Atomic bomb weights—without the hype. At this time, no one outside of North Korea has solid information about the characteristics of North Korea’s nuclear weapons designs—especially about whether or not the weapons that have been tested are cumbersome laboratory devices or readily militarized designs that could be put into bombs or carried on ballistic missiles. This information is simply not available at this time.

We are therefore left to speculate based on intelligence information that we have from other sources and on an understanding of the very significant technical problems of design and implementation that must be solved to be able to build and deliver atomic bombs by ICBM.

There is general information about an atomic bomb design that was obtained by Pakistan from China, and by Libya from Pakistan. A.Q. Khan, a Pakistani known to have trafficked equipment and information that would facilitate the building of atomic bombs, is reported to have sold that design to Libya. Khan is known to have sold uranium enrichment gas-centrifuge technology to North Korea; it is very likely he also shared atomic bomb design information similar to what he sold Libya.

It is reported that the bomb design Khan sold to Libya and possibly to North Korea would produce a warhead that weighed about 500 kilograms and yielded about 10 kilotons, if properly implemented. All of the original design information from China was for devices that were aimed at assembling uranium 235 cores. This information could have been modified and used by North Korea to implement similar implosion devices to instead assemble plutonium 239 cores. However, these devices would have had to be developed and modified from the original designs.

This information is consistent with the seismic data from Pakistan’s nuclear tests in 1998, which suggest that the yield of atomic bombs tested by Pakistan is between 10 and 15 kilotons. It is also consistent with the seismic data from North Korea’s nuclear tests, which indicate maximum explosive yields of perhaps 10 to 20 kilotons.

North Korea has publicly displayed what it claims to be a standardized atomic bomb that dimensional analysis indicates could weigh as little as 400 kilograms. The device displayed by North Korea is clearly a spherical implosion design—seemingly based on the same design concept that Khan sold to Libya and used by Pakistan. (If North Korea had instead sought to impress the outside world by displaying an atomic bomb that was shaped somewhat like an egg, it could have indicated an entirely different and far more advanced design.) But the payload of a missile consists of more than a warhead. Because of the extreme environments created by long-range missile reentry to the atmosphere—including temperatures in the thousands of degrees and high deceleration forces—we have assumed that 25 percent of the payload-weight of these North Korean rockets would have to be given over to a heat shield and the structure needed to hold an atomic bomb in place during deceleration. This is an intentional underestimate of the weight of the warhead assembly, to make our assessment of the Hwasong-14’s capabilities as favorable to North Korean capabilities as possible.

In this extremely conservative estimate, and as a result of a review of the very sketchy information about nuclear weapons design information that has leaked from China to Pakistan and beyond, we think that a reasonable guess for the minimum weight of an advanced first-generation weaponized North Korean atomic bomb that is able to survive the extreme environments associated with ICBM delivery could be as low as 500 to 600 kilograms.

In our view, the engineering challenges of implementing a nuclear weapon are substantial and highly dependent on material resources, national experience, and the skill and depth of knowledge of scientists, engineers, and technicians involved at every level of the enterprise. As such, it cannot be ruled out that a North Korean weaponized device could weigh considerably more than 600 kilograms or less than 500 kilograms, but we believe it is overwhelmingly likely that it would not weigh less than 500.

Our estimates show that the Hwasong-14, using the publicly reported burn times for the upper rocket stage, could deliver a nuclear warhead only as far as Anchorage, Alaska if the warhead weighed 500 kilograms to 550 kilograms. To reach Seattle, the warhead would have to be substantially smaller, weighing no more than 300 kilos. We believe that an advanced North Korean weaponized atomic bomb would be unlikely to weigh less than 500 to 600 kilograms. So it is entirely possible that this variant of the Hwasong-14 will not be able to deliver an atomic bomb to Anchorage, Alaska.

If the upper stage of the Hwasong-14 were instead fitted with the more capable vernier motors from the SS-N-6 submarine launched ballistic missile (known in Russia as the R-27), it could potentially deliver an atomic bomb to Anchorage, if the bomb weighed less than between 650 and 750 kg. The same upgraded variant of the Hwasong-14 could only deliver an atomic bomb to Seattle if the bomb weighed less than between 400 and 450 kg.

Since it is extremely unlikely that a first-generation weaponized North Korean atomic bomb would weigh substantially less than 500 kilograms, we conclude that neither variant of the Hwasong-14 missile could deliver a first-generation North Korean atomic bomb to the continental United States.

We emphasize at this point that advances in rocketry demonstrated by North Korea in the Hwasong-14 are significant, and although the Hwasong-14 is not an immediate threat to the continental United States, variants that are almost certainly now under development, but probably years away from completion, will eventually become missiles with sufficient payloads to deliver atomic bombs to the continental United States.

Performance assessment of the Hwasong-14. Like any missile system, the actual lifting and range capability of the Hwasong-14 depends on many technical details. Among these are the type of fuel burned by the missile, the efficiency of its rocket motors, the total amount of propellant carried in each stage, the weight of the missile’s airframe, and the weight of different components, including rocket motors, plumbing, guidance and control systems, and the like.

In the case of the Hwasong-14, almost all of the critical parameters that ultimately determine the rocket’s ability to carry a payload-weight to a given range can be deduced from photographs, videos of its initial powered flight, engineering knowledge of rocket systems, and specific other engineering information that can be determined by other observations of the missile and its motor components.

For example, the performance characteristics of the main rocket motor that powers the first stage are well known. This is in part because the rocket motor has been unambiguously identified as derived from components of a well-known family of Russian rocket motors. The type of propellant used by this family of motors is also known—unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) and nitrogen tetroxide (NTO), a highly energetic propellant combination used extensively in Russian rocket systems.

The dimensions of the Hwasong-14 are readily determined from photographs of the missile and its length, as measured relative to the known length of the Chinese-made vehicle that carries it. Since the density of the propellant is known, and the dimensions of the rocket stages and the functions of the different sections of the rocket stages are easily identified, very good estimates of the weights of the stages, airframes and rocket motors can be deduced from simple volumetric analysis and knowledge of design features. Although many of the refined details of the rocket may not be known, the general information of the type described above provides quite good estimates of how well the rocket will perform.

