Timbuktou:
The same Clinton who wants to declare a no-fly-zone in Syria? You better pray she loses or changes her mind about that silly policy, otherwise it WW3.

I dey tell you, Honestly Cliton is more devilish and dangerous than Trump. She seems to be a nuclear-trigger happy woman. THAT WOMAN IS MEAN.
I like where she said: "We're going to ring China with missile defense. We're going to put more of our fleet in the area," Clinton said in a 2013 speech. "So China, come on. You either control them or we're going to have to defend against them."

BEIJING (AP) — Hillary Clinton privately said the U.S. would "ring China with missile defense" if the Chinese government failed to curb North Korea's nuclear program, a potential hint at how the former secretary of state would act if elected president.

Clinton's remarks were revealed by WikiLeaks in a hack of the Clinton campaign chairman's personal account. The emails include a document excerpting Clinton's private speech transcripts, which she has refused to release.

A section on China features several issues in which Clinton said she confronted the Chinese while leading the U.S. State Department.

China has harshly criticized the U.S. and South Korea's planned deployment of a missile-defense system against North Korea, which conducted its fifth nuclear test this year. But Clinton said she told Chinese officials that the U.S. might deploy additional ships to the region to contain the North Korean missile threat.

If North Korea successfully obtains a ballistic missile, it could threaten not just American allies in the Pacific, "but they could actually reach Hawaii and the west coast theoretically," Clinton said.

"We're going to ring China with missile defense. We're going to put more of our fleet in the area," Clinton said in a 2013 speech. "So China, come on. You either control them or we're going to have to defend against them."

China is North Korea's economic lifeline and the closest thing it has to a diplomatic ally, and has been criticized by the U.S. and others for not doing enough to rein in Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions. Chinese officials and state media have responded by saying North Korea is not solely China's responsibility and say Beijing's has limited influence with secretive leader Kim Jong Un's hardline communist regime

Clinton also privately criticized China's position on another sensitive issue, the South China Sea. China claims almost the entirety of the strategically vital waterbody has lashed out at an international tribunal's rejection of its claims in a July ruling.

By China's logic, Clinton told a different audience in 2013, the U.S. after World War II could have labeled the Pacific Ocean the "American Sea."

"My counterpart sat up very straight and goes, 'Well, you can't do that,'" she said. "And I said, 'Well, we have as much right to claim that as you do. I mean, you claim (the South China Sea) based on pottery shards from, you know, some fishing vessel that ran aground in an atoll somewhere."

In another remark revealed in the Wikileaks hack, Clinton called Xi "a more sophisticated, more effective public leader" than his predecessor, Hu Jintao. She noted Xi's plans for economic and social reforms, but blamed what she called "a resurgence of nationalism" on the Chinese government.

China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not immediately respond Friday to faxed questions about Clinton's remarks.

As secretary of state, Clinton visited China seven times and engineered Washington's "pivot" to Asia, which has long been viewed with suspicion by Beijing. The policy shift has seen a tighter focus on the region along with an increased military presence and fortified alliances with allies such as Australia and the Philippines, although the latter has been cast in doubt with the election of China-friendly President Rodrigo Duterte.

She also drew condemnation from Chinese state media last year after describing Xi as "shameless" as he prepared to speak on women's rights at the United Nations, shortly after China detained five young feminists who'd campaigned against domestic violence.

__

Many of us will recognize the majority of names on this list, having learned about their integrity, honor, and imprint on American history. However, many of the trivial and unflattering details of their lives are often left out of the classroom. The following stories relate astonishing facts that few of us know about 10 Founding Fathers of the United States of America.

Prison For An American Hero
Robert Morris, a Founding Father who signed the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and the United States Constitution, was known as the “Financier of the Revolution.” Without Morris, the colonies would have failed to secede from British rule. Nevertheless, he spent a few of his final years behind bars. Upon his retirement, Morris embarked on risky investments, one of which was building a mansion designed by renowned architect Pierre L’Enfant. When the market crashed, Morris couldn’t make the interest payments and taxes owed on the estate, and in February 1798, a creditor had him arrested.He was incarcerated in a Philadelphia debtor’s prison for 3.5 years, only to be released following the passage of a federal bankruptcy law. Sadly, in his final years, his wealth was gone and he lived on a small pension that his cousin had arranged for his wife, Mary.


