United States or Europe — has cost more than a half-million lives.

In exchange for these concessions, Iranian rulers agreed to delay — not end — a nuclear weapons program whose existence they have never publicly acknowledged. President Trump withdrew from the deal. The European Union continues to do what it can to keep it alive.

A grand illusion to which Americans and Europeans are susceptible: War is an aberration, and peace is the normal state of the world, a condition to which all peoples aspire. Even a cursory reading of history shows this to be wishful thinking.

Christians and Muslims fought for almost 800 years in Iberia. The Persian-Roman wars dragged on for more than 700 years. The Byzantine-Ottoman wars: more than 200 years. The notion that modernity has brought us wars of only short duration, or, better yet, that modern diplomacy and the “science” of “conflict resolution” can obviate wars entirely is comforting but entirely unsupported by evidence.

The grim reality is that after 17 years of conflict, we have not decisively defeated al Qaeda or the Taliban. Far from it: al Qaeda franchises proliferate and, according to Thomas Joscelyn, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, “the Taliban’s men contest or control approximately 60 percent of the country — as much ground as at any point since the U.S.-led invasion in late 2001.”

Claims that the Taliban is prepared to begin a “peace process” seem fanciful. Instead, as Mr. Joscelyn writes, the Taliban has indicated only that it “is willing to negotiate the terms of its own victory.”

The Islamic State, which splintered from al Qaeda and is one of many jihadist groups operating in dozens of countries on several continents, is down but hardly out.

The Islamic Republic’s long-term goal remains, as it has for nearly 40 years, “Death to America!” The supreme leader now projects power into Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Gaza and Iraq. He aids those fighting Americans in Afghanistan. He sponsors terrorists with impunity.

The only good news: The imperial overstretch of his corrupt and unpopular regime may be strained beyond its limits by the tough economic measure being imposed by the current American administration.

Nevertheless, our enemies do not appear exhausted, discouraged or underfunded. Do we know them yet or are we still trying to imagine what “drives” people to “violent extremism?” Do we have the stomach to endure The Long War — which, I believe, should be recognized as a multi-front struggle against jihadism? Do we have the patience to develop a winning strategy even if that requires — as it clearly does — much trial and too many errors?

In the days after the 2001 attacks, it was said that a sleeping giant had been awakened. Today, there are many on both the left and the right telling the giant to go back to bed, and pull the covers over his eyes. If that’s where our enemies find us, they’ll know what to do.

• Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a columnist for The Washington Times.

Comments 4

- Part of he reason we have a long war is our political leadership was not interested in winning. Since 1960, it has been about their power, not what was correct. We knew who the players were in 2001. We knew who was supplying the terrorists and the players were all in the Middle East. A true use of American power would have crushed those countries in devastating waves of violence. Instead we fought wars that were targeted against the tiny few and tried to not punish the societies at large which made the terrorists possible. there was no penalty to attack up so the societies have continued to support terror. Until a cost is extracted that makes the larger societies turn on their terror offspring, nothing will end.
Reply
Share
3 Likes

- We need to get out of Afghanistan. The right war but the wrong place and way to fight it. Brush was right to get us in but his insane desire to nation build a "nation" that has never exited was just stupid. We over threw the foreign muslims that attacked us. I hate to say it but the Afghans have proved over and over they just want to go back to the 1st century BC with AK-47's. Now we are cutting off military aid to Pakistan and that is our supply base. We are asking our small number of troops to fight a never ending unwinnable war with an insecure supply line. This is just stupid. I say this as a former Marine Combat veteran of two Marine infantry battalions in Vietnam. You can't ignore geography and history. There is NOTHING worth even one more American dying for in Afghanistan. The money we paying for this is stupid. Semper FI bring the Marines home.
Reply
Share
1 Like

- Most people have no understanding of Afghanistan. I was there long ago before the unending wars started. I left the country in 1978 as the Russians were flying in thousands of "advisers" after the first communist coup. The initial Bush plan was to simply hunt down al Quida and keep the Taliban out. There was little to no effort to create a real central government and out foot print was small, under 30,000 men. We made it clear to the tribal leaders they were free to live as they always did as long as they did not interfere in our blood feud with the terrorists. That was something they understood. It was only later that efforts were made to start building a country. We spent $ billions on infrastructure in the early years to make our operations easier and there was no opposition or effort to stop it in most parts of the country. but things began to change in 2006 with efforts to support a central government. A major part of it was efforts by liberal NGO's to educate women and indoctrinate them with an equal rights ideology. that turn into a spiral of violence. Obama then stepped in a bear trap big time with his "surge" trying to prove he could win the Afghan war. Most people know nothing of the role played by liberal NGO's in Afghanistan.
Reply
Share
2 Likes

- Thanks for the information. I know more about the 17th and 18th century history of Afghanistan then much of the current including a lot of details. My Brother lived in Pakistan for two years and was attached to the Pakistan Army as a USA Officer. What he told me about that country was an eye opener. The corruption was so wide spread there it literally blew his mind. Add the problem of the tribal areas and it is in some ways as much a non country as Afghanistan. That is why they push the anti India crusade so much to have a common enemy to try to rally their people round. Their is little reason for the common people of Pakistan to care about their government it does nothing for them. Too many Westerners seem to think we can change cultures that have stood for 3,000 years in a few decades. We might not like them, or agree with them but the vast majority of them will rally around each other to expel the foreigner if you try to change it.
Reply
Share
1 Like
 
Last edited:

danielboon

TB Fanatic
Liberal Patriot


@LiberPatriot
46m46 minutes ago
More
ALL COUNTRIES WILL STOP IMPORTING IRANIAN CRUDE OIL FROM NOVEMBER, OR ELSE SANCTIONS WILL BE APPLIED - SECRETARY OF STATE POMPEO.
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
EndGameWW3 Retweeted

EndGameWW3


@EndGameShowWW3
40m40 minutes ago
More
Breaking: Russian Defense Ministry recalls several thousand reservists for Vostok 2018 exercise-IFX EndGameWW3


@EndGameShowWW3
37m37 minutes ago
More
VOSTOK 2018 EXERCISE INVOLVES SOME 36,000 TANKS, OVER 1,000 PLANES, HELICOPTERS AND DRONES, 80 SHIPS AND SUPPLY VESSELS - GERASIMOV-IFXEndGameWW3


@EndGameShowWW3
33m33 minutes ago
More
Leave no doubt VOSTOK 2018 is a drill practicing for WW3EndGameWW3


@EndGameShowWW3
31m31 minutes ago
More
MAIN PURPOSE OF VOSTOK 2018 EXERCISE IS TO TEST LEVEL OF COMBAT PREPAREDNESS OF TROOPS - RUSSIAN ARMED FORCES CHIEF OF STAFF GERASIMOV-IFX
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
Putin to visit Vostok-2018 military drills Russian President Vladimir Putin plans to visit the Vostok-2018 (East 2018) strategic drills after the Eastern Economic Forum in Russia’s Far Eastern city of Vladivostok, the Izvestia daily writes on Thursday, citing Putin’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov.

