#3
I remember hearing scuttlebutt back in the 1980's that Japan had the pieces and all they had to do was a quick assembly. It was "We don't have nukes" and "They don't have nukes" and "Wink, Wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean."
#4
I'm reasonably sure they already have the components in vault somewhere. Now, due to refinement issues and half life decay, the critical mass components degrade over time, but that can be planned for, and you make new pieces.
(This, BTW, is why there's a weapons recycling program. Pantex)
Posted by: ed in texas ||
12/15/2017 8:34 Comments ||
Top||
#5
They have Godzilla and monster island what more do they need?
#6
I've heard various estimates over the years about how long from the decision to being deliverable. I agree they have most if not all of the components ready to go. Just lacking the cores. Or they have complete packages minus the cores. Of course the Japanese government would never admit to this. The public would go apeshit. This may change of course given the NorKs
#7
If they do not have the means ready, then they are suicidal.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
12/15/2017 10:00 Comments ||
Top||
#8
The Israelis never admit it either.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
12/15/2017 10:02 Comments ||
Top||
#9
For once, I am rooting for the Chinese to put on their big boy pants and fix this mess they created.
NORK is a relic of the cold war that has out lived its usefulness. The regime is a vaudeville act/parody of what totalitarian regimes look like. The PRC created this mess to put a thumb in the US's eye and provide a threat to Japan.
It is time the Chinese admit NORK is an embarrassment and take care of business.
#10
I think the Chinese still like having their thumb in our eye.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
12/15/2017 11:20 Comments ||
Top||
#11
...The 'breakout nuclear power' mentioned by other 'Burgers, is the most likely scenario. For a VERY good description of just such a scenario, check out (of all places) Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
12/15/2017 12:05 Comments ||
Top||
#12
The PRC created this mess to put a thumb in the US's eye and provide a threat to Japan.
#15
I've recently been on a reading binge of WWII history and have an understanding about why my parents' generation would not consider buying a Japanese car, and why the Chinese and Koreans might have a 'bit' of residual animosity towards the Japanese. It seems like we well-chlorinated their military-aggressive gene pool, or I would note even consider letting them have nukes.
#17
I remember a few years back when there was some noise from NK, and one Japanese official made a great show of an apology that they had not properly tracked a certain amount of plutonium. I thought at the time that that was a warning...
Posted by: james ||
12/15/2017 20:56 Comments ||
Top||
[American Thinker] Conventional wisdom is that Attorney General Jeff Sessions is asleep at the wheel ‐ from recusing himself unnecessarily from the Trump-Russia collusion investigation to doing nothing about the politicization and weaponization of the Department of Justice. He also gave free rein to his deputy A.G., Rod Rosenstein, who is in turn allowing Special Counsel Robert Mueller unlimited time, money, and jurisdiction to investigate President Trump's entire life.
Last summer, Trump expressed disappointment in Sessions, calling him "beleaguered," wondering why Sessions wasn't looking into Hillary Clinton's emails and true election chicanery. Rudy Giuliani was floated as a possible replacement. Was Trump truly upset, or was this a calculated head fake?
In a recent blog posting, American Thinker editor Thomas Lifson, referencing Sundance from Conservative Treehouse, made the case that the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General is where the real action is taking place. Here was an explanation why Rosenstein gave evasive answers in recent congressional testimony and a suggestion that the OIG is laying out a case, slowly and methodically, with selective information release, before bringing the hammer down on the leakers and corruptocrats in the FBI and DOJ.
I want to take this a step farther, perhaps answering the question of where Jeff Sessions is and whether he is asleep, or just playing possum. Perhaps I can explain why he is acting not as a Trumpian pit bull, but instead like Mister Rogers ready for his afternoon nap.
#1
I'm confident that President Trump has this well in hand, early on setting the stage for an upcoming reckoning – what Sundance calls "the big ugly."
#2
What if I was just the King of San Francisco instead of a fat, bald and toothless schlub? Jeffy is seriously compromised in my opinion.
Posted by: Black Charlie Hitler7534 ||
12/15/2017 9:24 Comments ||
Top||
#3
A long time ago I expressed hope that Sessions was quietly going about his work and that some fine Monday morning there would be a surprise flurry of indictments.