9.Scattered Remains
Thomas Paine—Founding Father, author, and hero of both the American and French Revolutions—spent his final years as an alcoholic who died broke and alone. Only six people attended his funeral in 1809. Paine had fallen out of public favor because he opposed organized religion and disagreed with the country’s elites. His burial wishes were disregarded, and he was laid to rest in a modest grave on his farm.A decade later, William Cobbett disinterred Paine’s remains without permission and brought them to London with the hope of giving Paine a proper and honorable burial. Cobbett’s grand plans, however, never materialized.Paine’s bones were passed down to Cobbett’s descendants and scattered across the world after being sold off piece by piece. Today, it is said that Paine’s head is in Australia while the rest of his remains are at the four corners of the world.


8. The Suffering Of Benjamin Franklin
When the Europeans arrived in North America, they brought crude opium, either alone or dissolved in liquid. The drug was highly regarded as a means to diminish pain and often abused by colonists, including Founding Father Benjamin Franklin.Few know of Franklin’s physical suffering in his last years of life, much of which was attributed to a kidney stone. During his final 12 months, he was confined to bed.To treat Franklin’s unbearable intermittent pain, Dr. John Johns provided Franklin with laudanum, a mixture of opiates and alcohol. At the time, few knew of the dangers or addictive power of opium. When Franklin died in 1790, he was severely addicted to the drug.



7. The Wealthy Smuggler
In the 18th century, 40 percent of all British exports to the northern American colonies had to enter via the Port of Boston. These exports were protected by the British through a series of trade taxes imposed by the Navigation Acts. Although John Hancock was a man of enormous wealth (having inherited most of his fortune in his mid-twenties), he avoided paying these duties to the British by illegally smuggling exports such as French molasses, tea, glass, lead, paper, tobacco, rum, and wine.His fortune grew until the late 1760s when he was formally charged with smuggling. Hancock sought the counsel of John Adams, an attorney who was the cousin of Hancock’s closest friend, Samuel Adams. Although Hancock was guilty, Adams got Hancock relieved of all charges.



6. William Blount’s Conspiracy
William Blount, Governor for the Territory South of the River Ohio as well as Superintendent of Indian Affairs for the Southern Department, was a popular frontiersman who led Tennessee to full statehood in 1796. That year, Blount also became one of the first US Senators and served as chairman for Tennessee during the Constitutional Convention.Soon after, Blount conspired with Britain to conquer the Spanish provinces of Florida and Louisiana with the help of British naval forces, frontiersmen, and Native Americans. These plans were exposed in a letter by Blount that unexpectedly fell into the hands of President Adams. Although the Senate responded by impeaching Blount, no further action was taken. Surprisingly, neither the conspiracy nor his impeachment daunted Blount’s popularity among the citizens of Tennessee, and in 1798, he was elected to the state legislature. However, he died only two years later at age 50.


5. Dr. Benjamin Rush
Dr. Benjamin Rush, signatory to the Declaration of Independence, is perhaps best known for being the “father of American psychiatry.” Serving on the Pennsylvania Hospital medical staff for 30 years, he brought forth the original idea that mental illness is a disease of the mind rather than a “possession of demons.” In 1812, Rush wrote Medical Inquiries and Observations upon the Diseases of the Mind, the first psychiatric textbook published in the US. Dr. Rush was also the first to believe that people who drank too much alcohol suffered from a disease rather than a failure of free will. This disease concept ultimately led to the term “alcoholic” in 1891. Throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s, those involved in the temperance movement referenced Dr. Rush’s theory to further their political agenda, which eventually led to Prohibition.


4. The Company You Keep
The city of Dayton, Ohio, is named after Jonathan Dayton, a leading American politician who represented New Jersey. Dayton was the speaker of the US House of Representatives, the youngest member of the US Constitutional Convention, and Senator for the state of New Jersey. In 1807, Dayton’s career in politics came to a sudden end when he met Aaron Burr, who had coincidentally shot and killed Alexander Hamilton three years earlier. Dayton became involved in Burr’s questionable activities, although the depth of Dayton’s involvement is unclear. After Burr was accused of trying to overthrow and seize the western United States, Dayton was implicated as a coconspirator and arrested for treason.Although the conspiracy became a national scandal, Dayton was never tried nor was there any proof of his involvement in the Aaron Burr case. Regardless, Dayton’s political career was brought to an end and his reputation tarnished.