The Vostok-2018 military exercises, which have earned an international status, will be held in Russia on September 11 through September 15. The drills will involve troops from Russia’s Eastern and Central military districts, the Northern Fleet, airborne landing troops, long-haul and military transport aviation. Servicemen from China and Mongolia will join at one of the stages.

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said earlier it will be the biggest training exercise in the past 37 years, with about 300,000 troops and more than 1,000 warplanes, helicopters and drones taking part.http://ednews.net/en/news/politics/...tok-2018-military-drills#.W5FNW4mWCxY.twitter
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
And the second shoe hits the floor regarding Pakistan...

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...defense-technology-pact-with-india/ar-BBMUgt8

Mattis Says U.S. Ready to Ink Defense Technology Pact With India

Tony Capaccio
1 day ago

(Bloomberg) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said he’s ready to sign a key defense cooperation agreement with India, as tensions remained over threatened American sanctions.

The talks, postponed from earlier, are scheduled for Thursday as the U.S. threatens economic sanctions on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government unless it significantly reduces purchase of oil from Iran and scraps the purchase of an anti-aircraft missile system from Russia. India has so far refused to agree to the demands.

"We are pretty much there already on the American side," Mattis told traveling reporters. "We’ll see where they’re at."

The U.S. hopes to sign the proposed pact that will allow sharing more sensitive defense technologies with India, Mattis said, declining to give more details. The Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement will be a key part of the so-called 2+2 meetings between Mattis, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and their Indian counterparts due Thursday.

Defense Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj will present the Indian side at the talks.

Mattis added that the two sides will likely discuss India’s planned purchase of S-400 anti-aircraft missiles from Russia.

"Freedom means that at times nations don’t agree with each other -- that doesn’t mean we can’t be partners," Mattis said.

--With assistance from Iain Marlow.

To contact the reporter on this story: Tony Capaccio in New Delhi at acapaccio@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Ruth Pollard at rpollard2@bloomberg.net, Unni Krishnan, Daniel Ten Kate
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
Dma9amYXgAAQPAK.jpg
EndGameWW3 Retweeted

NBC News

Verified account

@NBCNews
3h3 hours ago
More
US, UK, France, Germany, Canada leaders issue statement on Salisbury attack:

"We have full confidence in the British assessment that the two suspects were officers from the Russian military intelligence service" and that it was "almost certainly approved at a senior gov't level"
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm….

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2018/09/06/what_comes_after_inf_113774.html

What Comes After INF?

By John Maurer
September 06, 2018

Should the United States withdraw from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty? Colin Gray and Matthew Costlow argue that the time has come for Washington to walk away from the Treaty because it no longer serves to promote American national security.[1] Their arguments about the growing weakness of the current INF regime are sound and command respect.

In their analysis, however, they give insufficient attention to the tangible security benefits that the current INF regime confers on the United States, including its stabilizing effect on U.S.-Russian relations, as well as its important role in promoting enduring American advantages in naval and aerial strike capabilities against the missile challenges of Eurasian land powers like Russia. In minimizing the role that the INF Treaty plays in promoting American military advantages, they fail to provide a roadmap for what the United States ought to do after withdrawing from the Treaty. The logic behind the INF Treaty is sound, even if the current Treaty needs revision. To paraphrase Voltaire, if an INF Treaty didn’t exist, the United States would have to invent one. The time may be approaching to abandon the existing INF framework, but American leaders would do well to recognize both the strengths and weaknesses of that framework and plan their departure to maximize the chances of returning to a more secure, robust INF Treaty in the near future.

Gray and Costlow lay out a succinct and convincing case for the failings of the current INF Treaty. First, Russia is intentionally cheating on the Treaty, developing, testing, and deploying intermediate-range nuclear weapons that are prohibited. Second, Russian cheating derives not from misunderstanding or miscommunication, but rather from the Russian leadership’s determination that intermediate-range missiles are vital to Russian national security, even if this requires violating the INF Treaty. Third, Russian cheating has a direct impact on American national security, through several mechanisms: the capabilities that Russia develops are threatening to the United States and its allies; the political debate surrounding Russian non-compliance undermines American alliance relationships; and by cheating, Russia calls into question international norms concerning arms control compliance more generally. Fourth, the costs to the United States of withdrawing from the Treaty will be manageable, especially since the arms race that the Treaty was meant to curtail is already occurring across Eurasia. The authors conclude by arguing that Washington ought to announce its withdrawal from the Treaty, based on Russian noncompliance and American supreme national interests. Although they hold out some hope that announcing withdrawal might convince the Russians to end their noncompliance, Gray and Costlow insist that the United States should be prepared for the political-military realities of the 21st century in the absence of an INF Treaty.

Gray and Costlow’s case for withdrawal is powerful, but they significantly underrate the Treaty’s contribution to the real political-military security of the United States. As I have recently written, historians and analysts have long misunderstood American Cold War arms control motives.[2] The arms control process is often remembered as an act of cooperation designed to improve the security of both superpowers through mutually beneficial arms limitation. For example, Gray and Costlow describe the INF Treaty as adding “a sense of stability and some transparency to the U.S.-Russian relationship;” they later add that arms control may at times produce “some very modest benefit to international security.” This narrative of mutual cooperation is correct to a point, but it is also incomplete. Even as American leaders cooperated with the Soviet Union on areas of mutual concern, they also sought to develop, ratify, and exploit asymmetries in organizational and technological capabilities to enhance America’s relative power over its Soviet adversary. Arms control negotiations played a key role in enhancing America’s relative power. Arms control was part of a competitive strategy to offset Soviet advantages in weaponry and retain American advantages in the arms race.

