CHINA has said it will not allow nor tolerate TAIWAN going nuclear, + one of their major Perts had stated that any US arms sold to Taiwan will eventually come under Chin control once reunification or integration wid the Mainland PRC formally takes place.
* ION WMF > FORMER JAPANESE PM OKAMOTO: PRESERVATION OF US-JAPAN SECURITY ALLIANCE, DETERRING OR PREVENTING CHINESE EXPANSION IS MORE IMPORTANT TO TOKYO THAN THE COSTS BURDEN OF US BASES AND ANTI-BASE POPULAR SENTIMENT.
* SAME > US MEDIA: IN ORDER FOR THE US TO GIVE UP ITS MIL BASES AGZ DISPOSABLE JAPAN, DAOYUS AND NEARBY DISPUTED ISLANDS MUST COME UNDER FORMAL SOVEREIGN JAPANESE CONTROL.
* SAME > THE COMING RUSSIA-CHINA-JAPAN WAR OVER SAKHALIN AND NORTH ASIA.
#3
Smart planning. We've betrayed so many allies already.
Posted by: Formerly Dan ||
05/04/2010 17:46 Comments ||
Top||
#4
TOPIX > GOVT. PLAN TO KEEP OKINAWA BASES ANGERS MANY JAPANESE.
NIPPON PCORRECTNESS > Tokyo tries to placate angry Japanese Voters-CXitizens by proclaiming to desire to keep the US Bases on Okinawa, IFF ONLY "IN PART/PARTIAL", in order to maintain the vital US-JAPAN SECURITY ALLIANCE [read, CHINA; sub-read, SPREAD RADICAL ISLAM in CENT-EAST ASIA].
versus
* WMF > RUSSIAN MEDIAS: CHINESE PLA WILL BE INVINCIBLE ONCE MODERNIZATION IS COMPLETE.
* SAME > SINO-RUSSIAN EURASIAN WAR FOR RIVERS AND RAILROADS: RUSSIAN MIL EXPERT ALEXANDER VLADORROVICH ALADIN BELIEVES PLA WILL ONLY NEED A COUPLE OF HOURS TO CONQUER THE RUSSIAN CITY OF KHABARROVSK, FEW WEEKS TO CONQUER RUSSIAN FAR EAST, + FEW MONTHS TO CONQUER WHOLE OF ONE-HALF OF URALS EAST. MIL LOSS OF ALL OF RUSS AFR EAST AND RUSS' MAJOR OIL-GAS FIELDS TO CHIN PLA MIL BLITZKRIEG. RUSSIA TOO WEAK TO EFFECTIVELY RESIST WIDOUT RESORT TO "MUTUAL DESTRUCTION" NUCLEAR WARFARE. LOSS OF ARCTIC ROUTES AND COASTS TO PLA WILL ULTIM THREATEN EASTERN RUSS + EUROPE.!?
** SAME WMF > US SCHOLAR BLUMENTHAL'S THREE OBJECTIONS IN COLLECTIVE TO "KAPLAN PLAN" AND "GARRETT PLAN" OF GEOPOL STRATEGIES AGZ CHINA.
To wit,
* As per "KAPLAN PLAN" {PRC defense of Straits of Malaccas, SOUTH ASIAN = INDIAN OCEAN Trade-Energy Routes], PLA will need to dev HIGHLY MOBILE, TECHY "EXPEDITIONARY FORCES/BATTLE GROUPS" to wage likely war agz INDIA in order to ensure Regional-Local Security.
* As per "GARRETT PLAN", US can withdraw potent milfors from throughout ASIA BUT WILL NEED TO MIL ENTRENCH IN OCEANIA [GUAM, CNMI, MICRONESIA] WHILE SIMUL MAINTAINING STRATEGIC LINES OF COMMUNICATIONS, MIL COOPERATION, OTHER TREATY ASSISTANCE with both INDIA + JAPAN. US must suppor RISE OF A RE-ARMED "STRONG.NUCLEAR JAPAN" AS A STRATEGIC ALLY IN PRO-US REGIONAL + PACIFIC DEFENSE = GEOPOL SECURITY.
* US will likely need to defer or delay ANY FORMAL OR PARTIAL REUNIFICATION OR INTEGRATION OF TAIWAN WID MAINLAND CHINA FOR A TIME YET, in order to maintan a foothold/semblance of US influence in EAST ASIA + mil protection of both INDIA + JAPAN + other PRO-US ALLIES, MODERATE STATES IN ASIA-PACIFIC. US MAY NEED TO FORMALLY BASE US MILFORS + GMD-TMD ON TAIWAN PROPER IRREGARDLESS OF THE CHINA-TAIWAN
"REUNIFICATION/INTEGRATION" ISSUES.