But it's been a long time and so last Tuesday after Moore went down to defeat in Alabama I said Trump should have left him in the Senate. Coulda, shoulda, woulda. A flurry of indictments would ease that sting.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
12/15/2017 9:38 Comments ||
Top||
Current IG is an 2012 Obama appointee and worked for Comey in the early 1990s.
Part of the Swamp or independent of the Swamp? Can he be trusted to do the right thing? Hopefully, he won't whitewash the corruption infecting DOJ and FBI at high levels. I don't know about Sessions. Maybe when he actually does something to clean up this mess, I'll feel more confident about him. As Trump said, "We have a lot of sick institutions."
[Townhall] Former CIA Director Michael Morell sat down with Politico’s Susan Glasser, where he admitted that he and others from the intelligence community didn’t think through the consequences of them becoming political last year.
Last year, Morell wrote an op-ed in The New York Times that endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. Sadly, much more Morell drivel follows.
#1
The most senior intelligence analyst in the nation never "thought through the downside?" Difficult to plead the 'Nuremberg defense' from the top. Let's just call it blind ignorance shall we.
The Morchella speaks and he actually thinks someone will believe him. Where is all of this coming from? Is the man 'physically' ill as well? Are these death bed confessions? I am again, bewildered.
#4
How much is these "experts'" "expertise" worth when it comes to the analysis of profoundly alien, secretive and inscrutable adversary nations' and cultures' inner mechanisms?
#5
Ever notice how many of these so called Ivy League elitists in government, intelligence, etc have less sense and smarts than the guy stocking Wal-mart shelves at 2am.
#7
The CIA should start recruiting from New Mexico State, Texas A&M. Cal State Fullerton, and KSU instead of the Ivy League. They might suddenly find themselves with competent, well-read, intelligence analysts instead of apparatiks.
#10
Sorry SPoD, but I've come to the conclusion that all the Bushes are nothing but Swamp creatures themselves. Never have nor will have a desire to clean out the swamp.
[WSJ] Congress persists in its effort to pry the real story of the 2016 election out of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an agency notoriously reluctant to share secrets. The trick is telling the difference between legitimate secrets and self-serving ones.
The FBI‐and the Department of Justice‐would rather blur that distinction. In recent congressional appearances, FBI Director Christopher Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein tossed around the word "classified" like confetti. Neither man answered a single substantive question, citing their obligation to protect the "integrity" of investigations, safeguard "sensitive" information, and show deference to an "independent" and "internal" inspector general reviewing the FBI’s handling of the 2016 election.
True, the FBI has plenty of things it needs to keep secret regarding national security and law enforcement. Let’s even acknowledge the bureau may be rightly concerned about turning some information over to today’s leak-prone Congress. Even so, in the specific case of its 2016 election behavior, the FBI is misusing its secrecy powers to withhold information whose disclosure is in the public interest.
Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson exposed two such instances this week, from his perch as chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Mr. Johnson received a letter Wednesday from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who graciously and nimbly provided information that the committee had requested last week.
That letter included some notable dates. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team is emphasizing its ejection of FBI agent Peter Strzok immediately upon learning about anti-Trump texts he exchanged with another FBI employee, Lisa Page, before the 2016 election. But when did the FBI learn of the messages? The inspector general’s investigation began in mid-January. The letter explains that the FBI was asked for text messages of certain key employees based on search terms, which turned up "a number of politically-oriented" Strzok-Page texts. The inspector general then demanded all of the duo’s text messages, which the FBI began producing on July 20.
But when did the FBI dig up and turn over that very first tranche? How long has the bureau known one of its lead investigators was exhibiting such bias? Was it before Mr. Mueller was even appointed? Did FBI leaders sit by as the special counsel tapped Mr. Strzok? In any case, we know from the letter that the inspector general informed both Messrs. Rosenstein and Mueller of the texts on July 27, and that both men hid that explosive information from Congress for four months. The Justice Department, pleading secrecy, defied subpoenas that would have produced the texts. It refused to make Mr. Strzok available for an interview. It didn’t do all this out of fear of hurting national security, obviously. It did it to save itself and the FBI from embarrassment.