The examples of competitive arms control are numerous. The INF Treaty, for example, focused on one particular factor: the United States’ advantages as an offshore maritime power versus the Soviet Union’s advantages as a continental Eurasian power. By the 1970s, the Soviet Union had caught up with and overtaken the United States in the size of its strategic nuclear arsenal. Looking to retain a competitive military advantage over the Soviets, American leaders increasingly turned to a durable nexus of political, economic, organizational, cultural, and technical factors, all of which contributed to substantial American advantages over the Soviet Union in the naval and aerial domains.[3] American bases and alliances provided the platforms from which to project substantial military power over intercontinental distances. American ships and aircrews operated more regularly overseas, and at much higher levels of readiness, generating human and organizational capital that was very difficult to replicate. American superiority in precision manufacturing, electronics, and digital computing all translated into tangible advantages in complex military missions like the suppression of enemy air defenses, antisubmarine warfare, and ultimately precision-attack reconnaissance-strike complexes. Because these capabilities emerged from a hybrid structure of American organizations, culture, and technology, they were advantages that the Soviet Union would struggle to match in direct competition.

Meanwhile, American strategic planners wanted to offset the military advantages that the Soviet Union derived from its authoritarian political system, command economy, geographical position, culture, and technology. While the Soviets could not match the United States in intercontinental power projection, their ability to strike into their immediate Eurasian periphery dwarfed that of the United States, posing a serious threat to American allies. Furthermore, the Soviet Union’s vast geography and massive command economy gave it an unparalleled capacity for deploying large numbers of land-mobile missiles of all ranges.[4]

Faced with these competing advantages, American leaders adopted an “offset” strategy designed to counterbalance Soviet land power through the United States’ military-technological advantages.[5] An important but rarely-discussed component of this strategy was the use of arms control negotiations to try to curtail Soviet advantages while allowing continued competition in areas that played to American strengths. Indeed, as Gray and Costlow note, while the INF Treaty is remembered as a win-win solution in the United States, many Russian commentators view it as an unequal arrangement designed to hem in Russian power – and not without some justification! It is no coincidence that the INF Treaty limits only land-based intermediate-range weapons while allowing the United States to retain its sea- and air-based advantages.[6] By limiting only land-based missiles, the INF Treaty enhanced the comparative advantage of American sea and air power, by limiting the Soviet Union’s advantages in simpler land-based missiles. That this advantage has been enduring is demonstrated by Gray and Costlow’s observation that even absent an INF Treaty, the United States’ natural inclination would be to continue enhancing its superior aerial and naval forces, without the costs and political complexities of deploying a new generation of ground-based weapons.

In fact, the INF Treaty stands as a key example of how arms control negotiations, properly understood, can shape the international security environment in decisive ways. Gray and Costlow suggest that arms control’s use is primarily in ratifying the existing balance of power. But the competition between great powers is multifaceted and often entails opponents that possess asymmetrical military capabilities jockeying for relative advantage.[7] In the rivalry between asymmetrical adversaries, arms control negotiations can play an important role in shaping the competition by exploiting different factors – technological, political, economic, or organizational. Rather than accept the unlimited expansion of Soviet land power, American and allied leaders of the 1970s and 1980s adopted a competitive strategy designed to place specific limits on that power. In the Dual-Track Decision, the United States opted to challenge Soviet land power on a cost-efficient basis, setting the stage for the INF negotiations.[8] As Gray and Costlow note, American leaders across multiple administrations then stuck to this vision of eliminating Soviet intermediate-range weapons through arms control, while retaining American advantages in the aerial and naval domains. By cleverly targeting their adversary’s insecurities, leveraging the United States’ competitive advantages, and playing hard-ball in arms control negotiations, the United States effectively shaped the strategic competition of the 1980s in ways beneficial to American national security. Insofar as it limits Eurasian challengers from developing the intermediate-range missiles necessary to cheaply challenge American power projection, the INF Treaty remains a valuable contribution to American national security.

Once we understand the INF Treaty’s role in promoting American competitive military advantage, two corollaries to Gray and Costlow’s analysis become apparent. First, the INF Treaty regime is in even worse shape than Gray and Costlow suggest. While Russia’s cheating provides the most immediate cause for withdrawing, in fact, the greatest challenge to the INF Treaty is the ever-growing missile arsenal of China, which poses the clearest contemporary threat to American power projection into the Eurasian littoral.[9] Indeed, the ability of China to leverage its growing arsenal of accurate medium- and intermediate-range missiles to undermine American security guarantees only further demonstrates the wisdom (from the American perspective) of an INF Treaty limiting these very types of weapons. China is joined in this effort by several Eurasian militaries, including (but not limited to) India, Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea.[10] Given the reality of this proliferation, Russian criticism of the INF Treaty’s basic obsolescence may be correct. As Gray and Costlow suggest, the United States might be doing the world a favor by making it plain that the current INF Treaty no longer functions in limiting these dangerous weapons.

The second corollary, however, is that some form of INF Treaty is decidedly in the interests of the United States. The United States retains its enduring advantages in complex aerial and naval technologies and its interest in limiting competitors’ access to cheaper land-based alternatives.[11] The question we must ask ourselves is not whether the INF Treaty has failed, but rather how to build a better INF Treaty. As a result, American leaders should take immediate steps to replace the current INF regime with a better one, based not just on Russian compliance, but also on expanding the INF Treaty’s scope to include other non-parties. Because the existing INF Treaty was so successful in promoting American power, the suggestion that American leaders should reform rather than jettison the Treaty is entirely consistent with Gray and Costlow’s recommendation that America approach the 21st century with a “strategy grounded in realism.”