These data lead to an overall weight estimate of roughly 37 metric tons for the Hwasong-14. The known characteristics of the main first-stage rocket motor, and the observed rate of acceleration of the rocket at launch, result in a highly constrained check on the missile model we created to estimate its overall range and payload performance.

One critical parameter of the Hwasong-14 is not yet known with certainty: the exact powered flight time of the second stage. This parameter is an important factor in determining the overall performance of the Hwasong-14, due to a phenomenon known among rocket engineers as “gravitational losses” during powered flight. To perhaps oversimplify the physics involved, the longer the rocket motor burns against the gravitational pull of the Earth, the less efficiently it accelerates its payload to a final speed. But two articles in The Diplomat magazine have included flight times for the second stages of the rockets that North Korea launched in July. Two independent sources have confirmed those times to us as accurate.

http://thebulletin.org/north-korea%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cnot-quite%E2%80%9D-icbm-can%E2%80%99t-hit-lower-48-states11012

North Korea’s “not quite” ICBM can’t hit the lower 48 states

Theodore A. Postol Markus Schiller Robert Schmucker

THEODORE A. POSTOL
A physicist, Theodore A. Postol is professor of science, technology, and national security policy at MIT. His expertise is in...

More


MARKUS SCHILLER
Markus Schiller holds degrees in mechanical and aerospace engineering from Technical University Munich. He has been employed at Schmucker Technologie since 2006, except for a one-year fellowship...

More

ROBERT SCHMUCKER
Robert Schmucker has more than five decades of experience researching rocketry, missiles, and astronautics. In the 1990s, he was a weapons inspector for the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) in Iraq...

More


On July 3, 2017, while Americans were preparing for the 241st celebration of the Declaration of Independence, a lone rocket rose from North Korea on a near-vertical trajectory. After five to six minutes of powered flight, the second stage of the missile shut down and coasted to an altitude of about 2,720 kilometers. It then fell back to Earth, reentering the atmosphere above the Sea of Japan some 900 kilometers to the east of where it had launched. The rocket’s upper stage coasted in freefall for about 32 minutes, and the overall time-of-flight, from launch to atmospheric reentry, was about 37 minutes. The launch occurred at 8:39 p.m., United States’ Eastern time. Within hours, the news of the launch was trumpeted by the US mainstream press: North Korea had flown an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), a missile that could carry nuclear warheads to Anchorage, Alaska, and to the continental United States as well!

But the Western press apparently did not know one crucial fact: The rocket carried a reduced payload and, therefore, was able to reach a much higher altitude than would have been possible if it had instead carried the weight associated with the type of first-generation atomic bomb North Korea might possess. Experts quoted by the press apparently assumed that the rocket had carried a payload large enough to simulate the weight of such an atomic bomb, in the process incorrectly assigning a near-ICBM status to a rocket that was in reality far less capable.

Only three and a half weeks later, on July 28, there was a second launch of the same type of missile, this time at night, Korean time. The rocket flew approximately the same powered flight trajectory that it had on July 3 (or July 4 in North Korea), this time, however, reaching a higher altitude—a reported 3,725 kilometers. This longer flight path led to yet more unwarranted conclusions that the continental United States was now directly under threat of nuclear attack by North Korea. Actually, however, in this second case, by our calculations, the second stage of the so-called ICBM carried an even smaller payload and tumbled into the atmosphere at night over the Sea of Japan. The spectacular night-reentry of the rocket—what was almost certainly the heavy front-end of the nearly empty upper stage—created an impressive meteoric display that some experts mistook for the breakup of a failed warhead reentry vehicle.

From the point of view of North Korean political leadership, the general reaction to the July 4 and July 28 launches could not have been better. The world suddenly believed that the North Koreans had an ICBM that could reach the West Coast of the United States and beyond. But calculations we have made—based on detailed study of the type and size of the rocket motors used, the flight times of the stages of the rockets, the propellant likely used, and other technical factors—indicate that these rockets actually carried very small payloads that were nowhere near the weight of a nuclear warhead of the type North Korea could have, or could eventually have. These small payloads allowed the rockets to be lofted to far higher altitudes than they would have if loaded with a much-heavier warhead, creating the impression that North Korea was on the cusp of achieving ICBM capability.

In reality, the North Korean rocket fired twice last month—the Hwasong-14—is a “sub-level” ICBM that will not be able to deliver nuclear warheads to the continental United States. Our analysis shows that the current variant of the Hwasong-14 may not even be capable of delivering a first-generation nuclear warhead to Anchorage, Alaska, although such a possibility cannot be categorically ruled out. But even if North Korea is now capable of fabricating a relatively light-weight, “miniaturized” atomic bomb that can survive the extreme reentry environments of long-range rocket delivery, it will, with certainty, not be able to deliver such an atomic bomb to the lower 48 states of the United States with the rocket tested on July 3 and July 28.

First, the bottom line. In each of the two North Korean tests in July, the rockets were fired on a trajectory that sent them to high altitudes; on these trajectories, the rockets travelled relatively short horizontal distances. But after the tests, analysts projected the maximum range the rockets could have traveled by assuming that they could have been placed on trajectories that would result in a maximum achievable range, rather than a maximum achievable altitude. For example, the 2,720-kilometer altitude achieved by the July 3 rocket was determined by its burnout speed. If it is assumed that the rocket could achieve roughly the same burnout speed on a trajectory that is shaped for maximum range, it would be sufficient to carry the payload to Anchorage, Alaska.

In the case of the July 28 test, the same rocket achieved a higher burnout speed and a higher altitude—about 3,725 kilometers. If it were again assumed that the rocket’s trajectory is shaped for maximum range instead of maximum altitude, the new higher burnout speed would be able to carry the payload to Seattle, Washington.

Figure 1 below shows the trajectories flown on July 4 and July 28 that were misinterpreted as tests of a North Korean rocket capable of delivering atomic bombs to the continental United States.


Figure 1. The highly lofted rocket trajectories for the burnout speeds achieved in the July 4 and the July 28 tests are shown on the left side of the figure. The center and right side of the figure show alternative rocket trajectories that could instead have been flown with loft angles optimized for maximum range instead of for maximum altitude.

