China readies naval weapons to counteract possible American attacks

ANNOTATED NEWS
Report: Chinese Develop Special “Kill Weapon” to Destroy U.S. Aircraft Carriers

As US provocations in the South China Sea continue to escalate, advanced anti-ship missiles pose substantial new threat for U.S. Navy
A REPORT PUBLISHED BY THE US NAVAL INSTITUTE, REPOSTED BELOW, ALREADY COMMENTS ON THIS DEVELOPMENT ON MARCH 31, 2009, 

Various reports have surfaced over the years about efforts by the Russian and Chinese navies and militaries to neutralize America’s ability to project aggressive power around the globe. In these adventures the Pentagon has usually relied on the navy’s carrier groups to intimidate the enemy into subservience or, if needed, deliver lethal blows to its ability to put up any kind of dignified defence. (It’s well known that the US spends more money on its military—obscene amounts— than all the nations of the world combined. Just one modern aircraft carrier costs from $11 to 25 Billion, and the US has quite a few of them. Equally lavish sums are spent on other technologies of aggression.)

Meeting such potentially devastating military force presents enormous challenges to nations not nearly as rich as the US, and with far fewer strategically placed assets (the US has more than 1000 bases in scores of countries), not to mention a number of military alliances, of which NATO remains the most powerful, dangerous, and notorious to this day. These sobering facts, and the receding prospect of any long-lasting peace with a nation bent on world hegemony at any cost,  have prompted Moscow and Beijing to reformulate their defense posture along lines which could present a credible deterrent while affording these nations a path of strategic parity with the US without incurring complete economic ruination.  Thus, both China and Russia have sought to develop weapons that exploit and capitalize on America’s weak points and sheer bloat on its military shield.


In most cases this has signified the race to produce and make operational systems that literally cancel the American advantage at a fraction of the cost, while providing a reliable defence against sudden attack in the homeland. Russia has continued to perfect its remarkable class of anti air-assault rockets and jamming systems, of which the SAMs are perhaps the mots renowned. It is also on the cutting age of aviation and aerospace research and development. And is naturally not neglecting its battlefield offensive arsenal, from tactical to ICBMs of a newer and more impregnable design. China, for its part, knowing that America has no personnel to mount any type of credible invasion, let alone occupation, has followed a similar path and concentrated on studying US Navy and air force vulnerabilities. Mobile-platform-mounted surface to ship and ship-to-ship guided missiles are today one of China’s more promising defensive weapons. Along with late-design submarines, also a nightmare for large floating targets like aircraft carriers. Some of these are being exclusively developed to send to the bottom any US carrier foolish enough to put itself in the Chinese missiles’ range, within the first half hour of actual serious combat. This is no idle talk. The scandalous vulnerabilities of the US blue-water navy to unconventional tactics were exposed by the Navy itself in an embarrassing military exercise held in the Persian Gulf waters in 2002, The Millennium Battle Fleet Challenge.

The results of that war game have been extensively analysed and commented by many friendly and “hostile” experts. Writing on the Center for International Maritime Security site (CIMSEC), Brett Davis, a U.S. Navy Surface Warfare Officer focusing on another American-instigated trouble spot, the Persian Gulf, had this to say about how things stand today:

Tension between U.S. and Iranian military assets in the Arabian Gulf are nothing new. Confrontations between Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGCN), the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy (IRIN) and U.S. Navy vessels in the Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, and the Gulf of Oman are a regular occurrence for forward-deployed ships. Iran knows it cannot match the U.S. in a conventional confrontation, and focuses on an asymmetrical style of warfare to increase damage and costs of confrontation to the U.S.

In 2002, a joint war game exercise, known as Millennium Challenge 2002 (MC02), took place to gauge readiness in the event of a conflict with a hostile Middle Eastern nation. The results were disastrous for the U.S., with over a dozen ships destroyed and thousands killed or wounded as a result of asymmetric and unconventional naval warfare. 14 years later, Iranian asymmetrical warfare can still have a devastating effect on U.S. and allied forces in the Middle East. Unconventional warfare has been the Achilles Heel of the U.S. military for decades, and more gaming and training are needed to enhance U.S. capabilities in an asymmetric environment. (CIMSEC, Aug 14, 2014)

As most observers would agree, while Iran’s armed forces are tough, highly motivated, and well-trained, the Chinese PLA’s is even tougher, and it has China’s vast industrial resources to back it up. Short of changing its tactics—and its mentality, born of an imperialist policy mandate that pushes it to meddle and “show the flag” compulsively on just about every corner of the world—it’s clear the US Navy is sailing into troubled waters.—Patrice Greanville


By the U. S. Naval Institute

China's Dong Feng anti-ship ballistic missile. On constantly moving platforms, it is impossible to neutralize.

China’s Dong Feng-21 anti-ship ballistic missile. On constantly moving platforms, it is virtually impossible to neutralize.

Original iteration on March 31, 2009

[dropcap]W[/dropcap]ith tensions already rising due to the Chinese navy becoming more aggressive in asserting its territorial claims in the South China Sea, the U.S. Navy seems to have yet another reason to be deeply concerned.

