- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,635
- Reactions
- 24,520
'Madness': Unbelievable scenes at department store in Covid-ridden city
People have called the scenes filmed at the department store 'crazy' and 'insane'.
He is the President. Simple as that.
'Madness': Unbelievable scenes at department store in Covid-ridden city
People have called the scenes filmed at the department store 'crazy' and 'insane'.au.news.yahoo.com
I don't believe the people in that shop aren't aware of the issues with covid, they either don't care, or they are desperate.That's nuts see how many older people were in there?
Brasso's can be out there but have had the pleasure meeting many genuine souls over the years.
They were nuke armed?It has gone largely unnoticed to date but the Trump administration has been stepping up flights of B52 bombers armed with nuclear cruise missiles around the Russian and Chinese borders.
Take away message?
Playing with Fire
And where will all this end? As the U.S. sends nuclear-capable bombers on increasingly provocative flights ever closer to Russian and Chinese territory, the danger of an accident or mishap is bound to grow. Sooner or later, a fighter plane from one of those countries is going to get too close to an American bomber and a deadly incident will occur. And what will happen if a nuclear bomber, armed with advanced missiles and electronics (even conceivably nuclear weapons), is in some fashion downed? Count on one thing: in Donald Trump’s America the calls for devastating retaliation will be intense and a major conflagration cannot be ruled out.
Bluntly put, dispatching nuclear-capable B-52s on simulated bombing runs against Chinese and Russian military installations is simply nuts. Yes, it must scare the bejesus out of Chinese and Russian officials, but it will also prompt them to distrust any future peaceful overtures from American diplomats while further bolstering their own military power and defenses. Eventually, we will all find ourselves in an ever more dangerous and insecure world with the risk of Armageddon lurking just around the corner.
Tomgram: Michael Klare, A Game of Nuclear Chicken with Russia and China
Posted by Michael Klare at 4:08pm, October 11, 2020.
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter @TomDispatch.
Talking Tough and Carrying a Radioactive Stick
On August 21st, six nuclear-capable B-52H Stratofortress bombers, representing approximately one-seventh of the war-ready U.S. B-52H bomber fleet, flew from their home base in North Dakota to Fairford Air Base in England for several weekswww.tomdispatch.com
They were nuke armed?
They have been flying these missions for years to test capabilities. Its also a deterrent to China and Russia and a moral booster to allied countries.
They regularly have war games with Japan. China and Russia have done the same.
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/...-f-22s-intercept-russian-bombers-near-alaska/
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...s/russian-bombers-alaska-intercept/index.html
https://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/12/us/pentagon-russian-bombers/index.html
All the way back to 2014.
Stop printing fear monger rubbish.
I read the airforce times months ago on this mission. Russia and of late China have both been doing this for a long time.Mo either you didn't actually read the article or couldn't understand it or just refuse to believe what it says.
These are not normal missions in any way shape or form.
If anyone else is interested in learning more about current US nuclear military strategy (with Trump as President..) read the article yourself and make up your own mind.
Stop printing fear monger rubbish.
The article is fear mongering bs.
From someone thinking B-52s are going to be a viable option to dropping nukes?Indeed and so you say about many things Mo.
That doesn't make it true.
It is just your own particular opinion.
And when I see the range of views you express and the sources you use to back them up ...
The analysis I posted from a credible analyst is far more detailed than simply training and war games. I still suggest anyone interested can make up their own mind or look further.
American officials objected to the “unnecessary” harassment of their bomber. But the joke was on the Russians. For the B-52 was merely bait in an elaborate, and ongoing, intelligence trap.
Look closely at the transponders in the air at the time of the Aug. 28 intercept. While the Su-27s were needling the Stratofortress, two four-engine RC-135V/W Rivet Joint electronic-intelligence planes—which the U.S. and U.K. air forces use to surveil enemy air-defenses—were loitering nearby, presumably scooping up all kinds of useful data on Russian sensors and communications.