3. Thomas Jefferson’s DNA
For two centuries, there has been speculation as to whether Thomas Jefferson fathered children with of one of his slaves, Sally Hemings. Jefferson neither confirmed nor denied the allegations. Meanwhile, two of Hemings’s children insisted that he was their father.In 1998, Dr. Eugene Foster conducted tests on Y-chromosomal DNA samples of Jefferson and Hemings’s descendants. Foster concluded that an individual carrying Jefferson’s DNA did indeed father Eston Hemings, the last known child born to Sally Hemings. According to Dr. Foster, this compelling evidence, which has been published in the scientific journal Nature, is the simplest and most probable explanation that Thomas Jefferson was the father of Eston Hemings. To support the study, a DNA expert at the Whitehead Institute in Boston stated that there was a less than 1 percent chance that a person chosen at random would share the same Y-chromosomal mutations as in the Jefferson lineage.



2. Poisonous Coffee
George Wythe, another signatory to the Declaration of Independence, suffered a horrendous death. In 1806, his black servant, Lydia Broadnax, fixed coffee for herself, Wythe, and 16-year-old Michael Brown. Minutes later, all three were stricken with horrific abdominal pains.Earlier, Broadnax had seen Wythe’s 18-year-old grandnephew, George Wythe Sweeney, toss a piece of paper into the coffeepot, leading Wythe to insist that Sweeney had poisoned them. Before the poisoning, Wythe had threatened to cut Sweeney out of his will. Sweeney had been forging checks and selling Wythe’s prized books to pay his gambling debts.Two days after the three fell ill, Sweeney was jailed for attempting to cash a forged check in Wythe’s name for $100. Wythe died shortly afterward, along with Michael Brown.Sweeney stood trial for murder and forgery. However, Virginia prohibited blacks from testifying against whites, so Broadnax’s claims fell on deaf ears. Sweeney was acquitted of murder, and the forgery charges were eventually dropped.



1. Duel To The Death
Founding Father Alexander Hamilton and Vice President Aaron Burr had a long-standing rivalry. Burr even claimed that he lost the presidency because of Hamilton’s interference. As Burr’s vice-presidential term neared its end, he ran for governor of New York, only to lose following Hamilton’s public opposition.Infuriated, Burr challenged Hamilton to a duel and Hamilton accepted. On July 11, 1804, the two men raised their pistols and fired a single shot. Burr walked away from the fight unscathed, but Hamilton succumbed to his injury the following day.As dueling was against the law in the state of New York, Burr was later charged with murder. Ultimately, the charges against him were dropped and he passed away 32 years later in 1836.

Lexusgs430:


It's safe to proceed, but ensure you have enough data for connection (file is about 3gb in size)
Under normal circumstances, you should lose nothing. Files and applications should remain where they are. If you experience any missing drivers, they can easily be downloaded.

thank bro, i will keep updating you about the situaton

Computer Gurus in the house, please i need a rapid response from you guys,. I am currently using window 8.1 pro and there is this notification on the task bar of my system that always notify me to Upgrade to window 10.
Question 1:Please is it safe for me to proceed?
Question 2: Will I lose some documents or application?

I dnt know but one thing is very certain. It is either Britain rises again to its glory or crumble to the ground like the wall of Jericho.

him children dey chop fertilizer ni?

[/b]A US Air Force B-52 Stratofortress leads a formation of aircraft — including two Polish air force F-16 Fighting Falcons, four US Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcons, two German Eurofighter Typhoons, and four Swedish Gripens — over the Baltic Sea.[b]





BALTOPS 2016 participants steam in formation during an exercise. As the flagship for Striking and Support Forces NATO, USS Mount Whitney serves as the command and control platform.

[img]http://ps.ibt.com/2016/05/29/54528/saber_strike_720p_mp4_800_1464544401.mp4[/img]

The U.S. Army in Europe has kicked off an exercise that will see over 4,000 troops from NATO allies arrive in the Baltics and 10,000 soldiers from 13 countries across Eastern Europe.

The Baltic Saber Strike exercise, which launched on Friday, will run in conjunction with the U.S.-led Dragoon Ride, which will take 400 armored vehicles from Germany, through the Czech Republic, where it will stay until Monday. Then the troops move on to Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and, finally, Estonia over the course of June.
The point of the exercise will be to test the ability of allies in Eastern Europe to work together—it will feature a series of practical tests of allied capabilities including live-fire, command post exercises, and training for cyber/electronic warfare. Its significance has been elevated in recent years as it is one of the main shows of collective force in the vicinity of Russia and Ukraine.

U.S. close-air support will provide cover for multinational ground forces during the course of the drill, while the U.S. 2nd Cavalry Regiment will perform the 2,200-kilometer tactical road march from Germany to Estonia, known as the Dragoon Ride.

The drill follows Estonia's annual Spring Storm exercise earlier this month, which featured 6,000 national and allied troops practicing joint defense maneuvers.