* SAME > THE TIGER [Japan], BEAR [Russia], AND EAGLE [USA=USN]CAUGHT IN THE SAME TRAP: SAKHALIN, TAIWAN, WEAK PHILIPPINES, AND HAINAN ARE CHINA'S KEY FRONTS IN WARTIME TO BREAKING THE FIRST ISLAND CHAIN. PREEMPTIVE NUCLEAR, CONVENTIONAL STRIKES AGZ JAPAN, RUSSIA, INDIA, + US CARRIER GROUPS.
*** TOPIX > WHOM WILL PREMPT WHOM?. Ostensibly Israel-vs-Iran-Hezb, but ARTIC can also apply to ASIA-PACIFIC given probs of NPT.
First, what kind of new platform is needed to get large numbers of troops from ship to shore under fire in other words, the capability provided by the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. No doubt, it was a real strategic asset during the first Gulf War to have a flotilla of Marines waiting off Kuwait City forcing Saddam's army to keep one eye on the Saudi border, and one eye on the coast. But we have to take a hard look at where it would be necessary or sensible to launch another major amphibious landing again especially as advances in anti-ship systems keep pushing the potential launch point further from shore. On a more basic level, in the 21st century, what kind of amphibious capability do we really need to deal with the most likely scenarios, and then how much?
Second aircraft carriers. Our current plan is to have eleven carrier strike groups through 2040 and it's in the budget. And to be sure, the need to project power across the oceans will never go away. But, consider the massive over-match the U.S. already enjoys. Consider, too, the growing anti-ship capabilities of adversaries. Do we really need eleven carrier strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one? Any future plans must address these realities.
And that bring me to the third and final issue: the budget. I have in the past warned about our nation's tendency to disarm in the wake of major wars. That remains a concern. But, as has always been the case, defense budget expectations over time, not to mention any country's strategic strength, are intrinsically linked to the overall financial and fiscal health of the nation.
And in that respect, we have to accept some hard realities. American taxpayers and the Congress are rightfully worried about the deficit. At the same time, the Department of Defense's track record as a steward of taxpayer dollars leaves much to be desired.
#1
Navy shipbuilding politics are nasty and not at all in the best interests of the country. Gates is saying that if the Navy cannot come up with a plan for the future, he, or Congress, will.
#4
The Department of Defense is one of the major purposes of having a Federal Government. Is is one of the powers which the Constitution gives to the Federal Government.
The Entitlement programs are not. Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, etc... (1)
The EPA is not.
The Department of Education is not.
Healthcare is not.
BTW: Defense of our Borders *IS*.
(1) Yes I know getting rid of any of these programs is not likely in the near future. Nevertheless IMHO they should be handled by the STATES not the FEDS.
#5
WMF > SecDEF GATES repor siad that all of these new techs amy mean the end for the freedom of action/movement the US had enjoyed in EAST ASIA + WESTPAC for the past 60 years, as CHINA is perceived as being increasingly able to STOP THE USA COLD IN EAST ASIA DURING A CRISIS.
(Reuters) - The United States disclosed for the first time on Monday the overall size of its nuclear arsenal, saying it had a total of 5,113 warheads operationally deployed, kept in active reserve and held in inactive storage.
The total does not include warheads that have been retired and scheduled for dismantlement, an estimated 4,600 according to the Federation of American Scientists nonprofit group.
According to figures released by the Pentagon, the U.S. nuclear arsenal has been reduced by 84 percent from its maximum level of 31,225 warheads at the end of fiscal year 1967.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
05/04/2010 9:56 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Considering that the approximate number had to be provided the Russians for arms limitations treaties, who were the only key players who didn't know?
#6
PDF files: As of January 2009, the U.S. stockpile contained an estimated 5,200 nuclear warheads: approximately 2,700 operational warheads comprised of 2,200 strategic and 500 nonstrategic warheads; and about 2,500 additional warheads in reserve (including some 150 spares).2 An additional 4,200 warheads await dismantlement as a consequence of the Bush administrations announcement in 2004 to reduce the U.S. stockpile by nearly 50 percent by 2012.3 This reduction was achieved in December 2007, five years early, and an additional 15 percent reduction is scheduled to be completed by 2012, leaving a stockpile of approximately 4,600 warheads.4
We estimate that as of late 2009, Russia had approximately 4,600 nuclear warheads in its operational arsenal: roughly 2,600 strategic warheads and 2,000 nonstrategic warheadsa slight decrease from last years levels. An additional 7,300 warheads are estimated to be in reserve or awaiting dismantlement, for a total of approximately 12,000 nuclear warheads
Posted by: ed ||
05/04/2010 10:16 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I have to ask.