Gray and Costlow are likely still correct that moving in the direction of a new INF regime will involve some dramatic act distancing ourselves from the old one. Once we recognize, however, that the purpose of leaving the INF Treaty would be to create a new framework for INF limitation, we might question the wisdom of abrogating the Treaty entirely, rather than “suspending” American participation in the Treaty while leaving the basic framework intact.[12] Whether the United States abrogates, suspends, or sustains the current INF Treaty, the terms of debate must remain fixed on the larger question of what comes next: namely, how to build a better INF Treaty than the one we currently have.

John D. Maurer is the Henry A. Kissinger Postdoctoral Fellow at International Security Studies and the Jackson Institute for Global Affairs at Yale University. His work draws on the Kissinger Papers at Yale to examine how academic ideas on the nature and purpose of arms control shaped U.S. arms control policy. He has a Ph.D. in history from Georgetown University.

[1] Colin Gray and Matthew Costlow, “Time to Withdraw from the INF Treaty,” 29 August 2018, https://www.realcleardefense.com/ar...e_to_withdraw_from_the_inf_treaty_113753.html.
[2] John Maurer, “The Forgotten Side of Arms Control: Enhancing U.S. Competitive Advantage, Offsetting Enemy Strengths,” War on the Rocks, 27 June 2018, https://warontherocks.com/2018/06/t...etitive-advantage-offsetting-enemy-strengths/.
[3] Octavian Manea and Andrew May, “The Art of Tailoring Competitive Strategies,” Small Wars Journal, http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/the-art-of-tailoring-competitive-strategies.
[4] Andrew Marshall, “Long-Term Competition with the Soviets: A Framework for Strategic Analysis,” The RAND Corporation, 1972, https://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R862.html.
[5] Edward Keefer, Harold Brown: Offsetting the Soviet Military Challenge, 1977—1981 (Washington, DC: Historical Office, Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2017), https://history.defense.gov/Portals.../OSDSeries_Vol9.pdf?ver=2017-06-13-152737-467.
[6] “Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF Treaty),” US Department of State, https://www.state.gov/t/avc/trty/102360.htm.
[7] Stephen Rosen, “Competitive Strategies: Theoretical Foundations, Limits, and Extensions,” in Competitive Strategies for the 21st Century: Theory, History, and Practice, Thomas Mahnken, ed. (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2012), 12-27.
[8] William Burr, ed., “Thirtieth Anniversary of NATO’s Dual-Track Decision: The Road to the Euromissiles Crisis and the End of the Cold War,” The National Security Archive, 10 December 2009, https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb301/index.htm.
[9] Thomas Shugart, “First Strike: China’s Missile Threat to U.S. Bases in Asia,” Center for New American Security, 28 June 2017, https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/first-strike-chinas-missile-threat-to-u-s-bases-to-asia.
[10] “Missile Proliferation,” The Arms Control Association, https://www.armscontrol.org/subject/19/date.
[11] Lyle Goldstein, “China’s Naval Expansion Is No Threat,” The National Interest, 6 June 2018, https://nationalinterest.org/feature/chinas-naval-expansion-no-threat-26150; “An Interactive Look at the U.S.-China Military Scorecard,” RAND, https://www.rand.org/paf/projects/us-china-scorecard.html.
[12] Amy Woolf, “Russian Compliance with the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty: Background and Issues for Congress,” Congressional Research Service, 25 April 2018, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R43832.pdf#page=37.

Comment
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
Russian Nuclear Bombers Intercepted Near Alaska

BY: Bill Gertz Follow @BillGertz
September 6, 2018 1:30 pm

Two Russian nuclear-capable bombers were intercepted by American F-22 jets near Alaska on Saturday, the Northern Command disclosed.

The bombers were detected flying near the Aleutian Islands, said Michael Kucharek, a spokesman for the Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).

"Two Alaskan-based NORAD F-22 fighters intercepted and visually identified two Tu-95 ‘Bear' long-range bomber aircraft flying in the Alaskan Air Defense Identification Zone, south of the Aleutian Islands," he told the Free Beacon.

Kucharek declined to specify the distance the bombers flew from the west coast of Alaska to protect operational security.

"However the two Russian Tu-95 bomber aircraft were intercepted and monitored by the F-22s until the bombers left the ADIZ along the Aleutian Island chain heading west," he said. "At no time did the Russian bombers enter Canadian or United States sovereign airspace."

A defense official said the Russian bombers were supported by at least one Il-78 Midas refueling tanker jet, an indication the bombers traveled a long distance and required mid-flight refueling.

No other details of the incident were disclosed.

However, defense officials said the latest Russian bomber incursion coincided with large-scale military exercises now underway in the Russian Far East called Vostok-18 and were likely part of the exercises that have been underway since late August.

One official speculated that the bombers were practicing cruise missile strikes on U.S. missile defenses in Alaska.

The bombers are capable of carrying the nuclear-tipped KH-55 long-range cruise missile that has a maximum range of up to 1,841 miles.

The intercept took place near the large phased array radar system called Cobra Dane that monitors Russian missile launches and aircraft flights. The radar is located at Eareckson Air Station on remote Shemya Island, one of the Aleutians located 1,455 miles west of Anchorage.

Cobra Dane would be one of the first targets of a Russian air launched cruise missile strike in the early stages of a conflict.

The bombers also were within cruise missile firing range of the U.S. missile defense base at Fort Greely, Alaska, where long-range Ground-Based Interceptors are deployed as part of strategic missile defenses.

A third possible target for the bombers is the Clear Air Force Station in central Alaska that is home to the AN/FPS-123 Upgraded Early Warning used to detect submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

It was the second time Russian bombers flew close to Alaska this year. In May, two Bear H bombers were intercepted off the coast of Alaska by two F-22s. Until that incident, the last time bombers buzzed the air defense zone near Alaska was April 17.

Russia's Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said in Moscow on Tuesday that the active phase of Vostok-18 will kick off at nine proving grounds and in the Sea of Japan and Bering and Okhotsk seas beginning Sept. 11.

"Preparations for [Vostok-18] included comprehensive snap checks of the central and eastern military districts, the Northern Fleet, the airborne troops and long-range and military transport aircraft," Shoigu stated.

The exercises are designed to test operations at on unfamiliar ground and the performance of combat training.