Saber Strike and the U.S.-led naval drills linked to Saber Strike called Baltops form part of the intense practice schedule for allied troops ahead of the NATO summit in Poland in July. The summit is intended to unite all NATO allies and allow them to coordinate their mutual strategy for the coming two years.

Missy89:


Indeed.

Sure!! one love

Appleyard:


You see, i try my possible best to avoid threads like this, especially when the comparison is about NATO vs Russia. It is a pity that at this modern age of wickedness we are living in, some folks still believe that there can be a conventional war between NATO and Russia, and that's the wishful thinking that beggers would never consider, even as they wish a horse to ride.

How they so much cherish the idea of a 25- nation team taken on one nation. Just how sweet the bean counting its to them ... All of which must happen in their CONVENTIONAL fantasy....

Well, its always best to live a dreamer to dream its own dream. Thus, Sir Richard Shirref should be left to dream..

you just spoke my mind!!! I purposely opened the thread in order to enlighten some people.
In an event of nuclear war, the game Will alway be lose-lose. Why? The level of economic integration (globalization) in the world today is just so co-dependence. lolzzz Even America still depends on Russia jet engine to explore the space and we are here on nairaland quarelling over what will never happan.
Well, i also used to romance 3rd world war fantasy until I later realised that there can never be anything like nuclear war again!!

A new book by Gen. Sir Richard Shirreff, NATO's deputy supreme allied commander for Europe from 2011 to 2014, evokes a potential scenario that leads to a devastating future war with Russia.
The book, "2017 War with Russia," is clearly labeled as a work of fiction.

But it portrays a fairly convincing manufactured incident that the fictional president of Russia uses as a causus belli for a clash with NATO. In his account, Russia rapidly expands its war aims by invading the Baltic states, which are NATO members, and world war ensues. Perhaps more worryingly, the author has since told BBC Radio 4's Today program that such a conflict is "entirely plausible." Fact versus fiction
I do not want to give any more away about the book (it is a good and authentic, if gloomy, read). But the general's underlying political message — clearly articulated in the book's preface — is that the hollowing out of defense capabilities across the West and its reluctance and inability to stand up to Russia is making war ever more likely. Is this an accurate assessment of the real world?

The novel is reminiscent of Tom Clancy's "The Hunt for Red October" and the excellent "The Third World War: August 1985" by Gen. John Hackett. "The Third World War," written at the height of the Cold War, was conceived as a "future history," supposedly looking back at the outbreak and subsequent unfolding of a full-blown NATO-versus-Warsaw Pact war.

Shirreff's book, however, is a far more overtly political piece, and it is deeply critical of the West's reduced defense spending and its unwillingness — and inability — to stand up to the Russian threat. At first sight this appears a persuasive case — but on reflection is perhaps slightly less so.

Shirreff's scenario assumes either that the Russian president had no other option to achieve his political goals than through the use of military force, or "hard power," or that he is what might be termed "an irrational actor" in the mold of North Korea's Kim Jong Un. Neither strikes me as convincing.
Russia has undoubtedly suffered economically from the global downturn in energy prices and from economic sanctions following the annexation of the Crimea, but the degree of dependence, in particular energy dependence, that Western Europe has on Russia is highly significant.

The security of codependence
For example, the Nord Stream pipeline laid in international waters along the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany, supplies a significant — according to European Union figures, 38.7% — proportion of Western Europe's gas needs. In turn, Russia desperately needs the foreign earnings this generates. Consequently, the two sides of this hypothetical war are heavily economically interdependent. Put another way, Russia rationally could bring much more significant, and cheaper, political pressure to bear by turning off the gas supply: Why resort to the chancier option of war?

But is the real President Vladimir Putin irrational? A real-life analysis of the Russian president's actions would suggest that he is being entirely rational and that his actions are those of an archrealist who places the needs of his country first. Putin, it seems, is looking to play the long game.

Looked at from the viewpoint of Russia, and especially European Russia, it is being hemmed in by its opponents with more and more of its neighbors coming under the sway of the US, the West … and NATO. Turkey, on Russia's southern border, joined the military alliance in 1952, and since the end of the Cold War many of Russia's former Warsaw Pact allies, including Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, and the Baltic States, have signed up too. Many in Russia want their leader to kick back against this.

Russia has, moreover, always respected a strong leader, and the present incumbent of the Kremlin enjoys levels of popularity — at least 80% — that Western politicians can only dream of. Saber rattling is all part of this strongman image, but why risk it all by undertaking that most risky of maneuvers in international politics: war?