What's a "Nonstrategic warhead" it seems to me ANY warhead would be strategic.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
05/04/2010 11:06 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Nonstrategic warhead - my guess is one that cannot easily be delivered to a target, perhaps partly disassembled for reliability testing, or out of commission temporarily for other reasons.
Low Kt yield. Used for tactical situations. Stuff like small artillery rounds or engineer munitions [used to move sides of mountains into valleys to make them impassible], or the infamous Davy Crockett who's blast radius was probably larger than its range.
Basically anything not carried by ICBMs, SLBMs, or strategic bombers. A 200kt cruise missile warhead is considered nonstrategic.
Posted by: ed ||
05/04/2010 11:40 Comments ||
Top||
#12
I'm not really a military expert, though I completely understand the idiocy of revealing the size of our Arsenal. Woud one of my Betters(military RBers) please explain how we'd need more than 1,000 nukes? I find it hard to believe, with my current knowledge, that there's more targets in Russia and elsewhere that require that much firepower.
And mojo, great quote.
Posted by: Charles ||
05/04/2010 11:54 Comments ||
Top||
#13
"For those with strong throwing arms."
As for why we have more than a thousand nukes - "to make the rubble bounce".
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
05/04/2010 13:21 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Wrong Mitch H.
Why so many? Easy. More warheads due to the need for survivability of the arsenal against a first strike in sufficient number to deter a first strike. Also MIRVs and such mean more than one warhead per delivery vehicle.
For instance, we have 14 Ohio class SSBNs, each with 24 Trident II SLBMs, each of which holds Up to eight W88 (475 kton) warheads, although there are treaty reductions which are reducing this humber to 4 per missile. BAsically, 192 warheads per submarine with normal loadout, and 96 with minimal loadout. Meanign the tridents alone account for up to 2688 of our warheads (1350 or so at minimal), half of which are active, and the rest which are in port, at any given time.
Now add in the ICBMs, and strategic bombs carried by B-2 and straegti warheads on B-1 carried cruise missile, and you see how we have so many warheads - and why the number will not go below about 4500 without taking some major sytems offline.
#15
Thank you OS for your response. It was insightful, to me at least.
Posted by: Charles ||
05/04/2010 18:55 Comments ||
Top||
#16
I appreciate yall's answers but what I meant was "Any munition has a Strategic use"
Even the dropping mountainsides into valleys is strategic, Hell even OWNING them is strategic, it seems to me an Oxymoron to have a "Non-Strategic" name.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
05/04/2010 19:48 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The liberuls think they can escape all possible bad consequences from oil drilling by buying their oil from Nazis instead. It's ironic that people so obsessed with pretending their political opponents are Nazis can overlook this sort of thing, but they do, usually right before going on to large-scale oil consumption activities like flying their private plane around (too many to mention) or driving their Hummer (too many to mention) (although the Governator, who just reversed support for offshore oil drilling, gets honors *spit* in both cases).
#7
The linked article in #5 was an "interesting" read until it spun off down the tangent that the only way to immediately stop the oil spill would be to explode a nuclear warhead.
#8
the only way to immediately stop the oil spill would be to explode a nuclear warhead. I don't think that would stop the spill, but it would divert attention.
#10
If you want to put your tin foil hat on, consider that the druggies have a sizable submarine fleet that has been able to smuggle plenty of dope into the country. Ooogo has plenty of ties to druggies. Ooogo has an interest in seeing our domestic supply of oil and influence in the Caribbean diminished.
#11
Actually, that part DOESN'T check out. The rig was owned by Transocean, which is apparently based out of Switzerland these days.
The _HULL_ was built in South Korea by Hyundai, for Reading and Bates/Falcon, which ordered it built. R&B/Falcon was then taken over by Transocean, which finished equipping the rig.
#13
At least two things had to simultaneously go wrong to create this disaster. The BOP had to fail (and they normally have to be tested weekly) at the same time something in the liner cementing process failed (cement cure, cement contamination, lost circulation?? don't know what.) Not just a broken part - though that could be half the answer.
#14
from what i hear a cementing process was just preformed before the explosion...
but i have not heard how this process( a cement fixture on the base) -(which was supposedly made by Halliburton..) could have cause an explosion on the upper part of the rig - -
not that i'm an oil rig expert but.. and none the less this does not have an effect on why the stop-gap mech did not activate - like i said before machines break down - especially in the pressure of 1 mile water with sat
COLOMBO - Sri Lanka's court of appeal on Monday suspended a court martial probing ex-army chief and defeated presidential candidate Sarath Fonseka who is charged with engaging in politics while in uniform. The appeal court ordered the military hearing against Fonseka that began in March to halt its work until a decision has been made on the validity of the legal proceedings.