"Aircraft have been flying maximum range sorties with refueling in flight and practicing landings at tactical airfields," he said. "Naval ships have been performing combat maneuvering and firing practices," Shoigu said.

The exercises are said to be the largest in the history of the Russian Federation.

"Taking part in it will be about 300,000 troops, more than 1,000 planes, helicopters and drones, up to 80 combat and logistic ships and up to 36,000 tanks, armored personnel carriers and other vehicles," Shoigu said, noting the first participation of Chinese military forces.

"Involved in the main scenario at the Tsugol proving ground, the eastern military district, will be a contingent of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army of up to 3,500 officers and men."

NORAD is in charge of aerospace warning and control for Canada and the United States and NORAD monitors all air activity emanating from within and outside North American airspace.

"NORAD maintains constant vigilance in the defense of Canadian and United States airspace 24 hours a day, seven days and week, 365 days a year," Kucharek said.

U.S. intelligence agencies are closely monitoring the war games over concerns they could be used as cover for actual military attacks.

During the Cold War, the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact military alliance drew up war plans that included the use of large-scale military exercises as the beginning point for war against Western Europe.

"Clearly Russia is rehearsing a large-scale war," Stephen Blank, senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council, said of the war games in a recent article in RealClear Defense. https://freebeacon.com/national-security/russian-nuclear-bombers-intercepted-near-alaska-2/
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
Iraq

EndGameWW3
@EndGameShowWW3
BBC News - Basra protests: Iraq government buildings torched in new unrest
Smoke rises from a government building in Basra, Iraq
Violent protests flare in southern Iraq
bbc.co.uk
5:24 PM · Sep 6, 2018
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
EndGameWW3
@EndGameShowWW3
Iraqi protesters set fire to provincial government building - ABC News - (link: https://abcn.ws/2NrdANS) abcn.ws/2NrdANS via
@ABC

Iraqi cleric calls for parliament session on Basra clashes
abcnews.go.com
5:29 PM · Sep 6, 2018
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Well this should go over "well" in Islamabad....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...then-military-ties/ar-BBMY53z?ocid=spartanntp

New York Times

U.S. and India Agree to Strengthen Military Ties

By MARIA ABI-HABIB
8 hrs ago

NEW DELHI — The United States and India signed an agreement Thursday to pave the way for New Delhi to buy advanced American weaponry and to share sensitive military technology, strengthening their military partnership as both powers warily eye the rise of China.

“Today’s fruitful discussion illustrated the value of continued cooperation between the world’s two largest democracies,” said Jim Mattis, the United States defense secretary, at a news conference on Thursday after the agreement was signed. “We will work together for a free and prosperous Indo-Pacific.”

The countries also promised to hold joint land, sea and air military exercises in India next year. In the past, they have held joint exercises outside the country.

But despite the friendly handshakes and flattering remarks exchanged as Mr. Mattis and Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state, met with their counterparts in New Delhi on Wednesday and Thursday, the two counties remain deeply skeptical of each other.

The United States is worried about how willing India will be to openly counter China as the Chinese expand their influence in the waters between the Indian and Pacific Oceans. It is also unhappy about India’s reluctance to cut trade relations with Iran.

India views the Trump administration as erratic, and it is troubled by the United States’ recent barriers to trade, which threaten to impose tariffs on Indian goods and force New Delhi to import more American products.

Still, the agreement won praise.

“This is a huge deal,” said Rudra Chaudhuri, a senior lecturer at King’s College, London. “In one sense, it makes clear that the wind in the U.S.-India sail is strong, whatever differences there might be.”

The Indian and American defense secretaries, he said, have pulled off a big accomplishment “at a time the Trump White House remains committed to undermining the United States’ global partnerships.”

India is critical to the United States’ new “Indo-Pacific” strategy — formerly known as “Asia-Pacific” — which aims to curb the growing influence of China’s navy in the region by elevating New Delhi as a cornerstone of future military cooperation.

Although India is worried about China’s growing influence in the region — the two militaries engaged in a tense standoff over a disputed border region last year — New Delhi prefers to avert confrontation with Beijing when it can. That reluctance may stymie Washington’s plans for India to be a linchpin of its efforts to counter China, American officials worry.

India’s military budget this year is $45 billion, while China’s is $175 billion. India has 18 submarines in service; China has 78 .

New Delhi has been alarmed by the growing presence of Chinese submarines in its traditional sphere of influence, and as Beijing strikes seaport deals with countries encircling India. Western and Indian diplomats worry China may turn these seaports, currently used for commercial purposes, into calling docks for Beijing’s navy by leveraging the enormous debt of countries it has lent money to across the region.

The goal of the trip by the American delegation this week was to smooth over the ability of the United States and India to cooperate militarily. Under the pact signed by the two countries, the Communication Compatibility and Security Agreement, the United States will transfer high-tech communications platforms to India. Until now, the countries have communicated over open radio channels.

“The defense cooperation has emerged as the most significant dimension of our strategic partnership and as a key driver of our overall bilateral relationship,” India’s defense minister, Nirmala Sitharaman, said at the news conference Thursday, sitting with Mr. Mattis and Mike Pompeo.

American sanctions on Russia and Iran also loomed over the meetings, as both countries have major deals and economic ties with India.

Earlier this year, President Trump scrapped the Iran nuclear deal and reinstated sanctions on the country, which currently supplies roughly 20 percent of India’s oil needs. Indian businesses also have deep ties in Iran.

Mr. Trump has given allies a November deadline to stop trading with Iran or also face sanctions, but Indian officials have said they would ignore the threats and continue buying Iranian oil. Earlier this week, Mr. Pompeo acknowledged that Iran would feature in the negotiations in New Delhi, but said they would be a minor part of discussions.

India is also set to buy a Russian antiaircraft missile system, the S-400 Triumf , a $6 billion deal that violates sanctions that Congress imposed earlier this year on Russia.

American officials have indicated they may overlook the purchase, but they remain irked by New Delhi’s reliance on Russian defense equipment, which makes up the bulk of India’s military hardware.

Washington has tried to increase its military sales to New Delhi over the years. Sales have gone from nearly zero a decade ago to an estimated $18 billion next year.