It's certainly in Putin's interests that the West cut defense spending and has a diminished appetite for brinkmanship, and it is perhaps understandable that a recently retired general should push for this to be reversed. But does that really make a war any more likely? Probably not, though there is always that niggling possibility. But if there were to be war with Russia, what might it look like? The Cold War scenario of vast armies fighting a large-scale conventional war dominated by tanks and aircraft directly supporting the battlefield is as outdated a concept as it is unlikely.
Both sides have considerable resources at their disposal, but NATO is significantly larger than Russia in simple numbers: NATO has 3.6 million personnel in uniform compared with Russia's 800,000; NATO has 7,500 tanks to Russia's 2,750; and NATO has 5,900 combat aircraft to Russia's 1,571.

These bald figures do not tell the whole story, however, as NATO's forces are deployed globally to a far greater extent than Russia's, and even acknowledging that Russia could achieve a temporary military advantage in, say, the Baltics, for how long and at what price? Nevertheless, today's armies are smaller and more reliant on technology than they were during much of the 20th century, and the likelihood of a Kursk-style pitched battle between heavy armor is highly unlikely.

That said, the ever-greater reach of missiles and artillery, the accuracy and potency of modern precision-guided munitions, the extensive use of surveillance systems (from space, via drones, and through highly sophisticated electronic eavesdropping) would make a contemporary battlefield highly dangerous and highly destructive, as pictures from even relatively small-scale recent conflicts from Grozny to Aleppo show.

Consequently, while the armies and individual battles might be smaller than those in World War II, the death toll, the loss of war-making material, and both sides' ability to reduce everything in their paths to rubble would make a large-scale conflict far wider-reaching and, in terms of recovery, longer-lasting than anything we have seen before.

In such a conflict, the very term "battlefield" would itself be highly misleading: Such a war, employing ships, submarines, and aircraft with truly global reach, would indeed be a world war and would pay scant attention to the difference between military and civilian targets; this would truly be a war among the people.

And not just an earth-bound war: Outer space would be a highly contested arena, as would cyberspace, with both sides seeking to disrupt all aspects of normal life as the war was taken into the realms of politics, infrastructure, information, and commerce.

Despite Shirreff's warnings, the nightmare scenario of nuclear war is highly unlikely, as neither side ultimately would wish to unleash destruction on that scale. Likewise, chemical and biological weapons would, if employed at all, be used at a very local level, and sparingly.

That is not to say that the scale of the destruction would not be significant. This would be total war, waged on every imaginable front, from the internet and the stock market to outer space.

The general has, then, written an excellent and compelling novel. But while there might be some argument in favor of a more robust foreign policy and greater defense spending, to dismiss the Russian leadership purely as aggressively irrational is both naive and shortsighted. Ultimately, when it comes to a new world war, both sides now have far too much to lose.

Scholes007:
What do You mean by that? Where do you know in Abia? Actually ibadan shouldn't be a City to be too proud of. I would not like to compare with any city as I was exceedly disappointed my first month in Ibadan. Ibadan has considerable large population with little to no govt presence. Unless you want to lie to yourself

thank you for making me to spill a whole bottle of Pepsi on my keyboard due to an uncontrollable laughter . I never knew that a comedian like you on nairaland would make my day with your post

AnamCity:


Well I don't have time for back and forth as Awka is a well planned laid out city with beautiful houses. Firstly you made a comment I confronted you with some pictures of different parts. Go on with whatever you believe it does not change what is on ground here.

I have been following your argument since, please drop it!!!
Comparing Awka with Ibadan is like comparing is like comparing Lamborghini Huracan with Innoson Jeep.
I wouldn't mind if you had compared Ibadan with Enugu, I wouldn't mind if you had compared Ibadan with Owerri, I wouldn't mind if you had compared Ibadan with Entire Abia state, but comparing Ibadan with Awka? lolzzzzz.
Where was Awka when Ibadan was created? come on!!!! Very soon some you guys will start uploading Obiano's Office as part of Awka.
One thing I know about Awka is that, they have good roads which is far better than any South eastern state

Moscow (AFP) - Moscow on Friday proposed that Russia and United States, which have been flying separate bombing campaigns in Syria, launch joint air strikes against jihadists from next week, a proposal the Pentagon swiftly rejected.

"We are proposing to the US, as the head of the International Syria Support Group, to take part as of May 25 in joint operations between the Russian air force and the air force of the coalition," Russian defence minister Sergei Shoigu said in televised comments.

Shoigu said that the proposal included strikes against Jabhat al-Nusra and other illegal armed groups that do not support a frail truce brokered by Moscow and Washington in February.

He also proposed that joint strikes target "convoys containing weapons and ammunition (and) armed units that illegally cross the Syrian-Turkish border."