One question is not answered by this basic kinematic study of the July 4 and July 28 tests: How did the rocket achieve its burnout speed? That’s to say, what kind of rocket motors did it need to achieve the resulting burnout speed, what was the rocket’s launch weight, and most, important, what was the payload-weight carried by the rocket?

Figure 2 shows a summary of our estimates of the range versus the weight of atomic bomb that might be carried by a Hwasong-14 missile, derived from our technical analysis of the Hwasong-14’s weight and propulsive capabilities and the likely weight of a North Korean nuclear warhead.



Figure 2. The analysis results summarized in the graph are for two different “designs” of the Hwasong-14.

The first design uses published information about the powered flight time of the second stages of the rockets and is reflected by the red curves in Figure 2. Those two curves correspond to reported second-stage flight times of 224 and 233 seconds for the two rocket tests. We have received two independent confirmations of these published flight times from sources that we believe to be reliable. As those curves show, if the North Koreans have achieved the capability of creating a missile warhead as light-weight as those used by the Chinese and Pakistani militaries—no small feat for a country with means as limited as North Korea’s—the two missiles fired in July could carry that missile roughly 6,000 kilometers, approximately the distance to Anchorage, Alaska. The missiles simply could not carry such a warhead to the lower 48 states.

The second design—reflected by the blue curves in Figure 2—assumes that the North Koreans actually use more efficient rocket motors than are indicated by the information published in major media about the powered flight trajectory of the second upper stage. In this second design, we assumed that the rocket’s upper stage would be powered by rocket motors similar to those with characteristics demonstrated in the top stages of the North Korean Unha-3 and the Iranian Safir Satellite Launch Vehicle (SLV). We believe North Korea is capable of building such a variant of the Hwasong-14, and that variant could have the capability to deliver a first-generation weaponized North Korean atomic bomb to Anchorage, Alaska, and slightly beyond.

But neither variant of the Hwasong-14 we have studied could carry a first-generation weaponized North Korean atomic bomb to any part of the continental United States beyond Alaska.

Moscow doesn't rule out any measures to "bring Amerika back to its senses"

That's the statement from the Kremlin.

This happened a couple of weeks back.





Senior US official reduced to very awkward silence when asked about Saudi Arabia's attitude to democracy

Acting Assistant Secretary of State Stuart Jones’ 20-second hesitation before answering has been described as the longest pause ever seen from a US official
Adam Lusher Wednesday 31 May 2017


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPwoj3U5Awo

A senior US foreign affairs official gave one of the most awkward press conference responses ever witnessed in response to aquestion about Saudi Arabia’s attitude to democracy.

Having served as US Ambassador to Jordan and Iraq – and been in Al Anbar Province in 2004, as it became the deadliest region for US forces in Iraq – Stuart Jones might have been considered more than able to fend off questions about Saudi Arabia’s apparent lack of enthusiasm for elections.

Instead the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East Affairs Bureau, freshly returned from accompanying President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to Saudi Arabia, seemed completely stumped by the relatively straightforward reporter’s question.



He was asked: “While you were over there, the Secretary criticised the conduct of the Iranian elections and Iran’s record on democracy. He did so standing next to Saudi officials. How do you characterise Saudi Arabia’s commitment to democracy, and does the administration believe that democracy is a buffer or a barrier against extremism?”

“Um,” said Mr Jones. He took a deep breath. He tried again: “Err…”

And then the senior State Department official fell completely silent. For 16 seconds, although to Mr Jones it may have seemed more like an eternity.

Behind his spectacles, Mr Jones seemed to be staring into space, lost in thought – or panic – possibly considering his response, perhaps hoping the ground would swallow him up, or maybe wondering why on Earth he hadn’t wrapped up the press conference before allowing that one last question.

Finally, a full 20 seconds after the question was asked – a pause described by one experienced commentator as the longest ever seen from a US official – Mr Jones managed a stuttering response.
It made no reference at all to attitudes to democracy in a kingdom where only three elections – all of them merely for local councils – have been allowed in 52 years.

The official State Department transcriptseems to have tidied things up by removing the agonising pause and the hesitations, but the video shows Mr Jones’ full response to have been: “I think what we would say is that, uh, at this meeting, we were able to, err, make significant progress with Saudi and GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] partners in, uh, both making a strong statement against extremism and also, um, and also putting err…err, putting in place certain measures through this GCC mechanism where we can combat extremism.




"Clearly one source of extremism – one source – one err terrorism threat is coming from Iran. And that’s coming from a part of the Iranian apparatus that is not at all responsive to its electorate.”


There is then yet another pause, Mr Jones staying stock still before a fellow State Department official says “okay” to indicate that the press conference is over. Mr Jones then quietly thanks the assembled reporters, collects his papers and exits before anyone is rude enough to ask a follow-up question.

From TheDuran:

BUSTED: US State Department doesn’t care about false flag attacks (VIDEO)



Is Heather Nauert now working for al-Qaeda? Hard to tell from her response which quotes the propaganda from pro-al-Aqaeda channels.
During a press conference, RT’s Caleb Maupin asked US Sate Department Spokeswoman Heather Nauert if US stories about an ‘imminent chemical weapons attack’ will bait terrorist groups into staging one themselves.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqF3HSUFrFc

Her answer was both arrogant, flippant and factually incorrect as Mr. Maupin pointed out, even as Nauert tried to shut him up.

Serving US senators presenting a plaque to Abdel Belhaj of LIFG for his efforts in overthrowing the Libyan government back in 2011. LIFG is the very same terror group that the Manchester bomber belongs to.


Why then have people decided to waste time deliberating this attack when it's quite obvious what the problem is?

As long as the West keeps supporting these "moderates" in the name of regime change and hobnobbing with the autocratic regimes that spawn them (as the recent trip of Trump has shown) these attacks will keep coming to your backyard.

It's been the same unmistakable pattern of collaboration between Amerika and jihadists from Afghanistan against the Soviets which birthed Al-aqaeda to Syria to Libya and so on. Until that unholy alliance between these evil beings is broken, there will be no end in sight to terror.