Fonseka, who was defeated at January presidential elections by the incumbent, Mahinda Rajapakse, was arrested soon after the polls and charged with engaging in politics before he quit the army in November. He also faces a second court martial on charges of corrupt military procurements. He says both sets of charges are part of a political vendetta.
Fonseka last year led the military to victory over Tamil Tiger rebels, ending decades of ethnic conflict on the island, but he and Rajapakse later fell out.
He remains detained at Colombo's naval headquarters, from where he contested parliamentary elections in April, winning a seat in the 225-member assembly.
The suspension of the first court martial is a big victory for General Fonseka,' fellow legislator Tiran Alles told AFP. Now that we have this decision we will file another appeal to suspend the second court martial.'
A court martial hearing scheduled for Tuesday was cancelled because it clashed with a sitting of parliament, a military source said, adding that Fonseka would attend the assembly. He was briefly released from military custody for the opening of parliament on April 22 and vowed he would use the floor of the House to campaign for freedom and democracy.
They want to convict me and send me to jail because that is the only way to stop me from coming to parliament,' he told AFP by telephone when the parliament opened. I will not remain silent. I will keep up my fight.'
The arrest and detention of Fonseka drew angry protests which have since fizzled out. His political allies during the presidential election campaign have also split and weakened the country's opposition.
Fonseka, the only four-star general to have served in the Sri Lankan military, has filed several cases in both the appeal court and the supreme court challenging the legality of his arrest. He has also petitioned the Supreme Court challenging Rajapakse's re-election, alleging the vote was rigged a charge the government denies.
Rajapakse, who has a firm grip on power in Sri Lanka, has been accused by political opponents and international human rights groups of suppressing dissent since his resounding re-election.
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/04/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Previously undisclosed FBI documents suggest that the Kent State antiwar protests were more meticulously planned than originally thought and that one or more gunshots may have been fired at embattled Ohio National Guardsmen before their killings of four students and woundings of at least nine others on that searing day in May 1970.
As the nation marks the 40th anniversary of the Kent State antiwar protests Tuesday, a review of hundreds of previously unpublished investigative reports sheds a new -- and very different -- light on the tragic episode.
The upheaval that enveloped the northeastern Ohio campus actually began three days earlier, in downtown Kent. Stirred to action by President Nixon's expansion of U.S. military operations in Cambodia, a roving mob of earnest antiwar activists, hard-core radicals, curious students and others smashed 50 bank and store windows, looted a jewelry store and hurled bricks and bottles at police.
Continued on Page 49
#4
the Kent State antiwar protests were more meticulously planned than originally thought and that one or more gunshots may have been fired at embattled Ohio National Guardsmen
Does anyone know where Bill Ayres was at the time?
#8
This was reported at the time, it was wiely believed to be an excuse by the Guard, as NO shots were picked up by ANY of the many Camera/Microphones at the event prior to the Nat Guard firing.
Having said that, the Guardsmen were surrounded By a Mob, and backed up against a wire fence and had to shoot their way out, it was labeled as a "Command Failure" of the young inexperienced (Very Green) Leutenant in charge. I saw it on TV at the time, they were trapped and surrounded.
The leutenant was courtmartialed for letting his unit get trapped and surrounded, not for shooting his way out, but for Putting his men in danger in the first place.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
05/04/2010 11:02 Comments ||
Top||
#9
A friend of mine that was in the Kent State ROTC at the time told me he had been shot at (during drill) earlier that semester.
Some one was shooting a rifle at Kent State, and had been for some time.
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
05/04/2010 11:25 Comments ||
Top||
#10
So, in other words, they went looking for trouble, went so far as to provoke said trouble, then whined when it found them? There should be a law against the...
Posted by: Jefferson ||
05/04/2010 18:49 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Even if they were shot at, how does that for a minute excuse firing on the crowd. Did the shots come from or over the crowd?
I can see how a sniper or belief of a sniper would ensure the guns were loaded and the whole situation was tense but it still seems the order to fire on the crowd was a bit of an overreaction to the protests.
#12
I remember my high school Physics teacher posting a 'scoreboard' on the blackboard, and that day's score was "National Guard 2 - Kent State students 0." A former Manhatten Project physicist, he was not very politically-correct.
#13
So, in other words, they went looking for trouble, went so far as to provoke said trouble, then whined when it found them? There should be a law against the...
Part of the radical left's playbook is to stage public turmoil, riots and then hope there will be a violent response so it can said: "See how decadent and evil this system is", e.g. Chicago Democratic Convention 1968, Kent State. They often use "useful idiots" in the protests to be out in front--often people who believe they are taking part in a humanitarian cause but are somewhat naive. The purpose of the radical left is to replace the existing system.
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.
