Saturday, April 30, 2016

They smell weakness - today's edition

Bill Gertz at the Washington Times spells out the details of the uptick in momentum of missile tests by our enemies and adversaries in recent weeks:


U.S. intelligence agencies that monitor foreign missile tests have been working overtime in the past several weeks keeping tabs on test firings by China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.
The surge in missile tests began April 12 in central China with Beijing’s newest and longest-range intercontinental ballistic missile, the DF-41. The missile carried two dummy warheads that are the latest feature of China’s large-scale nuclear buildup — the addition of multiple, independently targetable reentry vehicles, or MIRVs, to its forces.
The Pentagon was silent on the test, but China’s Defense Ministry confirmed the test on April 21, describing the launch as a “normal” scientific experiment.
Then on April 19, Russia tested a revolutionary new hypersonic glide vehicle that travels at several thousand miles per hour and is capable of maneuvering to defeat missile defenses. The Yu-71 was launched atop an SS-19 long-range missile from a base in central Russia and flew east.
On the same day, Iran conducted the first test launch of what the Pentagon says is a covert long-range missile known as Simorgh. Iran has called the rocket a space launcher. The missile, which is believed to contain North Korean missile technology and equipment shipped to Iran in the past year, was fired from a launch facility at Semnan, located about 125 miles east of Tehran.
Defense officials said the missile landed within Iranian territory and did not send any objects into orbit, as would be expected. Iranian media were silent on the launch, which the State Department said might have violated the U.N. Security Council resolution on the Iran nuclear deal. The resolution calls on Iran to refrain from any rocket development that could have applications for long-range missiles. 
The Iranian rocket launch was following by Saturday’s test of a North Korean submarine-launched ballistic missile aboard a Gorae-class submarine in the Sea of Japan.
Intelligence analysts judged the launch a partial success since the missile, known as the KN-11 by the Pentagon, was launched from underwater at a depth of about 45 feet but only flew about 17 miles. Still, it is considered a significant step forward in Pyongyang’s drive for an underwater-launched nuclear weapon delivery system.
Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook said the flurry of recent launches is an indication of the growing ballistic missile threat and is “something that we take very seriously with regard to all those countries.”
The spokesman added, “Clearly these countries have decided this is a moment to test those capabilities and enhance those capabilities and we see that as a concern, obviously, particularly in those cases when they are violating U.N. resolutions.”
That's because the Most Equal Comrade, the dictator of post-America, architect of the Great Leveling Project, thinks foreign policy can be conducted with the mindset of a senior seminar panel. Meanwhile, the real world rolls on as it has throughout the history of this fallen species.
 
 




19 comments:

  1. I thought it was a done deal that this fallen species could not simply roll on like an 18 wheeler, rolling with business as usual when it comes to war.

    "Wars can be prevented just as surely as they can be provoked, and we who fail to prevent them, must share the guilt for the dead." Omar N. Bradley

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Though I have been trained as a soldier, and participated in many battles, there never was a time when, in my opinion, some way could not be found to prevent the drawing of the sword. I look forward to an epoch when a court, recognized by all nations, will settle international differences, instead of keeping large standing armies as they do in Europe."--U.S. Grant

    ReplyDelete
  3. What are you afraid of? If they violated UN resolutions, well, let's prosecute them. Or should we get all riled up and show some muscle we know we got?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I know, your ilk wants to leave the UN.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sure do. It's a sewer of West-hatred, corruption and sexual exploitation of third-world children.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You mean Israel hatred don't you? Many think it's Nettie who needs to go. But he won't dare to condescend to the Clintons as he has with Obama. Nor will there be quite as much "testing" occurring because the Clintons are an already battle-scarred, largely known entity.

    Based on the new poll, whose results were published by the Israeli broadsheet newspaper Sunday, Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton is viewed by 68 percent of Israelis as a favorable candidate, while 14 percent viewed her as unfavorable.

    Forty-three percent deemed billionaire Republican Donald Trump as a suitable president, as 37 percent sported a negative view against him.

    Forty-two percent of those who took part in the poll said Clinton would be better for Israel, 34 percent thought Trump would be better suited, and 24 percent were either undecided or thought neither would be any good.

    And 42 percent said that Trump would get along better with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, 32 percent thought Clinton would have better relations with him while 26 percent were undecided or thought neither would manage to get along with Bibi.

    http://en.abna24.com/service/america/archive/2016/04/25/749746/story.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. Are you referring to UN peacekeeping forces utilizing prostitutes? I heard that one of the dominoes that felled other dominoes was the US military presence in southeast Asia. Not what was meant by making love, not war. Saturation fucking maybe.