Exactly a week later, the Americans and their friends did it again. Today at least one B-52 flew through Ukraine and skirted the edge of the Black Sea just miles from Russian forces on the Crimean Peninsula. Two other B-52s were exercising over Ukraine around the same time, according to U.S. European Command. It’s unclear whether all three flew the same track near Crimea.
A pair of RC-135V/Ws meanwhile flew over the Black Sea, close enough to Crimea—and to the B-52—to intercept signals from any Russian radars tracking the bomber.
All this is to say, it’s clear that the United States and its NATO allies aren’t just showing off. The Stratofortress-Rivet Joint missions are helping the alliance to gather strategic intelligence on Moscow’s forces in and around Crimea. In wartime, this information could help planners determine how to suppress or destroy Russian air-defenses in the region.
From someone thinking B-52s are going to be a viable option to dropping nukes?
They lost credibility right there. Honestly this bomber has been around since the 50s. It wouldn't be tasked with nuking, even if it was against NZ.
They would not be used for that as there are better delivery options. I could theoretically strap a nuke on a hot-air balloon, not the best delivery system.The point was that they would not make it through air defenses. It was an intelligence gathering exercise as it turned out. They are no longer allowed to carry gravity nukes. And the newer bombers (if they were going to risk it) would be used such as the B-21. Possibly something smaller in conjunction with the bombers.You didn't actually read the article did you Mo ?
The B52 were not going to drop nukes. The current armament is nuclear armed cruise missiles
each of them is capable of carrying eight AGM-86B nuclear-armed, air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs) in its bomb bay. Those six planes, in other words, could have been carrying 48 city-busting thermonuclear warheads.
Survivability Against Advanced Air Defenses
There are two interrelated survivability issues with the AGM-86B: the survivability of the aircraft launching the missile and the survivability of the missile itself. The B-52H is the only U.S. bomber that can launch the AGM-86B,8 but, as General Selva has explained concerning the B-52H, “… the airframe itself cannot penetrate Russian air defenses—or Chinese air defenses, for that matter—and, as a consequence, must have a standoff weapon that is capable of contributing to its leg of the deterrent.”9 If the AGM-86B is allowed to age out of the force without replacement by the LRSO, the B-52H bomber may effectively lose its role in the U.S. nuclear mission – which could significantly degrade U.S. deterrence capabilities. Speaking on the growing threat to U.S. bombers from potential opponents’ advanced air defenses, General Stephen Wilson, Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force, testified, “Deterrence and demonstrated combat capability remain vital instruments of power, especially as our enemies are committed to denying our attacks from the air. Only 12% of our current bomber fleet is survivable in such an environment.”10 U.S. defense officials cite this figure and others to demonstrate the need for a new penetrating and stealthy bomber – the B-21 – which is expected to reach initial operating capability in the “mid 2020s” and will be able to carry the LRSO.11
In addition, U.S. defense officials appear to believe there are missions ALCMs can accomplish that penetrating bombers alone cannot; as Robert Scher, then-Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans, and Capabilities explained in 2016, “The current ALCM is designed to launch from a bomber flying outside an adversary’s territory and reach targets inaccessible to even stealth aircraft. Retaining this capability requires that we replace the ALCM during the coming decade, and we are developing the LRSO to do just that.”12
The second survivability issue of the AGM-86B is its ability to survive modern air defenses once launched from the B-52H. As STRATCOM Commander General Hyten testified before Congress recently, “Intended for Soviet-era threats, the ALCM’s survivability in modern air defense environments is deteriorating.”13 Put another way, General Robin Rand stated, “The ALCM has significant capability gaps that will only worsen through the next decade.”14 This assessment appears supported by the growing trend of advanced air defense networks in states of interest.