"We believe that adopting these measures will ensure the transition to a peace settlement process over all of Syria's territory," Shoigu said. "Of course, the leadership of the Syrian Arab Republic has agreed to these measures."

Hours later Pentagon spokesman Navy Captain Jeff Davis rejected Moscow's proposal, saying the US military does "not collaborate or coordinate with the Russians on any operations in Syria."

- Russia 'enabling' Assad -

"Russian operations are supporting and enabling the Assad regime and our focus is solely on degrading and defeating ISIL," Davis said, referring to the Islamic State jihadist group.

Davis added that the Pentagon had received "nothing formal" from its Russian counterpart regarding the proposal.

Russia and the United States pledged earlier this month to redouble efforts to find a solution to the Syrian conflict, which has killed more than 270,000 people and displaced millions since 2011, and extend a truce across the war-torn country.

Despite diplomatic efforts to resolve the five-year conflict, Moscow and Washington have been critical of each other's bombing campaigns in Syria.

The West has accused Moscow -- a staunch supporter of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad -- of propping up the regime by targeting rebels fighting Assad in strikes Moscow said were aimed against "terrorist" organisations.

Moscow has in turn repeatedly slammed the US coalition, saying its strikes in Syria have been ineffective.

Shoigu said Friday that Russia would reserve its right to unilaterally strike "international terrorist and illegal armed groups that have not adhered to the cessation of hostilities" starting from May 25.

President Vladimir Putin surprised the West in March by announcing the partial withdrawal of Russian troops from Syria, saying Moscow's task in the war-torn country had been "on the whole" completed.

The Pentagon said Wednesday that Russia's military strength in Syria had barely changed since the partial withdrawal was announced.

Baghdad-based US military spokesman Colonel Steve Warren said that Russia had established some sort of forward operating base outside Palmyra, the ancient city Syrian forces recaptured in March from Islamic State jihadists with the help of Russian air strikes and special forces.

The Russian defence ministry denied that it was building a base in Palmyra, saying its military installations in the area are a "temporary camp" used for demining operations.

BonkoINC:
How Do I Verify My Number on Whatsapp For Pc?
You verify via a QR code. Nothing much is different compared to the smartphone app except the fact that one cannot make a voice call via the Whatsapp for PC/mac app. ​



Source site: fastgeekpress.com a tech all rounder site.


CC: Lalasticlala thanks...

please how can I verify via QR code

NaijaTalkTown:
The difference is clear.

Yes the difference is clear in visible but squeezing face like Buhari's shit doesn't make one a good defense minister and putting on smilling face doesn't make one clueless defense minister.

please where is Baltic sea?

British Typhoon fighter jets have intercepted three Russian military transport aircraft approaching the Baltic States, the defense ministry said on Thursday.

The British fighters, scrambled from the Amari air base in Estonia, intercepted the Russian aircraft, which were not transmitting a recognized identification code and were unresponsive, the ministry said.

"We were able to instantly respond to this act of Russian aggression - demonstration of our commitment to NATO’s collective defense," Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said in a statement.

The latest Russian interception comes one month after two Russian warplanes with no visible weaponry flew simulated attack passes near a US guided missile destroyer in the Baltic Sea.
The repeated flights by the Sukhoi SU-24 warplanes, which also flew near the ship a day earlier, were so close they created wake in the water, with 11 passes, the official said.

The incident came as NATO plans its biggest build-up in eastern Europe since the Cold War to counter what the alliance, and in particular the Baltic states and Poland, consider to be a more aggressive Russia.

The three Baltic states, which joined both NATO and the European Union in 2004, have asked NATO for a permanent presence of battalion-sized deployments of allied troops in each of their territories. A NATO battalion typically consists of 300 to 800 troops.

When Russian President Vladimir Putin launched his campaign to prevent Ukraine from drawing closer to the European Union in 2014, his strategic objectives went beyond that Eastern European country’s borders. To be sure, Russia was concerned about Ukraine’s political and economic drift toward the West. But Moscow’s warnings to Kiev, which were followed by military action, were also meant as a signal to other countries that might have contemplated following in Ukraine’s steps.

The message was aimed at what used to be a clearly demarcated sphere of influence, serving as a threat to any country that was once part of the Soviet orbit, whether as a Soviet republic or as an Eastern European satellite. ... details coming soon

Deveslu (Romania) (AFP) - A US anti-missile defence system in Romania aimed at protecting NATO members from threats by “rogue” nations became operational on Thursday in a move that infuriated Russia.