Appleyard, Scully95, Zoharariel

Lucasbalo:
Here we go again for a fool throwing shady insults. Will let this slide. I was expecting you to Holla at me when you said you were coming to Chicago last March. Who visits Chicago in March ?. Tales by the moonlight.

Hilarious! Seems like I struck a nerve. I see you can't answer but rather resort to deflection as usual. I'm off to bed.

Till we tango again, ciao!

Lucasbalo:
That's the problem with you and your commie friends. America's hatred in your DNA. How do you know Russians are not talking or obsessed about America ?. Do you watch Russian TV or Cable News in Nigeria or do you live in Russia and speak Russian. You can foam in the mouth about America all you want but the Eagle will keep soaring. Worry about people stealing the commonwealth dry in Nigeria while people like you eat crumps that falls off their table. America is not the reason for your predicament in life. Some of us will defend America's honor. America is not perfect because no country is but I will take America anytime over any other country.

Whatever it is that you've been through or whatever it is that you are presently going through I hope that you have the fortitude to overcome it cos I don't understand your obsession with the livelihood of others or how others are faring in life while "debating" politics. I'm sure psychiatrists will probably boil this strange behavior to some sort of feeling of inadequacy bedeviling you. Anyway, that's besides the point...

Uncle Tom, still waiting for links on how Russians are obsessed about Amerika. Their major news outlets are in English by the way. So I'm waiting..........Can't wait forever though. I don't live on Nairaland like you do

Lucasbalo:
You know that because you live in Russia.

Lol! If you have nothing of substance to say, why don't you butt out?

TV show hosts, members of congress, the media & the intelligence community all sing "Russians, Russians!" all day. It's a daily hysteria. They can't get by a day without focusing on it. It's so bad that the media chases Putin down a tunnel prior to a hockey game for his views on the sacking of Comey. How on earth is this of any concern to Russia? A totally domestic matter? Amerika is truly amusing us all and we are enjoying the show I must admit.

Now, it's your turn to tell me how Russia is obsessed with Amerika....1,2,3...

vantage001:
While the Russian establishment love America so much.
Thank you for these unbiased article.

The Russian establishment, media (or people) do not spend their entire time obsessing over Amerika and labeling it the enemy.

Missy89:


That Is the Balkans

I was mixing the Caucusus up with the Balkans. My bad

https://gianalytics.org/869-why-does-the-american-establishment-hate-russia-so-much

Why Does the American Establishment Hate Russia So Much?

First of all, let me start by saying I don’t know why the American Establishment is so obsessed about Russia. I can’t think of any good reason why it should be. All Russia wants is a quiet life so that it can rebuild things – as Putin himself said, back before he was President:

The current dramatic economic and social situation in the country is the price, which we have to pay for the economy we inherited from the Soviet Union.
That was not said by someone whose principal purpose is to re-create the USSR or the Russian Empire; it’s someone who wants to re-construct the defective “economic and social situation” of his country. And that requires peace and quiet. In the real world, Russia isn’t any kind of threat whatsoever to the USA. And, one would think, when the “Terror threat looms across the world” it’s a useful and necessary ally.

I do know, and my quotations collection shows, that hostility to Russia never stopped – or even moderated – after the USSR collapsed. Even in 1990 there were people insisting that nothing was real was happening because Russia, in its very essence, was expansionist, dictatorial and hostile to “our values”. Any so-called changes were only illusions calculated to gull the simple-minded. The only possible Russia was an Enemy Russia: all Russians qua Russians – never mind the absence of the temporary Soviet carapace – imagined, thought about, dreamed of, was enmity to Us and to Our Values. Russophobes – not Russia-fearers really, but Russia-haters – had little audience as long as it seemed that Russia was sinking into insignificance. With the revival of Russia’s prospects this century the Russia-haters have come to dominate the discussion.

We hear that Russia is an “existential threat” to the USA. That charge, at least, is true: Russia’s nuclear weaponry could obliterate the USA and render it uninhabitable for decades or centuries. (At the same cost to itself, of course). But the UK, France or China could cause unacceptable damage, if not outright obliteration, too. But Washington doesn’t worry about the first two and is not obsessed about the third. And one would think that Russia’s nuclear might should have been a reason to treat it with circumspection. Apparently not.

To any objective viewer Russia is not the aggressor. Those who believe that “Putin wants a new Russian empire” should – but never do – explain why it missed the chance to put Georgia into the bag in 2008. Those who believe Russia has invaded Ukraine, never explain why why the invader still hasn’t managed to get past the Donetsk Airport. A strange reluctance to take the full mouthful: a reluctance that cries out for an explanation. But no explanation is ever presented: in their vision Russia is forever reaching but never grasping, powerful but impotent, determined but indecisive.

It’s not Russia that expanded its military alliance up to the “doorstep” of the USA. It’s not Russia that has fomented, or tried to foment, “colour revolutions” in Canada, Mexico, Bermuda, Guatemala or the USA itself. Russian military bases do not surround the USA. Its media is not full of stories about Obama’s mistresses, offshore accounts, “information war“, “hybrid war“, troll factories, thuggish propensities, hatred of homosexuals, determination to conquer neighbours, bare chested macho posing, persecution of rock groups, murder of opponents.

So, why this bizarre fixation with Russia? As I said, I don’t know: there remains something deeply irrational about it; something buried deep in the dark that can’t quite be seen.

But, forthwith, I put forth a list of possible reasons.

1. American lefties dislike Russia because it rejected socialism; indeed the Soviet experience stands as an indictment against the whole scheme.

2. Righties dislike Russia because, communist or not (and how many think it still is?) it’s still Russia.

3. Americans have to have a rival, an opponent, a counter, an enemy even. It’s geopolitical chiaroscuro: the City on The Hill must shine in the Darkness.

4. Russia is the right size of opponent. To be obsessed with Venezuela (“national security threat” though it is declared) would be unworthy for such a “great” and “winning” country. China is too big and, because it owns so much of the US economy, too dangerous, to provoke. Russia is of sufficient size to be a worthy target.

5. Russia is a safe target (or so Obama thought a year ago). US-Russia trade is small and there is little cost to being sanctimonious against Russia: bashing Russia gives a pleasing sense of moral superiority without uncomfortable consequences.