Maria Abi-Habib is a staff correspondent covering South Asia. She can be found on Twitter here: @abihabib
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.defensenews.com/global/...could-be-risky-for-a-vital-us-air-force-base/

Europe

How a potential Chinese-built airport in Greenland could be risky for a vital US Air Force base

By: Aaron Mehta  
5 hours ago

WASHINGTON — With less than 60,000 people spread across more than 830,000 square miles, Greenland relies heavily on air transport to move supplies and people up and down its coast.

So when the local government issued a solicitation to build three new airports, the move made sense from a business perspective. The project would be expensive, but would improve commerce and make life on the island easier for its residents.

Then a Chinese company — owned by the government in Beijing, and once blacklisted by the World Bank — put forth a bid, and a simple request for proposals transformed into a project with international diplomatic ramifications.

Denmark, which has final say on national security issues involving Greenland, objected. The government in Greenland then insisted China Communications Construction Company (CCCC), which has succesfully worked on large infrastructure projects around the world, would remain one of its finalists for the projects, setting up intense negotiations between two governments.

All this comes as officials across Europe are raising alarm over whether Chinese economic influence on the continent is becoming a national security problem — with Danish officials specifically worried that the partly-government owned company’s interest in Greenland could have a lasting impact on a key American military base located there.

The Chinese “are players in the world economy, as are others, and should be treated equally. But we are on our guard,” Danish Defence Minister Claus Hjort Fredericksen said in a June 4 interview in his Copenhagen office.

“Of course, we welcome cooperation with China in the commercial field. As long as it has commercial purpose, we are not opposed to that. That is a normal way to expand world trade,” Fredericksen added. He spoke with reporters during a visit to Denmark arranged by the Atlantic Council. Defense News accepted travel and accommodations for the trip.

“But we are very careful looking at the issues if these installations may have other purposes, and that is what is causing trouble.”

-
Without a comprehensive strategy to regulate foreign investment, China wins
In order to protect America’s vital supply chains from foreign interference, regulations and laws governing the primary watchdog for foreign investment must be updated.

By: Jeff Green​
-

Economic influence

To better understand the Greenland situation, consider a broad view of Chinese investments in Europe.

During the height of the economic crisis in Europe, Chinese firms swooped in and picked up businesses and infrastructure at below-market prices. Since gaining that foothold, China has begun investing in everything from mines to scientific expeditions in the high north, said Magnus Nordenman, a regional analyst with the Atlantic Council, and the country has used its economic leverage to drive public policies.

China “scooped up a bunch of stuff for cheap, and later, when there was time for votes in the U.N. about human rights, all of a sudden these countries started backing off,” Nordenman notes.

Transport hubs, such as the Greek port of Piraeus and the Belgian port of Zeebrugge, appear to be a preferred target for Chinese acquisition. Chinese firms now control roughly 10 percent of cargo port space in Europe, according to data from the International Transport Forum.

That makes sense, Nordenman said, when considering the melting ice to the north is opening new transportation routes that China hopes to exploit.

“It is intimately connected to what the [North] Sea can mean for them,” Nordenman said, adding that being able to move material from Europe through northern bodies of water would mean China can no longer be choked off in the South China Sea or Indian Ocean.

In recent years, Chinese firms have invested in several Greenland-based projects, including a mine for rare earth elements and uranium in southern Greenland and an iron mine near the capital, Nuuk. That kind of economic investment has been welcomed as a boost to the local economy.

But in 2016, a Chinese company attempted to buy a former U.S. military base, and the government in Denmark stepped in, vetoing the deal. At the time, Danish officials were quoted anonymously in the press, saying they had resisted the deal as a favor to its longtime American ally.

The CCCC bid for the airport contract would represent another major investment. The airport has an estimated cost of 3.6 billion Danish krone (U.S. $560 million). Such a massive infrastructure project for whatever company wins could potentially set Beijing up as a major economic driver for Greenland.

Like elsewhere in Europe, “the big fear is that even a small Chinese investment will amount to a large part of Greenland’s GDP, giving China an outsized influence that can be used for other purposes,” said Jon Rahbek-Clemmensen, an associate professor at the Royal Danish Defence College’s Institute for Strategy.

Pentagon impact

With a broader reach, experts fear China could gain enough influence to push a key U.S. military base off the island.

The U.S. Air Force’s Thule Air Base, located on the western side of Greenland, is home to several strategic assets vital to America’s homeland defense. The Air Force’s 21st Space Wing operates systems related to missile warning, space surveillance and space control from the base; forces also operate the Upgraded Early Warning Radar, used to track incoming ballistic missiles.

In addition, the base is home to a 10,000-foot runway and what the Pentagon claims is “the northernmost deep water port in the world,” which would become incredibly important for any military operation that runs through the Arctic.

“A Chinese presence in Greenland would complicate the U.S. position on the island — ultimately it is not impossible to imagine that China could pressure the Greenlandic government to ask the Americans to leave or demand permission to get a Chinese military or dual-use presence there,” Rahbek-Clemmensen noted.

"We continue to notice significant interest in Greenland by the Chinese,” a U.S. defense official told Defense News when asked about the issue this summer.

“China has made no secret of their efforts to have a presence in the Arctic region, specifically Greenland. The Chinese government is attempting to leverage overseas investments to ensure China’s economic growth and geopolitical influence, but lack legitimate concern for the long-term prosperity of Greenland and her people," the official said.

While Copenhagen has avoided saying much publicly on the issue, Danish officials behind the scenes were asking Greenland not to consider the bid. However, in late May, the government in Nuuk went ahead and announced CCCC as one of five finalists for the contract, setting up a potential conflict between two governments that frequently struggle with their quasi-independent relationship.

Under a self-rule act passed in 2009, Greenland has control over its domestic infrastructure or economic policy issues, but Denmark maintains veto power on security issues. But where does an investment from China stop being a domestic issue and become one of security?

That line is blurry, and Danish officials are tentative to push too heavily so as not to disturb good relations with Nuuk. Pushing too hard could set off a minor constitutional crisis between the two governments over that gray zone between economic and security issues — one that Danish officials would very much like to avoid.

To that end, Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen met in early June with Greenlandic Prime Minister Kim Kielsen to hash out potential solutions — which could reportedly include Denmark helping fund the project in exchange for Nuuk selecting a different company.