After years of conjecture, details have begun to emerge of a “kill weapon” developed by the Chinese to target and destroy U.S. aircraft carriers.



SIDEBAR
China vs USA and the world: Carrier killer missile, other military stories – compilation
Published on Jan 19, 2016 (2 VIDEOS, BY TOMO News/ & CNN )
NOTE: When dealing with US mainstream media like CNN, observe all cautionary measures against a high probability of bias or outright lying.

In only a generation, China has transformed itself into one of the most dominant countries in the world. After a significant period of economic growth in the 1990s and 2000s, China is now capable of designing and producing its own high-tech weapons. Its growing military power is a major source of tension in the Asia-Pacific region, particularly with the U.S, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and other nearby countries.

BELOW A SUMMATION OF MAIN POINTS IN THE REPORT (CLICK BAR)

TomoNews presents to you a selection of stories about China’s latest weapons and military actions.

1. The DF-ZF hypersonic glide vehicle flies at five to 10 times the speed of sound and could be operational by 2020.

2. China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy now has more submarines than the U.S. Navy. Should we be worried?

3. After meticulous sleuthing, bloggers and netizens reached the conclusion that at least one of the North Korean drones that crashed in South Korea were manufactured by a Chinese company.

4. Japan scrambled fighter jets for a third consecutive day after four Chinese military aircraft flew over Japan's Okinawa Islands and Miyako Island.

5. China’s new island base is aimed at strengthening surveillance over its self-proclaimed air defense identification zone and enhance China’s ability to respond militarily to threats in the region.

6. China parades its latest weapons to celebrate the end of World War II. Among them was a new “carrier killer” missile known as the Dong Feng 21D.

7. Japan is accusing China of heightening tensions in the East China Sea after two pairs of Chinese jets flew extremely close to two Japanese surveillance planes in separate incidents.

8. Initial estimates that China has reclaimed 2,000 acres since December 2013 are wrong, says a newly released Pentagon report. The number is in fact almost 50 percent greater.

9. Satellite imagery shows that China has created enough space on Fiery Cross Reef for a runway that is about 3,000 metres long.

10. The U.S. military plans to station B-1 strategic bombers and surveillance aircraft in Australia, according to U.S. Defence Department Assistant Secretary for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs David Shear.

11. China has unilaterally declared an "air-defense identification zone" (ADIZ) over a vast area of the East China Sea, covering disputed islands that are also claimed by Japan and Taiwan.

12. Five Chinese naval ships, including three combat ships, an amphibious ship and a replenishment ship, were spotted in international waters near the Aleutian Islands.

13. The Philippines accused China of having used water cannons last month on Filipino fishermen to drive them out of disputed waters in the South China Sea.

14. The U.S. Navy plans to sail a ship close to artificial islands built by China to signal it doesn’t recognise Beijing’s claim on the entire South China Sea. China is “seriously concerned.”

15. China’s navy issued eight demands to an American P-8A Poseidon aircraft to leave the airspace over Southeast Asia’s most dangerous flashpoint.

16. Chinese long-range bombers passed through the contested Bashi Channel in a move interpreted as pushback against U.S. involvement in the region.

17. Pentagon Chief Ash Carter has pledged to expand the U.S.’ military ties with Vietnam, beginning with millions of dollars worth of patrol boats.



USS-carrier-Gerald-Ford-aircraft-carrier-3

The USS Gerald Ford, Nimitz class vessel. Enormous targets subject to modern, cheap rocket and torpedo attacks from a growing arsenal of versatile weapons.

[dropcap]F[/dropcap]irst posted on a Chinese blog viewed as credible by military analysts and then translated by the naval affairs blog Information Dissemination [1], a recent report provides a description of an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) that can strike carriers and other U.S. vessels at a range of 2000km.

The range of the modified Dong Feng 21 missile is significant in that it covers the areas that are likely hot zones for future confrontations between U.S. and Chinese surface forces.

The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a U.S. supercarrier in one strike.

Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes.

Supporting the missile is a network of satellites, radar and unmanned aerial vehicles that can locate U.S. ships and then guide the weapon, enabling it to hit moving targets.




The ASBM is said to be a modified DF-21

If operational as is believed, the system marks the first time a ballistic missile has been successfully developed to attack vessels at sea. Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.


[dropcap]W[/dropcap]hile the ASBM has been a topic of discussion within national defense circles for quite some time, the fact that information is now coming from Chinese sources indicates that the weapon system is operational. The Chinese rarely mention weapons projects unless they are well beyond the test stages.

Along with the Chinese naval build-up, U.S. Navy officials appear to view the development of the anti-ship ballistic missile as a tangible threat.

After spending the last decade placing an emphasis on building a fleet that could operate in shallow waters near coastlines, the U.S. Navy seems to have quickly changed its strategy over the past several months to focus on improving the capabilities of its deep sea fleet and developing anti-ballistic defenses.