6. Maybe Russia is an ungrateful child? In the 1990s there was much talk about US aid and advice reforming Russia, the “end of history” and all that. Russia was, evidently, on the edge of becoming “just like us”. But it didn’t and such back-sliding cannot be forgiven.

7. Russia is a convenient palimpsest on which to write the presumptions you brought. Martin Malia wrote a fascinating book showing how Westerners from Voltaire onwards found Russia to be the perfect exemplar of whatever it was that they wished it to be. So, in Russia you can find whatever you’re looking for: a “geostrategic foe”, for example.

8. Given that today “human rights” have been reduced to little more than applauding sexual preferences, (Watch this Ukrainian video on why the Dutch should have voted Yes, if you think I’m overstating things) Russia is so old-fashioned that all can hate it.

9. They’re just trapped in it – they’ve been crying wolf so long and so loudly, they can’t stop.

10. The people who actually run the USA (the White-House-and-Congress/the-Deep-State: your choice) know that the USA is losing the industrial production capacity that made it Number One. Their solution, so the theory goes (Pepe Escobar’s Empire of Chaos theory), is that the only way to keep the USA (relatively) on the top is to depress the others. Chaos and instability on its borders will bog Russia down. Europe can be bogged down by using the Russian threat – in this respect, the sanctions against and by Russia are hurting Europe more than anyone. At the end, the USA will still be king of the hill even if the hill is smaller.

11. For some reason – it’s observable, even if it’s not explicable – Americans personalise everything. And, out there, visible everywhere, is Vladimir Vladimirovich. On Wednesday the Panama Papers are about him, on Thursday they are by him. Putin Derangement Syndrome sells papers and animates talk shows. Just in the month of April, for example, we have been told that Putin is going out with Murdoch’s ex-wife; we have seen both versions of the Panama Papers story; told that Dutch voters were thought-controlled by him, that he has a secret army in Europe and an army of “spy dolphins“. Putin Derangement Syndrome is getting crazier and crazier.

12. We cannot forget sheer profitability. Billions spent on an F-35 fighter, a Littoral Combat Ship, unending tank production, trillion-dollar nuclear weapons program and billions and billions more cannot be substantiated by fighting a handful of “terrorists” equipped with small arms, road-side bombs and suicide vests. Without a serious enemy, justifying big contracts, how can generals hope to get a second high-paid job in retirement? The enormous US military sector needs a capable and convincing enemy. And, other than Russia (or China – remember the pivot to Asia?), what is there?

13. There is the argument that NATO is one of the principal ways that Washington maintains its dominance over Europe and the EU. The easiest and simplest justification for NATO is a return to its earliest purpose, as Lord Ismay wittily put it, “To keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down”. The director of Stratfor has opined that the “primordial interest” of the USA has been preventing any sort of condominium between Germany and Russia. The Russia-the-eternal-enemy position provides both a justification for the continuation of NATO and a prophylactic against a Berlin-Moscow axis. It ensures a Europe that cannot stand on its own.


14. Sheer laziness. The 24/7 news cycle needs material and it’s always easiest to stick with what you have. Because Russia filled some time yesterday, it should do so again today. There’s always someone available to tell you that Putin is corrupt, or Russia is about to invade some country, or Russia is about to collapse, or Russians are hungry or some other click-bait headline. Better than celebrities and their drug or marital problems because it gives that soupçon of gravity that makes the audience feel it’s not wasting its time. The steady diet has its effect and so Russia-the-eternal-enemy comes to be casually accepted.

15. It’s clear that Putin’s team is serious and so many Western leaders are not. Also, and this cannot be denied, the team is successful. This minor country that makes nothing, where no one wants to live and which is dying is setting the course. Meanwhile, in the West…… This must infuriate the Western Establishment and that is a motive for the unceasing attempts to demean Putin & Co. It is “magical thinking“: if they repeat the charm loudly and often, maybe Russia will go away and no Western population will have to contemplate the possibility that national governments might actually do what they are paid to do.

16. The state of mind in the Obama Administration is not made better by million-view YouTube videos comparing his work-out style with Putin’s. Nor pages of sneering cartoons contrasting a macho image with a feeb. Nor pages of “Putin beats Obama”. It has been some time since people gushed over Obama’s “glistening pecs“. It would also go some distance to explain outbursts like “White House criticizes Vladimir Putin’s posture” or flippant – and self-deceiving – dismissals like “regional power acting out of weakness” or “Russia is the outlier“.

17. A subset of the above is the realisation that the Putin team has out-manoeuvred Washington at every step in the past few years. Washington was not able to overthrow Assad in Syria. The US Navy will not have a base in Sevastopol. Ukraine is a failing nightmare and its chances of joining NATO are probably lower than they were ten years ago. The sanctions regime against Russia has backfired. Russia survives low oil prices. The Moscow-Beijing axis is stronger than ever. Russia is not “isolated”. The Western Alliance is surely weaker than before. And this returns us to the “magical thinking” that we see manifested in Washington’s confused and contradictory utterances.


So abusing Russia satisfies many needs for the American Establishment: a safe opponent to swagger over; a contrast that can be painted as dark as you like; an object of feel-good moral righteousness; a sullen teenager who won’t listen to Daddy; a blank slate on which to write; a pretend enemy we can make a fortune out of; a useful bogeyman to frighten allies into obedience; gossip for pseudo-intellectuals. Many things at once.

But, the cost is rising.

What has changed is the conviction that Russia is a low-cost opponent. It’s very interesting to read things like this “If Russia Started a War in the Baltics, NATO Would Lose — Quickly” and “I am very concerned about the increasing risk of loss of U.S. military technological superiority” from the US defence establishment. Perhaps it’s just an attempt to screw more money out of Congress but these are certainly not things that could have been said in 2000.

It’s amazing the effect that a few insignificant boats in the Caspian Sea had, isn’t it?

Appleyard:


The.....


Watch the Balkans.......

Not just the Balkans. Trouble seems to be brewing in the Albania, Serbia, Macedonia region

Zoharariel:
Sorry comrades, I had to paste this here.