The missile interceptor station located in Deveselu, southern Romania, will help defend NATO members against the threat of short and medium-range ballistic missiles, particularly from the Middle East, officials said.

“Today the United States and Romania make history in delivering this system to the NATO alliance,” said the US commander in Europe and Africa, Mark Ferguson, at an inauguration ceremony alongside NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg.

But Russia sees the missile system as a security threat right on its doorstep, despite the US and NATO insisting it is not aimed at undermining Moscow’s defences.

“From the very beginning of this whole story, we have said that according to our experts’ opinion, we are convinced that the deployment of the missile defence system is truly a threat to Russia’s security,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters in Moscow
elations between NATO and Moscow have sharply deteriorated since Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine in March 2014, sparking fears among other eastern European countries that they too could be the targets of Russian aggression.

Stoltenberg said the missile installation in Romania “represents a significant increase in the capability to defend European allies against proliferation of ballistic missiles” as it becomes part of a broader NATO missile shield with an installation in Poland as well.

But he stressed that the system was not aimed at Russia and in fact was not capable of intercepting Russian missiles.

“The site in Romania as well as the one in Poland are not directed against Russia. The interceptors are too few and located too far south or too close to Russia to be able to intercept Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles,” he said.

- ‘Purely defensive’ -

The Deveselu site will host a battery of SM-2 missile interceptors and will officially be integrated into the NATO missile shield at the bloc’s summit in Warsaw in July.

Work on the Deveselu site began in October 2013 and is thought to have cost $800 million (700 million euros).

The Western military alliance insists the role of the missile shield is a “purely defensive” response to external threats, notably from so-called “rogue states”, having referred in the past to Iran and North Korea .

The US ambassador to NATO, Douglas Lute, has described the activation of the missile system as a gesture of his country’s commitment to Article Five by which all 28 NATO members pledge a one-for-all, all-for-one response to any military threat if a member invokes the treaty clause in the face of an attack.

But Russia meanwhile is bolstering its forces to counter what defence officials said was the NATO build-up close to its borders.

“It is a step towards the military and political containment of Russia,” senior foreign ministry official Andrei Kelin said of the deployment, Interfax reported.

Kelin warned that it would “only worsen” the already tense relations between Russia and NATO.

KevMitnick:
Awesome piece of hardware. Do you know that the US under Obama could no longer afford the manufacturing and maintenance cost of the F22 Raptor that they opted to start manufacturing the cheaper F35 Lightning?

America is planning to start reproducing F-22 Raptor
http://www.janes.com/article/59675/pentagon-budget-2017-legislation-would-seek-f-22-production-restart

if that is not enough http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a20478/congress-air-force-restarting-f-22/

funny enough, some ineffective buffons will soon come here and start saying they would jam Raptor and divert it to Poland or Germany. lolzzzz

Two major things happened in the UK during late April that raised military aficionados' eyebrows and caught aviation observers with their pants down.
The first one was when the US Air Force deploy twelve of the world’s most advanced super fighters across the Atlantic without any warning. It just happened. A mass of F-22A Raptors left Tyndall AFB in Florida and headed for England on a deployment that would last nearly three weeks. And no one outside the ‘need to know’ military network had a heads up/information about it. It proved that such things can still be done without losing the element of surprise, a point that is extra significant when you consider that the UK has an entire community built around aircraft spotting and flight tracking.

The second was as incredible as the first and saw a program first for this silver-clad 5th Generation fighter. Two of the super-cruising, thrust-vectoring, stealth-optimized, air dominance jets undertook a dedicated low-level mission through the UK’s famous Low-Fly system, the silver angels dropping down from the heavens, weaving and glinting their way through the green valleys of Wales.

[img]https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/TQyWD1myS6flU6Aqg3pv9Q--/aD00ODA7dz02NDA7c209MTthcHBpZD15dGFjaHlvbg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en-US/homerun/the_drive_165/1bdb96e84d88d3b8752449b1042cc008[/img]

Tanks on the Black Sea. For the first time ever, the U.S. Army has sent Abrams tanks to take part in an exercise in Georgia, on the Black Sea coast. The tanks will take part in an annual exercise on Russia’s southern flank, where Moscow fought a war in 2008. About 1,300 troops from Georgia, the U.K., and the United States will take part in the exercises that kicked off on May 11. They’ll wrap up on the 26th — Georgia’s Independence Day — which we have to admit is a nice touch. The American contingent of 650 troops more than doubles last year’s exercise, which included about 300 U.S. soldiers.
In response, the Russian foreign ministry has accused NATO of trying to destabilize the Caucasus region. “We view this consistent ‘development’ of Georgian territory by NATO soldiers as a provocative move, aiming to deliberately destabilize the military-political situation in the Caucasus region,” the ministry said in a statement.