No final decisions have been made on the airport deal, but a deadline is approaching.

“The Parliament of Greenland has been presented with a bill that it will consider during its Fall Session on the framework conditions for the construction, operation and financing of the airports in Nuuk, Ilulissat and Qaqortoq,” said Greenland’s head of representation in the U.S., Inuuteq Holm Olsen. “The Second and Third reading of the bill is scheduled to take place on October 15 and October 22, 2018.”

Holm Olsen noted that in addition to CCCC, two Danish companies, a Canadian firm and a Dutch firm are all finalists. He added that a Danish bank, Den Danske Bank, is serving as a “financial adviser” on the project. Attempts to contact CCCC for comment were unsuccessful by press time.

American tensions

Individuals speaking to Defense News under Chatham House rules during a June trip to Copenhagen are worried that Chinese disinformation campaigns could be launched inside of Greenland to stir up anti-Danish sentiment as part of a push to force Copenhagen’s hand on the issue.

But even without Chinese influence, sentiment among the Danish and Greenlandic public may swing against the U.S. due to ongoing tension between Europe and American President Donald Trump, who has imposed tariffs against European nations for what he has deemed “unfair” trade practices.

Asked about that potential conflict, Fredericksen, the Danish defense minister, said it is important for residents to split the security concerns from the economic ones.

“There is a much more profound interest in having a strong cooperation and a trustful cooperation with the U.S. than other issues,” he said. “I’m not trying to minimize the trade, the implications we have, but we have to be very firm of the shared responsibility; we have to help each other in the NATO alliance and especially with the U.S.”

Said the U.S. defense official: “The U.S. continues to have a strong relationship with our allies Denmark and Greenland and are grateful to them for hosting U.S. forces at Thule Air Base."

That’s where a web of relationships become evermore tangled. If Copenhagen’s main reason for denying Chinese investment is loyalty to its longtime alliance partner, and that partner is engaged in a trade war with fierce rhetoric toward Europe, the situation could become “increasingly complicated,” Nordenman warned.

“Danish public opinion can certainly swing to: ‘Why do we keep backing up the United States, or paying a price to help the United States when the U.S. is imposing tariffs?’ I think that’s a legitimate worry, and in a democracy, ultimately decision-makers have to answer to people,” he said.

The factor Denmark — and all of Europe — may need consider is what China is truly buying, both in the short term and long term, with its investments.

“China may be driven by benign reasons right now, but its actions still have geopolitical consequences that Washington, Copenhagen and Nuuk should be aware of," Rahbek-Clemmensen said.

“We don’t know if China will be more willing to throw its weight around in the future, but if it does become more assertive, the U.S., Denmark and Greenland will be better off if there isn’t a large Chinese presence in Greenland.”

Comments 7
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...south-china-sea-islands-sources-idUSKCN1LM017

WORLD NEWS SEPTEMBER 5, 2018 / 5:18 PM / A DAY AGO

Exclusive: British Navy warship sails near South China Sea islands, angering Beijing

Tim Kelly
6 MIN READ

(Reuters) - Beijing expressed anger on Thursday after a British Royal Navy warship sailed close to islands claimed by China in the South China Sea late last month, saying Britain was engaged in “provocation” and that it had lodged a strong complaint.

The HMS Albion, a 22,000 ton amphibious warship carrying a contingent of Royal Marines, exercised its “freedom of navigation” rights as it passed near the Paracel Islands, two sources, who were familiar with the matter but who asked not to be identified, told Reuters.

The Albion was on its way to Ho Chi Minh City, where it docked on Monday following a deployment in and around Japan.

One of the sources said Beijing dispatched a frigate and two helicopters to challenge the British vessel, but both sides remained calm during the encounter.

The other source the Albion did not enter the territorial seas around any features in the hotly disputed region but demonstrated that Britain does not recognize excessive maritime claims around the Paracel Islands. Twelve nautical miles is an internationally recognized territorial limit.

The Paracels are occupied entirely by China but also claimed by Vietnam and Taiwan.

China’s Foreign Ministry, in a faxed statement sent to Reuters, said the ship had entered Chinese territorial waters around the Paracel Islands on Aug. 31 without permission, and the Chinese navy had warned it to leave.

“The relevant actions by the British ship violated Chinese law and relevant international law, and infringed on China’s sovereignty. China strongly opposes this and has lodged stern representations with the British side to express strong dissatisfaction,” the ministry added.

“China strongly urges the British side to immediately stop such provocative actions, to avoid harming the broader picture of bilateral relations and regional peace and stability,” it said.

“China will continue to take all necessary measures to defend its sovereignty and security.”

The encounter comes at a delicate time in London-Beijing relations.

Britain has been courting China for a post-Brexit free trade deal, and both countries like to describe how they have a “golden era” in ties.

A spokesman for the Royal Navy said: “HMS Albion exercised her rights for freedom of navigation in full compliance with international law and norms.”

British Prime Minister Theresa May’s spokesman said Britain had a strong relationship with China.

FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION
China’s claims in the South China Sea, through which some $3 trillion of shipborne trade passes each year, are contested by Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam. Britain does not have any territorial claims in the area.

While the U.S. Navy has conducted Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) in the same area in the past, this British challenge to China’s growing control of the strategic waterway comes after the United States has said it would like to see more international participation in such actions.

Both Britain and the United States say they conduct FONOP operations throughout the world, including in areas claimed by allies.

The British Navy has previously sailed close to the disputed Spratly Islands, further south in the South China Sea, several times in recent years but not within the 12 nautical mile limit, regional diplomatic sources have said.

Singapore-based South China Sea expert Ian Storey said Britain had strong traditional interests in defending freedom of navigation but regular deployments in the South China Sea would be constrained due to limited numbers of warships and onerous demands in other parts of the world.

“The UK’s actions will please Washington as the Trump administration has grumbled that U.S. allies have been remiss in upholding freedom of navigation in the South China Sea,” said Storey, of Singapore’s ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute.

“But China will be displeased as it suggests that U.S. allies are responding to Washington’s appeals... It might also nudge other U.S. allies to make similar moves.”