    American history has also played a major role in the prominence of child prostitution in Thailand. The Vietnam War gave new life to prostitution in Thailand, and allowed it to grow at an extremely rapid rate. Although the demand by soldiers was for women rather than young girls, the industry within Thailand became more developed than it ever had before. In 1968, more than 536,000 troops had been deployed to fight the communists of North Vietnam.Vietnamese prostitutes were used to satiate the soldiers at first, but the demand eventually outpaced the supply. As a result, women were taken from neighboring countries like Thailand. There were also five bases located in Thailand, which housed up to 50,000 soldiers. Kathryn Farr makes clear that the correlation between the amount of troops in Vietnam and the amount of prostitutes in Thailand is impossible to ignore. “In 1957, an estimated 20,000 prostitutes were working in Thailand. By 1964, that number had grown to 400,000, and by 1972, when the United States withdrew its main combat troops from Vietnam, there were at least 500,000 working prostitutes in the country. From there on, the Thai sex industry simply exploded.”

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh, horse shit. Fallen human beings can be found everywhere, but there was no official US policy that fostered the rise of prostitution in Thailand. Furthermore, this is another disgusting example of digressing, of trying to change the subject out of fear of acknowledging the basic point of the actual subject at hand: the fact that the UN is worthless, of utterly no help in preventing the aggression of the world's bad actors.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Speaking of digression, what do Netanyahu, the Clintons or Donald Trump have to do with the subject at hand?

    ReplyDelete
  10. And, yes, the UN is a sewer of Israel-hatred.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well, let's find another forum for peace. Are you at all for that or just all-out carpet bombing the piss out of what we perceive to be bad actors. Tell me more about the child sexual abuse sanctioned by the UN. Israel has to bend a bit if only because they are so outnumbered. And Nettie won't be around forever. The subject at hand--our current perceived military weakness under the current freely elected commander in chief--has naturally morphed into questions of war and peace, with you blindly accepting war as the current answer as, in your view, it always has been and therefore will always be. Some generals who have a bit more field experience with wars in different eras have a bit different take than you do, Sir Armchair.

    ReplyDelete
  12. That's setting up a straw argument to say it's a binary choice between deliberate vulnerability and carpet bombing, especially given the diversity among our enemies and adversaries. The particulars of the Russia situation and the Iran situation and the North Korea situation are all different, for instance

    ReplyDelete
  13. But lasting "peace" has always eluded humankind and always will

    ReplyDelete
  14. Look who showed up in an article I read this morning--Omar Bradley, a quote from whom I opened this discussion with. I just wanted to mix him and Grant into the stew because you might be tired of the same old Ike.

    he one law that was immutable during America's long, bitter and costly involvement in Vietnam was Murphy's: Everything that could go wrong did. There is blame enough to go around, and Jeffrey Record spares no one in this brief but thoughtful examination of all the old arguments and all the old questions.

    Where were civilian political leaders with a vision keen enough to recognize that Indochina made no real claim on America's national security interests? Where were military leaders of the caliber of Omar Bradley and Matthew B. Ridgeway who could argue convincingly against armed intervention when it wasn't warranted?

    http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/09/20/reviews/980920.20gallowt.html

    ReplyDelete
  15. OK, consider the diversity among our enemies and adversaries. The particulars of the Russia situation and the Iran situation and the North Korea situation are all different, for instance. Then go all out to prevent war, not make it, as Bradley and Grant, and of course, Ike, who had been around more fire than mere campgrounds as you and I have. We must! And that has been evident since we dropped the big one to see what happens. What happened is a continuing clusterfrick. Murphy's law stops for no one.

    ReplyDelete
  16. In the end it all boils down to one question: Could we have won a military victory in Vietnam? Record's answer is: Yes, but not at any price even remotely acceptable to the American people. One thoughtful former infantry battalion commander told me he had reflected long and hard about what would have resulted from unlimited war, including an invasion of North Vietnam: ''We could have won a military victory without question. But today my sons and yours would still be garrisoning Vietnam and fighting and dying in an unending guerrilla war.'' The war was ours to lose, and we did; it was for the South Vietnamese to win, and they could not.

    Source: Ibid

    ReplyDelete
  17. Once again, we're getting mired in digression- in this case about Vietnam- due to a refusal to address the subject at hand: a marked uptick in missile testing by our enemies and adversaries. And it's because of a fear of the exercise of American resolve

    ReplyDelete
  18. No it's not, it's because Putin et al are clueless about the Cold War being both feckless and, moreover, over. Childish brandishing of inferior weaponry, but, hey it sorta works. It riles up your ilk.

    ReplyDelete