Defense shield turned on. Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work has arrived in Romania for the activation of the United States’ European missile defense shield, which goes live on Thursday. The system is the culmination of a decade of work, and has been billed as a way to protect NATO from Iranian rockets. But Moscow, unsurprisingly, is unhappy that the new American technology has been placed so close its borders, claiming that Russia is the real target.

The system, based at a rural air base in Deveselu, Romania, is the first of two sites, with construction on a second site in Poland to commence later this week. Taken together, the two missile defense installations will give NATO a 24-hour early warning and defense system against Iranian missiles. “The system is not aimed against Russia,” Robert Bell, a U.S. official, told reporters.

Baltic buildup questioned. Former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel doesn’t like where U.S. policy with Russia is headed. Speaking at the Atlantic Council Tuesday, Hagel indicated he thinks the Obama administration should pump the brakes on its plans to send more U.S. troops to Eastern Europe. “If I were secretary of defense today, I’d be careful with this because…we can find ourselves very quickly in another Cold War buildup here, that really makes no sense for either side.” The Pentagon’s current plans call for two American battalions to deploy to NATO’s Baltic states as a show of force. Hagel said he’s “not sure” where that buildup ends, and “I’m not sure there’s some real strategic thinking here.”

Stealth planes to the South China Sea? Well, here’s a bit of important news. Air Force magazine drops that the U.S. Air Force A-10 Warthogs recently deployed to the Philippines have concluded their mission there after flying just four missions over international waters and carrying out two dozen training missions. During a visit to the Philippines in April, Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced that the Warthogs would hang around for a little while after exercising with Philippine forces. The mag also reports that the Air Force is planning follow up the hogs’ visit with the arrival of an “advanced fighter jet,” which may just be the F-22 Raptor. Washington recently reached a basing agreement for U.S. forces as the island nation grows wary of Chinese territorial claims in its backyard.
Playing the game. In response to the U.S. Navy’s USS William P. Lawrence passing near Fiery Cross Reef in the South China Sea on Tuesday, China’s Defense Ministry said it was Washington’s fault that it was deploying more military hardware to the disputed islands in the waterway. In a statement, the ministry said, “the provocative actions by American military ships and planes lay bare the U.S. designs to seek gain by creating chaos in the region and again testify to the total correctness and utter necessity of China’s construction of defensive facilities on relevant islands.”

Beijing also promised to “increase the scope of sea and air patrols based on need, boost all categories of military capacity building, resolutely defend national sovereignty and security, and resolutely safeguard peace and stability in the South China Sea.”

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/11/situation-report-u-s-tanks-in-putins-backyard-stealth-planes-to-south-china-sea-european-missile-shield-up-and-running-former-marine-details-iranian-torture-and-lots-more/

Missy89:


I think you are asking the wrong question.

America have deployed the most formidable weapon against China since 1990

Cheeseburgers

The Chinese Army needs to upgrade its military equipment as its soldiers have become so much fatter and taller over the past two decades that they have difficulty squeezing into tanks! They also have problems using other armaments, a new survey suggests.

Such an increase in size is causing discomfort for troopers who feel “cramped” in tanks, which were designed based on average physiques of 30 years ago. Rifle stocks are also too short for some of the modern personnel, limiting their accuracy, the study said.

https://www.rt.com/news/china-army-tanks-big-733/


The Hegemon defeated China a long time ago. All the sabre-rattling you see today is the work of the Zionists to keep people brainwashed so that they can secretly take over the world

perfect!!! I have never regarded china as a big threat to American military, but as a threat to American economic dominance. I was told that they are only good at duplicating .for example, see the picture below

Missy89:


Right.

He used the wrong metrics but there is nothing wrong with his conclusion.

yea!!! even in terms of firepower, US is still ahead

capip120:
Last year, China publicly showed off its Dongfeng (“East Wind”) DF-21D missile, which some US observers have dubbed a “carrier killer.” The anti-ship ballistic missile has a maximum range of 780 nautical miles, or 1,450 km, and there is currently no defense against it.

Meanwhile, the Russian Navy demonstrated its cruise-missile capabilities as well, launching a volley of 3M14T Kalibr missiles in October 2015 against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) targets in Syria. According to the Russian Defense Ministry, the missiles are capable of hitting a target at a range of up to 2,500 kilometers with 3-meter accuracy.

Does China have any defense against swarms of American Tomahawk Block-IV MISSILE?