FONOPs have so far not persuaded Beijing to curtail its South China Sea activities, which have included extensive reclamation of reefs and islands and the construction of runways, hangars and missile systems.

Beijing says it is entitled to build on its territories and says the facilities are for civilian use and necessary self-defense purposes. China blames Washington for militarizing the region with its freedom of navigation patrols.

Foreign aircraft and vessels in the region are routinely challenged by Chinese naval ships and monitoring stations on the fortified islands, sources have said previously.

In April, warships from Australia - which like Britain is a close U.S. ally - had what Canberra described as a close “encounter” with Chinese naval vessels in the contested sea.

The Albion is one of three Royal Navy ships deployed to Asia this year, along with HMS Argyll and HMS Sutherland.

In a speech in Jakarta in August, Foreign Office Minister for Asia and the Pacific Mark Field said Britain was committed to an enduring security presence in Asia and urged countries to respect navigational freedom and international law in the South China Sea.

That law included the ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, whose landmark 2016 judgment criticized Chinese actions in the South China Sea and found no basis for its sweeping historic claims. Beijing has repeatedly rejected the ruling and earlier refused to participate in the case brought by the Philippines.

Reporting by Tim Kelly. Additional reporting by Kylie MacLellan and William James in LONDON, Ben Blanchard in BEIJING and Greg Torode in HONG KONG. Editing by Lincoln Feast and Alison Williams

-----

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...s-at-risk-after-warship-mission-idUSKCN1LN037

WORLD NEWS SEPTEMBER 6, 2018 / 6:02 PM / UPDATED 14 HOURS AGO

China warns Britain ties at risk after warship mission

Christian Shepherd, Adam Jourdan
5 MIN READ

BEIJING/SHANGHAI (Reuters) - China on Friday warned Britain ties were at risk unless it took steps to “rectify” the situation, after a British warship sailed close to South China Sea islands claimed by China, while a major newspaper said sealing a free trade deal could now be harder.

China was infuriated by the HMS Albion, a 22,000-ton amphibious warship, sailing near the Paracel Islands last month, calling it a “provocation”. The Paracels are occupied entirely by China but also claimed by Vietnam and Taiwan.

China and Britain, which have talked of a “golden era” of relations, agreed last month to look at the possibility of reaching a “top notch” post-Brexit free trade deal that promises an important political win for the conservative government.

But the Royal Navy’s mission in the South China Sea, one of China’s most sensitive issues, risks undermining the relationship.

“Britain’s actions were wrong,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying told a daily news briefing.

“They clearly violated the consensus and spirit put forward by Britain’s leadership that they wished to build a golden era in ties with China. This certainly will unfavorably influence the further development of the China-Britain relationship.”

Hua added: “We hope that Britain can recognize the severity of the issue and take actions to rectify the situation”. She did not elaborate.

There could be real consequences for Britain, the official China Daily newspaper said in an editorial.

“China and the UK had agreed to actively explore the possibility of discussing a free trade agreement after Brexit. Any act that harms China’s core interests will only put a spanner in the works,” it said.

Britain has long courted China for a post-Brexit trade deal, though any formal talks could not begin until it officially leaves the European Union next year and typically take many years to conclude.

Senior Chinese and British officials are expected to meet in Britain in the autumn for further economic talks led by Vice Premier Hu Chunhua and finance minister Philip Hammond.

China’s claims in the South China Sea, through which some $3 trillion of shipborne trade passes each year, are contested by Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam. Britain does not have any territorial claims in the area.

The China Daily said Britain was trying to “curry favor” with the United States, which has been pushing for greater international participation in freedom of navigation operations in the strategic waterway.

“Now that it is eyeing the U.S. as an economic lifeline after it exits the European Union - the United Kingdom is no doubt eager to seize whatever opportunity it can to get into Washington’s good books,” the English-language newspaper said.

“FOMENT TROUBLE”
The situation in the South China Sea has stabilized, with the joint efforts of China and Southeast Asian countries, the country’s defense ministry said in a statement responding to the Royal Navy action.

“Certain countries from outside the region pay no heed to this, and send military ships and aircraft to the South China Sea to foment trouble, creating problems where none exist, threatening regional peace and stability,” it added.

China has repeatedly denounced what it views as such interference, generally a message to the United States and its allies to stay out of the maritime dispute.

Adding to the tension, the Foreign Ministry late on Thursday said Britain should stop “gesticulating” about Hong Kong and interfering in China’s internal affairs, after Britain issued its latest six-monthly report on its former colony.

In the report, Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt referred to “growing concern about the extent of freedom of speech in Hong Kong, particularly in the context of discussion of independence”, adding that Britain did not think independence was a realistic or desirable option.

China said the issue of independence had nothing to do with freedom of speech and was a serious violation of its constitution and Hong Kong law.

“It fundamentally is not within the scope of freedom of expression,” the ministry said. “The central government has zero tolerance for ‘Hong Kong independence’ and will never indulge it.”

Additional reporting by Ben Blanchard in BEIJING; Editing by Simon Cameron-Moore and Clarence Fernandez
 
Last edited:

Ractivist

Pride comes before the fall.....Pride month ended.
Aubrey Thomason ( I think that's her name), wrote "The Apocalypse equation" as her thesis. In this she suggests that the major globalist world powers have a mutually agreed upon nuclear exchange as a means to control the fall. The fall being the house of cards they have built world wide based on greed and bad money of course. So once it all starts to come down, have a nuclear war to hide it beneath. Make a deal to hit the cities least desirable to the globalists. I'd think here in America they might go after Atlanta as one prime example......given their racism and all. Maybe they leave it so those folks can create havoc...... that war gaming has multiple layers for sure.

AT was the chick in the situation room at the back when the picture of Hillary and Obama was taken in the situation room as they alledgedly killed osama..... they said they did, but then disposed of the body at sea, convenient I'd say.......

The war gamers have made one thing clear, if nukes are going to fly in mass, best to be the one who shoots first...not much bester, but still bester.

Best to be the one who has taken precautions, like fall out shelters, a prepared citizenry, etc....like Russia.

I personally think we are on the cusp of the attack, as Daniel mentions so often with DD.

Thanks Daniel.
 
Top