This week’s other revelation of jaw-dropping FBI tactics came from a separate letter from Mr. Johnson. In November 2016, the Office of Special Counsel‐a federal agency that polices personnel practices and is distinct from the Mueller probe‐began investigating whether former FBI Director Jim Comey violated the Hatch Act, which restricts political activity by executive-branch officials, while investigating Hillary Clinton’s private server. The office conducted interviews with two of Mr. Comey’s confidantes: FBI chief of staff James Rybicki and FBI attorney Trisha Anderson.
Sen. Johnson in September demanded the full, unredacted transcripts of the interviews. But it turned out the FBI had refused to let the Office of Special Counsel interview them unless it first signed unprecedented nondisclosure agreements, giving the FBI full authority to withhold the information from Congress. The bureau has continued to insist the office keep huge swaths of the interviews secret from Congress, including the names and actions of key political players. (The Office of Special Counsel closed its investigation in May.)
In his letter this week, Mr. Johnson demanded that Mr. Wray authorize the release of the full transcripts and other documents. Even the redacted ones have revealed important information, for instance that Mr. Comey was drafting his Hillary Clinton exoneration statement well before she was interviewed. Congressional investigators believe the unredacted versions contain pertinent information about the actions of former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and key investigators such as Mr. Strzok.
Mr. Johnson has given the FBI until Dec. 27 to come clean. Congress and the public have a right to know what went on in the Comey investigation, and the FBI and Justice Department seem to be attempting desperately to hide their actions.
Yes, the FBI has secrets the public needs it to keep. But don’t let the agency and its defenders muddy the difference between necessary secrecy and evasion of responsibility.
#1
Doesn't matter how legitimate the FBI reasons may be for keeping secrets, when the appropriate Congressional committees ask questions they have to answer - behind closed doors, but answer. And doesn't matter how leak-prone those committee members are, the responsibility is not the FBIs, but Congresscritters' and those of us who elected them.
[Breitbart] Professors Kyle Rudick and Kathryn B. Golsan of the University of Northern Iowa argued in a recent academic article in the Howard Journal of Communications that asking for civility in classroom discussions reinforces "white racial power."
In this study, the authors draw upon critical whiteness studies to explore how White students’ understanding of race-talk within higher education (re)produces whiteness. Through an analysis of interview data, they generated 3 categories describing whiteness-informed civility (WIC): (a) WIC functions to create a good White identity, (b) WIC functions to erase racial identity, and (c) WIC functions to assert control of space. These thematic concepts show how WIC is characterized by logics of race-evasion, avoidance of race-talk, and exclusion of people of color. The authors conclude by offering ways for instructors to interrogate WIC through classroom practices informed by critical communication pedagogy.
In the article, Rudick and Goslan interviewed 10 white colleges students to obtain a better grasp on their personal definition of "civil behavior."
"How do you think your racial identity may affect your understandings of civility when talking with students of color?" they asked the student participants.
#3
"How do you think your racial identity may affect your understandings of civility when talking with students of color?" they asked the student participantswith prejudicial and misleading questions.
FIFY
#4
Anyone claiming to be anything other than human should immediately be vivisected and put into jars for study. I'm done with the race thing. You are human or you are subhuman vermin. Those are the ONLY TWO choices.
#5
I was once discharged because "my engagement practices were not sensitive to the black cultural experience". My ineffective retort was something like, "How would I know?"
#8
When can we expect the media who report this stuff to finally, at long last, just laugh in their faces and tell them they are silly? We are at the apogee of political correctness these days, and enough is enough....
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Townhall] Former CIA Director Michael Morell sat down with Politico’s Susan Glasser, where he admitted that he and others from the intelligence community didn’t think through the consequences of them becoming political last year. 
[WSJ] Congress persists in its effort to pry the real story of the 2016 election out of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an agency notoriously reluctant to share secrets. The trick is telling the difference between legitimate secrets and self-serving ones.
[Breitbart] Professors Kyle Rudick and Kathryn B. Golsan of the University of Northern Iowa argued in a recent academic article in the Howard Journal of Communications that asking for civility in classroom discussions reinforces "white racial power."
