The Bear isn’t asleep this winter…
Russian Defense Ministry announced the successful test of the RS-24 “Yars” ballistic missile on Friday.
“Test warheads hit their targets in the Kura testing range on the Kamchatka peninsula with pinpoint accuracy,” said Col. Igor Yegorov a spokesman for the ministry. The missile was launched at 11:02 Moscow time on Friday, Yegorov said.
“The adoption of the RS-24 ICBM with multiple re-entry warheads has increased the combat capabilities of the Strategic Missile Forces assault group to overcome missile defense systems, thus strengthening the nuclear deterrent of Russian strategic nuclear forces,” Col. Yegorov said. The RS-24 carries up to ten independently targetable warheads.
Russia’s strategic nuclear forces are actively rearming with the new RS-24 “Yars” missile, which replaces two older models that have been in use for more than 50 years.
The ballistic missile uses solid fuel and has a range of 7,500 miles. It can be launched either from a silo or from a road-mobile launcher.
via Russia tests 10-warhead ballistic missile | Europe | Worldbulletin News.
But see this interesting analysis on the number of nuclear weapons Russia might be able to get through our defense system…
So Fracking could turn the tables on the Arabs who hate us… Let’s see if the Obama crew get in the way…
“The United States is now poised to become an energy superpower,” write By Robert D. Blackwill and Meghan O’Sullivan, in the current issue of Foreign Affairs magazine.
via Fracking is turning the US into a bigger oil producer than Saudi Arabia – Americas – World – The Independent.
We are currently debating when a drone can be used to kill Americans in the process of promoting or committing terrorist acts. The President takes the position that it can be done, worldwide, when the threat is imminent and capture can not be accomplished. Eric Holder has indicated that, so long as the individual is not a “combatant” he cannot be killed on US soil.
The issue is, how do we translate the Constitution to the battlefield when the battle field is inside the USA?
So, here, we have another emerging threat the contours of which are amorphous…
And the question is, what constitutes an attack for which an “offensive” response is warranted? And of course the follow up question: what ought to be that offensive response?
Here is a pull quote from an interesting article.
Offensive cyber weapons are growing and evolving, Alexander said, and it is only a matter of time before tools developed by other nations wind up in the hands of extremist groups or even individuals who could do significant harm.
Alexander said 13 cyber teams are being formed for the mission of guarding the nation in cyberspace. He described them as “defend-the-nation” teams but stressed their role would be offensive. In comments to reporters after the hearing, Alexander likened the teams duties to knocking an incoming missile out of the sky before it hits a target. He also said the teams would work outside the United States, but he did not say where.
Another issue that still needs to be settled is what constitutes an act of war in cyberspace, Alexander said. He does not consider cyberespionage and the theft of a corporations intellectual property to be acts of war. But Alexander said, “I think youve crossed the line” if the intent is to disrupt or destroy U.S. infrastructure.
via Pentagon Forming Cyber Teams to Prevent Attacks | Military.com.
I do not fully understand the geopolitical issues in fighting the Taliban. But, in a “real” war, where we allowed to actually fight to win, we would be taking out the source of these IEDs. The way we are fighting this looks to me like pure lunacy. Can any of you explain it?
I think both Bushes were terrible commanders of our military. Hell, I think FDR should have listened to Patton at the end of WWII (recall, Patton wanted to fight Russia right then and there). The same goes for the way we played patty-cake in Vietnam… This business of trying to appease tyrants and fighting with one glove behind the back is insanity.
Yet, the day Obama took control of combat in the Middle East we saw a huge spike in combat deaths. I’ve said before I believe Obama did this because he is protecting those of his religion. (Recall, just the other day, what was revealed when he made the comment that AK-47s should rightly be in the hands of warriors, not civilians.) This is exactly the reason our Founding Fathers demanded that a president be “natural born.” They did not want our president to have a divided loyalty.
But, I don’t believe that’s the situation we have with Barry. Not at all! I don’t for a second believe his loyalty is divided.
Army’s vehicles not tough enough for bombs – Washington Times.
There was a full moon last night and I was standing outside Dan’s Tavern admiring it when I got into a brief conversation with a 20-something lady. Somehow the conversation got into technology, and I mentioned that no other nation has put a person on the Moon. The young lady asked why, and I said, “because no one else has the technology.”
She seemed flummoxed, thought for a second, put a finger to her chin, and said, “I thought China had more technology that us.”
If this doesn’t terrify you, you are not paying attention.
What in the heck are we teaching in schools?
Don’t answer that. I know. It was Marxism back in the 70s and it has not changed. Moreover, a friend who was with me added, “And we teach them that everyone is equal, and that we [meaning the USA] are not exceptional.”
And that made me recall the comment that our illustrious leader said about “American Exceptionalism.” He said he believes in it just as the Greeks believe in Greek Exceptionalism, and the French, and the English…
Spoken as a good Marxist.
Coming through your schools. Which reminds me of this wonderful video by Starship.