Advances in Russia’s air defenses, for instance, are worth monitoring as they relate to the AGM-86B cruise missile. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) recently reported: “Russian doctrine places a great deal of emphasis on aerospace defense as a key component in its overall A2/AD [anti-access/area-denial] strategy. Though still in development, Russia’s 21st century integrated air defense system will be designed to integrate future and existing systems around a central command structure that is designed to promote the interaction of all air defense forces and weapons. Capabilities optimized against cruise missiles are key to this defense component, not just those optimized to target aircraft.”15 As the DIA goes on to note, Russian defense officials have examined U.S. military operations abroad since Operation Desert Storm and concluded that once the United States can strike from the air with impunity then the cause is likely lost – thus making the procurement of an advanced air defense system all the more important.16
China has also learned from previous U.S. air operations and is reportedly pursuing a dualtrack strategy of buying advanced air defense systems from Russia while also producing its own systems domestically.17 As the Department of Defense notes, “The PLAAF [People’s Liberation Army Air Force] possesses one of the largest forces of advanced long-range SAM systems in the world, consisting of a combination of Russian-sourced SA-20 (S-300PMU1/2) battalions and domestically produced CSA-9 battalions. China has contracted with Russia for the S400/Triumf SAM system, as a follow-on to the SA-20 and CSA-9, to improve strategic long-range air defenses; delivery could take place by the end of the decade.”18 The Russian S300 and S-400 systems, according to the U.S. Department of Defense, have an advertised capability to shoot down cruise missiles.19
In addition, China’s Integrated Air Defense System (IADS) could have implications for U.S. bomber and cruise missile survivability. As the Department of Defense states:
China has a robust and redundant IADS architecture over land areas and within 300 nm (556 km) of its coast that relies on an extensive early warning radar network, fighter aircraft, and a variety of SAM systems. China is also placing radars and air defense weapons on outposts in the South China Sea, further extending its IADS. It also employs point defense primarily to defend strategic targets against adversary long-range cruise missiles and airborne strike platforms. China has increasing numbers of advanced long-range SAMs, including its indigenous CSA-9, Russian SA10 (S-300PMU), and SA20 (S-300PMU1/PMU2), all of which have the advertised capability to protect against both aircraft and low-flying cruise missiles.20
These developments appear to signal China’s determination to seriously pursue defense capabilities against cruise missiles.
It should also be noted that U.S. defense officials do not see the threat from adversary integrated air defenses to bombers and cruise missiles as static, but rather a dynamic and evolving threat that will likely persist into the future. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, for example, envision future scenarios where an adversary quickly takes land near its borders and then extends its air defense network to deny a quick and effective U.S. response – which in turn would allow the adversary to consolidate gains and prepare for further advances.21 Similarly, the National Intelligence Council recently drew attention to the likely proliferation of advanced air defense systems in the near future and the negative potential impacts on U.S. powerprojection capabilities.22 Thus, the current and perhaps future threat environment appear to support U.S. defense officials’ concerns over the AGM-86B’s continued survivability.
It points out that the nukes were likely to be intercepted along with the B-52. Thus B-52 for nuclear purposes are a bit far fetched at this stage.The B52 are currently equipped to launch nuclear armed cruise missiles. They don't have to pierce foreign borders to launch these missiles.
This is one of the current elements of the US military capacity. Russia knows this. So does China. So does everyone . That is part of deterrence.
The paper you quoted at length makes it clear that the these weapons systems are currently operational. What it then argues is that the Government should upgrade its bombers and missile systems to overcome perceived Russia/China improvements in their air defenses.
The paper I quoted simply pointed out that, in the writers view, recent US military sweeps have been dangerously aggressive and run the risk of an incident that could conceivably spiral out of control. In the context of the current Trump administration the response to such an incident could be overwhelming and catastrophic.
China on Indian border.The paper I quoted simply pointed out that, in the writers view, recent US military sweeps have been dangerously aggressive and run the risk of an incident that could conceivably spiral out of control. In the context of the current Trump administration the response to such an incident could be overwhelming and catastrophic.
There is no way the aircraft would be carrying nuclear devices during peace times, firstly if the aircraft crashed it would be an international incident.It points out that the nukes were likely to be intercepted along with the B-52. Thus B-52 for nuclear purposes are a bit far fetched at this stage.
China on Indian border.
China on Taiwan.
China on Japan.
China on Philippines.
China on Vietnam.
China on Mongolia.
China on Indonesia.
China on Korea.
China on South China Sea
All with incursions into others territory, violent conflicts resulting in death and land grabbing.
But Please school me that the greatest threat is currently Trump.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?