[bWhat I am sure of is that 36 advanced cruise missile do not “just disappear”. There are two reasons why the Russians would have decided to use their EW systems and not their missiles: first, it provides them “plausible deniability” (at least for the general public, there is no doubt that US signal intelligence units did detect the Russian electronic interference (unless it happened at very low power and very high frequency and far away inland), and because by using EW systems it allowed them to keep their air defense missiles for the protection of their own forces.

Take a look at this image (see attached picture), taken from a Russian website, which appears to have been made by the company Kret which produces some of the key Russian electronic warfare systems. Do you notice that on the left hand side, right under the AWACs aircraft you can clearly see a Tomahawk type missile turning around and eventually exploding at sea?

How this is done is open to conjecture. All that we are told is that the missile is given a “false target” but for our purposes this really does not matter. What matters is that the Russians have basically leaked the information that they are capable of turning cruise missiles around. There are other possibilities such as an directed energy beams which basically fries or, at least, confuses the terrain following and or inertial navigation systems. Some have suggested a “kill switch” which would shut down the entire missile.

Again, this really doesn’t matter for our purposes. What matters is that the Russian have the means to spoof, redirect or destroy US cruise missiles. It sure appears to be that for the first time these systems were used in anger.

[Sidebar: For those interested in seeing what such a system looks like, here is a short video made by the Russians themselves showing how such a system is deployed and operated:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_BoWjYvOHY

In terms of technical details, or we are told that this system can jam any airborne object at a distance of 200km[/i]

I think electronic warfare is the way to go. Amerika is so heavily dependent on communications and cutting-edge technology to wage war. Taking this out of the equation will render them blind.

I've tried posting this report in detail but kept getting blocked by the SPAM bot.

Anyway, I present to you, Amerika's award winning Syrian heroes.


https://theduran.com/warning-disturbing-images-white-helmets-busted-killing-babies-in-pr-stunt-to-start-war-in-syria/

Russia and Iran have not said they will respond with force, THIS IS FAKE NEWS spread by people who want to bathe the world in blood and their useful idi00ts who think such a thing would be justified.

You don't fight cr@zy with cr@zy. Russia and Iran realise that.

http://theduran.com/exclusive-fake-news-story-in-mainstream-and-alt-media-slandering-russia-and-iran/

Zoharariel:
More than half of the world population are aware & positive that the chemical attack in Syria was only used as a pretext by Amerika to invade Syria officially.

There's no doubt that the attack was carried-out by the CIA or atleast their terrorist proxies - as Russia or the Assad forces have absolutely nothing to gain in killing the same civilians that they have been fighting to protect.

A lot of questions begging for answers are running through my mind at lightning speed.

What happened to the S-300Growler? What happened to the S-400Triumf ?

How would other small & weak Nations - who have hitherto, been looking up to Russia for support & protection feel? Two words: Betrayed & Disappointed!

What then is the essence of the Russian intervention in Syria if all Putin could come up with is a toothless warning & condemnation?

I can understand that Putin has been trying to avoid direct confrontation with NATO but for how long shall we continue to overlook Amerika's impunity & blatant disregard for international law?

A popular Yoruba adage says: When the heaven falls, it won't fall only on a single person's neck - it affects everybody.

Scully, Putin is making me boil in anger!

So was I disappointed but the language coming from the Russian defense ministry seems to suggest that they won't let further acts of aggression go unanswered. The increasingly reckesss manner in which Amerika though has been acting in recent years should give everyone cause for concern. Permit me to quote what someone had eloquently stated:

Amerika is a dying beast.

But it is a beast that is rabid and thus very dangerous, as it lashes out in fits of hysterical propaganda, lies, Orwellian threats, and ultimately acts of aggression.

And this American beast will have to be exposed for the criminal entity that it is–and ended, one way or another.

ISIS went on the offensive in coordination with the cruise missiles strikes. Amerikan treachery is now so obvious to see that they don't even bother masking it anymore. Lol! So laughable


SWEDISH MEDICAL ASSOCIATIONS SAYS WHITE HELMETS MURDERED KIDS FOR FAKE GAS ATTACK VIDEOS

https://southfront.org/swedish-medical-associations-says-white-helmets-murdered-kids-for-fake-gas-attack-videos/

Like Libya, Iraq and others, Syria has been targeted for destruction. It doesn't matter if an investigation has been made into these chemical attacks. The hegemon is desperate seeing that their head chopping, liver eating "moderates" after 6 years can't get the job done and are actually on the back foot. Either Trump just two days after declaring Assad could stay in power has either been fooled into this stupid action or he's buying time with the war thirsty Deep State.

This is an important, critical read. Be sure to click on the article directly and open the several links within the article itself. Dangerous times


http://thesaker.is/the-trump-administration-goes-neocon-crazy/

The Trump administration goes Neocon-crazy


April 05, 2017

Oh boy, that did not take long. As I wrote in February, the Neocons and the US deep state have completely neutered Trump. Just look at these two headlines from RT (and read the articles):

‘It crossed a lot of lines’: Trump on alleged chemical gas attack in Syria

‘We are compelled to take own action’ if UN fails in Syria – US envoy

Frankly, I feel like saying “QED – I rest my case” and stop writing here. But I won’t – this is too serious.

First, let’s set the context. The Syrians gave up their chemical weapons three years ago (courtesy of Russia). The Syrians have also pretty much defeated the Anglo-Zionist-Wahabi aggression against their country (courtesy of Russia, again). There is a new (kind of) US Administration in power (some say that this was also courtesy of Russia) which appeared to have given up on overthrowing Assad. And right at this moment in time, in what is supposed to be a *pure coincidence*.

The Syrian forces used chemical weapons
In a location filled with children
and a lot of folks with cameras
How stupid do they think we are?

But, of course, it’s not about us. It’s about Trump. And he, alas, is proving to be the overcooked noodle he has been since, well, pretty much day 1 and ever since: flaccid, confused and spineless. And yeah, he appears be stupid alright, especially so-called “plan” to defeat Daesh (more about that below).

And nevermind that Russian experts have been warning for along time that the “good terrorists” had chemical munitions. Nah! Who cares? besides, these are the same evil Russkies who have now been “unmasked” courtesy of a CIA report about “foreign agents”.

We all know that Anglo-Zionists are peace loving, shy and generally kind people. This is why we think of them as the “Axis of Kindness”. The only way to really force their hand and make them use their “best military in the world” is to show them dead children. Like in Kuwait, in Bosnia, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria. That, and women raped for political reasons (Bosnia, Libya – soon in Syria I suppose). Good thing that the latest atrocity of the “Syrian regime” came in daylight and involved lots of horribly dying children!

Now the Americans will get to destroy the village to save it.

Except they won’t.

There have been plenty of articles speculating about what the “Trump plan” for defeating ISIS/Daesh will be. I won’t even bother listing them here. In plain English his plan is, how should I put it, not very complex:

Increase the number of US troops already present in Syria
Offer the Kurds their own autonomous region in exchange for acting like cannon-fodder for Uncle Sam
Liberate Raqqa as a tangible sign of success
In truth, there is nothing new here. It’s is just a re-heated version of the very same plan Obama had (great minds think alike, and so do the not so great, apparently).

Can you see the problem with this plan?

Let me help here. Problem #1 – no UNSC Resolution will back it. Neither will the Syrian government. But who cares, right? We already know that Nikki Haley thinks about that: once again the US will arrogantly violate international law under the pretext of “being compelled to take action”. Welcome back to Bosnia and Croatia! It’s 1994 again! We now live in the era of the “RTP – responsibility to protect”. International Law, RIP. But that is only a ‘minor’ problem. The real problem is simple:

Besides the Syrians themselves, the Russians, the Iranians and the Turks are categorically against such a plan. And these four countries just happen to represent the overwhelming military force in Syria, and all of them *already* have boots on the ground (and air defense systems). For Turkey especially, such a plan is a casus belli, they have said so many times. I am no big fan of Turkey or Erdogan (although I do like the Turkish people themselves), but I have to admit that should Trump go ahead with this goofy plan he will live no other choice then to chose between war or civil war. Mostly likely a combo of both.

Then there are the Kurds. Actually, in many ways I feel sorry for them and I admire them. But they have to realize the enormous dangers of accepting the US plan. First, that means that they will be the frontline cannon-fodder against Daesh which happens to be one of the best trained and experienced infantry force in the region. But worse, do the Kurds really commit the same historical mistake as the Albanian of Kosovo who have 100% linked their future with Camp Bondsteel and who will be instantly re-invaded by the Serbia as soon as NATO or the US leave (which they will, sooner or later, inevitably).

There is a reason why the US always supports minorities everywhere: because by accepting and relying on that support these minorities always become completely dependent upon the USA. That, in turn, means that the US can then use these minorities in any way they want “or else”. And, since sooner or later the Americans leaves, the “or else” inevitably and always happen.

I submit that it would be the hight of folly for the Kurds to commit the same mistake. Yes, sure, they want their autonomy and/or their own country. But they have to realize that the only viable way to achieve either objective is by negotiations with their neighbors, not some ignorant US official who will forget about them as soon as he is done promising them the moon. I would remind the Kurd of a time-honored US tradition here: as soon as things get ugly, the Americans “declare victory and leave”.

That also means that the Kurds might have to settle for less than what they want. Politics is the art of the possible. But if the choice is some viable limited autonomy vs full independence followed by an inevitable war against Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria then I think that the former is the best possible outcome. But even if we assume that the Kurds decide to try the “Kosovar option”.

Iran is the number one military power on the ground. And Hezbollah. The Syrians are struggling, I will admit to that. But they are holding and making incremental efforts, some of their best units are actually pretty good. As for the skies over Syria – they are Russian.

So far, the Americans have not re-heated the “no fly zone” concept, but they might as well, since their entire plan is idiotic to the extreme. Besides, I simply cannot imagine US generals agreeing to deploy their forces in Syria without air cover (in case you did not know, the US solider cannot fight without air cover. He just won’t. It’s “air cover for me or I don’t fight”). However, air cover for the US forces in Syria imply either a tacit agreement with the Russians and the Syrians, something like what the Israelis apparently have, or an immense risk for the USAF and USN aircraft. So we are back to negotiating with the Russians and via the Russians, with the Syrians.

In fact, I bet you that this is what the Americans are doing right now. Quietly negotiating with the Russians. Problem: the Neocons hate Russia and everything Russian. And they loathe Putin. So how does the State Department or the White House negotiate with the Russians while, at the very same time, Congress, the US media and the CIA are all engaging into a hysterical and paranoid hate-campaign against Russia?

So here is Trump’s conundrum: he desperately needs the real enemies of Daesh – Russia, Iran and Syria – to agree to his plan but at the same time, he is too much of a whip to tackle the hate campaign against, well, Russia, Iran and Syria inside the United States.

The Neocons, apparently backed by the CIA and the Pentagon, want to go at it solo: just shoot up all of Syria “OK Corral” style and they seem to be convinced that they can somehow scare the Russians, the Iranians and the Syrian into submission. If so, then they are both stupid and ignorant. Or, there is even a worse possibility: the Neocons *know* that this plan will end up in disaster, but they want Trump to go to war anyway because that will destroy his presidency. That is almost elegant, in a perverted way.

What is sure is that you will never see a Neocon in frontline combat. Neither they nor their kids will die no matter what they do. Or so they think. This is one of the main reasons why these Neocons are the single biggest danger for the United States and the American people: they despise the real American people and they won’t hesitate to sacrifice them, in large numbers if needed (9/11 anybody?).

This is why so many Americans voted for Trump and his promise “to drain the swamp”.

Alas, the swamp drained Trump and all is back to “normal”.

So what happens next? My fervent hope: nothing. Absolutely nothing. As long as the Americans are all talk and as long as they don’t actually do anything, there could be real progress in Syria (Daesh is already loosing the war!). I hope that the Kurds will, you know, “kinda, sort of, give it a try” and then stop before things go critical. Should the Kurds really decide to fight for Uncle Sam, I hope that they will keep in mind that the US will dump them as soon as Raqqa is liberated simply because really creating some kind of autonomy for the Kurds against the will of Syria, Iran and, most importantly, Turkey could result in Erdogan really slamming the door on NATO and Turkey leaving the alliance. Should that happen the only option left for Turkey would be some kind of understanding, and maybe even alliance, with Russia and Iran. The various domino effect scenarios are almost infinite and nothing is really impossible.

Right now the Americans are still sort of busy liberating Mosul. I suppose if they stay at it long enough they will eventually succeed, at least for a while. I don’t see them really controlling the city for very long. They might build a US ‘consular fortress’ like in Bagdad or Kabul, but that will not mean that they control the city. If they intend to liberate Raqqa as long as they took to liberate Mosul then this can continue for a long, long while.

There is a scarier possibility: the US begins its operation in Syria, runs into problems, and then begins the endless cycle of escalations and doubling-down. Sooner or later, that means clashing with the Russians and that could turn ugly very fast. A direct clash with Iran with equally unpredictable consequences. If that happens, a lot of Americans will die.

Assuming that there still is somebody rational and sane left in the Trump administration with enough influence, then all this madness can still be stopped. There is also the very real possibility that the current fight inside the US elites will drain so much energy that nobody will really have to time and energy to engage in very risky foreign military operations. And if all else fails, maybe somebody will suggest to Trump that a unilateral military intervention in Syria is pure folly and will cost him his presidency. Maybe this is an argument which he will understand.

2018 will be a very tough year. I don’t think that there is any hope left for a real change in US policies and I am afraid that we are going to have to learn how to live with some kind of Obama 2.0 or some other form of “neo-neoconism”.

It felt really good to hope for a while. Now we have to accept that our hopes never materialized and resume the struggle.

The Saker

PS: I just learned that, just as I had predicted, Bannon has been removed from the US National Security Council. See for yourself: https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-04-05/bannon-removed-from-national-security-council-role-in-shakeup. Now the coup against Trump is fully completed. And Bloomberg celebrates “Intelligence director, Joint Chiefs chairman elevated”. Yeah, no kidding! It’s over folks, the Neocons have totally crushed Trump. And he did not even given them a halfway decent fight…

Commentary Mag is already celebrating: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/step-toward-rational-national-security-council/ like it’s Purim all over again.

Appleyard:
I'm not in the least worried because the Russians are not that foolish to entrust such a state-of-the-art weapon into the hands of a member of his notorious arch rival-NATO. They talk, but the deal won't go through.

However, there is something people are overlooking here; and it is that for a NATO MEMBER NATION to be keen on purchasing the s-400, it entails that There is nothing like it in the west at the moment. It also effectively tore to shreds the zombie propaganda and blind man's stereotypical narrative prevailing in the west that Russian weapons are junks...

I'm wondering why would a NATO member state wants to buy junk from an adversary.... It must be that the supposed junk has no rival in the entire west at the moment... Except some of my Langley friends from the western prison of illusion can prove to me that Erdoghan and the entire Turkish military complex are junks as well...

hmm. I dey laf o..
.
..
.

I agree with all you have said

Missy89:


Hi there!

Holler!

I see Missy misses me?

I have been busy my dear. We shall tango again after all this paper stacks right


In the meantime please enjoy this read from The Great Saker:

The Empire should be placed on suicide watch

Zoharariel:


SirWere,

With due respect, pls desist from quoting that terrorist. He's no more than a 23YO simpleton who is only obsessed with the illusion of Amerikan dream & military supremacy.

Even his masters like Valeriansteel & Bookface are keeping mum because they know the definition & meaning of Magrav Technology.

I hereby use this medium to summon the following Generals:

Appleyard, Shym3xx, GTkester, Poseidon000 aka Cyprus000, Scully95, Nairaminted, Bonechamberlain, Hungryboy, Seagulsntrawler, Janujaz, Naijatalktown, Phrenelogy, Overhypedsteve, Underground, Seunny4lif, ShinnBet, Fineguy11, Capip120, Lumiere91, Barram, Romme2u, Stalwert, Panafrican and other silent loyal supporters.

Nairaland still the same old playground. Lol!

Present sir!

Lol! I see Missy is still throwing fits when it gets exposed.
Bottom line is, the F-35 is a tin can and everybody knows this

"Actually, the extent of the F-22 Raptors contribution to the above mentioned kill ratio is not clear: the F-35s are flying alongside Raptors and, as one might expect, the F-22s take care of the aggressors whilst the F-35s slip undetected through the surface-to-air defenses until it reaches the position to drop munitions at the target.

Considered that the F-22s are providing air cover to the Lightning IIs, is the 15:1 score a team result or the actual kill ratio of the F-35A?"


"Actual Combat F15 is 102 kills to 0 losses, F-16 76 kills to 1 loss. F-35 has a long way to go. Also if you factor in the cost of 1 F-35A (cheapest model) at 148 million and say the cost of 15 F-16s at 282 million you could break it down to a 2 to 1 kill ratio in terms of dollars. Navy F-35 is 337M a copy So that would break down to a 1 to .25 kill ratio - not very cost effective. It would be cheaper to build more F-16's and F-18's


In other words, the Business Insider article is propaganda created to sell a flying coffin. The Amerikan arms industry is desperate to sell this crooked aircraft by any means possible to its clients that were lined up to buy it. Threatening countries that expressed doubt such as Canada with possible job losses wasn't enough so they have to throw in propaganda to make a sale

And overkill and it seems the more StarWars-esque something is - and hence, more expensive- the more Washington will be willing to pay for it.

Whilst this is an added bonus to the president's security, prompt intelligence gathering and a layered security network is the koko

Explorers:
President Putin offers his condolences to Marina Davydova Karlova, the widow of the slain Russian Ambassador to Turkey.

Putin later left the funeral without a word.

Hmmmm....Heavy, profound, powerful

CSTR13:
The B-2 spirit has never been downed before.
That is an insult to insinuate such.
What was downed was an F-117A fighter.
B-2 spirit is a modern jet and america's frontline nuclear bomber invisible to any radar created by man as at now.
It is currently stationed in the UK royal airfield to keep Russia at bay.

Lmao!

Obama should please STFU! Another black fella seeking affirmation from the white man when we have almost nothing going for ourselves and are also racist on our own right.

From Russia With Love