As analyst Raymond Pritchett notes in a post on the U.S. Naval Institute blog [2]:

“The Navy’s reaction is telling, because it essentially equals a radical change in direction based on information that has created a panic inside the bubble. For a major military service to panic due to a new weapon system, clearly a mission kill weapon system, either suggests the threat is legitimate or the leadership of the Navy is legitimately unqualified. There really aren’t many gray spaces in evaluating the reaction by the Navy…the data tends to support the legitimacy of the threat.”

In recent years, China has been expanding its navy to presumably better exert itself in disputed maritime regions. A recent show of strength in early March led to a confrontation with an unarmed U.S. ship in international waters.


Source URL: http://www.usni.org/news-and-features/chinese-kill-weapon




A world on the edge: Russia debuting her next generation of advanced fighters

black-horizontalTHE WEST’S GREAT WAR AGAINST RUSSIA
ALEXANDER MERCOURIS
The Duran


horiz grey lineHere’s the first video of Russia’s Fifth-Generation T-50 Fighter Jet

The new Sukhoi Fifth-Generation Russian fighter jet is shown flying alongside other in-service Russian military aircraft.

RussianAdvancedWarplanes3The Russian Defence Ministry has released a video which shows the new Russian SU T-50 fifth generation fighter in flight alongside various other Russian military aircraft.  These include the TU-95  and TU-160 bombers, the SU-35 and MiG-29KUB fighters, the SU-33 naval fighter, the SU-34 fighter bomber and the YAK-130 advanced trainer.  The film was apparently made in southern Russia, with the aircraft filmed by a cameraman based in an accompanying AN-12 military transport.

EditorsNote_WhiteThe reason for our interest in Russian weapons advances is simple: World peace depends on it. Only a conclusive and credible Russian strategic and tactical deterrent can keep the United States and its accomplices from continuing their reckless global meddling and provocations in pursuit of unipolar hegemony, a course that will inevitably lead to a nuclear Armageddon.

RussianAdvancedWarplanes1

The Russian Defence Ministry had previously confirmed that the SU T-50 is about to enter service.  The significance of this film is that it not only shows the appearance of this fighter in its final military form but shows it in the company of other military aircraft which are already in service.  That confirms that the SU T-50 has now been formally accepted by the Russian Aerospace Forces and that its service entry is indeed now imminent.

One final point to make is that the aircraft’s service designation on formal entry into service will almost certainly not be “SU T-50”.  That is a civilian designation for the industrial programme which has produced the aircraft.  The military will almost certainly call it by some other name, which following standard Russian practice will use the initials of the design bureau (Sukhoi) and a number that follows an ascending numbering sequence.  A possible designation might be “SU-37”, the SU-35 being the latest immediately preceding Sukhoi fighter.  However the Sukhoi design bureau has previously used the “SU-37” designation to describe two other entirely unrelated aircraft and it may be that to avoid confusion the military will pick on a higher number.
RussianAdvancedWarplanes2

«Небо подвластно сильным»

About the author
 alexMercouris-cat-dog-sofa London-based expert and commentator on Russia/Eastern Europe affairs Alexander Mercouris is Editor-in-Chief at The Duran.  His Facebook page is at https://www.facebook.com/TheDuranEditor/?fref=ts


 

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience. 

horiz-long greyScreen Shot 2015-12-25 at 12.36.42 PMNauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

GET EVEN.
Send a donation to 

The Greanville Post–or

SHARE OUR ARTICLES WIDELY!
But be sure to support YOUR media.
If you don’t, who will?

horiz-black-wide
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.



black-horizontal

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable

If you appreciate our articles, do the right thing and let us know by subscribing. It’s free and it implies no obligation to you—ever. We just want to have a way to reach our most loyal readers on important occasions when their input is necessary.  In return you get our email newsletter compiling the best of The Greanville Post several times a week.  

[email-subscribers namefield=”YES” desc=”” group=”Public”]




Hillary Stuffs Entire U.S. Ruling Class Into Her Big, Nasty Tent

 


By Black Agenda Report  Executive Editor Glen Ford
horiz grey line

tgplogo12313


GLEN_hillaryWhile Democrats scream “fascist” at Donald Trump, actual fascists with real histories of mass murder at home and abroad gather in Hillary Clinton’s “Big Tent” Democratic Party. The melding of GOP and Democratic fat cats is “the most dramatic effect of the breakdown of the duopoly system set off by Donald Trump’s white nationalist, anti-‘free’ trade revolt.” Blacks and progressives will be shocked to find themselves at the margins of Hillary’s tent.

“Clinton has inherited the Republican money base, which means she is the candidate of the ‘bipartisan’ moneyed classes, period.”

Hillary Clinton is celebrating in the bloated expanse of the “Big Tent” Democratic Party she and Bill have dreamed of building since their days in the backwaters of Arkansas. Slick Willie and his wife have succeeded in assembling under one party roof nearly the whole of the U.S. ruling class and their hordes of attendants and goons. The scam that undergirded the duopoly system that has served the Lords of Capital so well for so long, has come undone. Thanks to a white nationalist billionaire who was too spoiled to play by the corporate rules, the two parties of the ruling class have become one.

It’s a funky place to be – especially for the traditional Black, brown and labor “base” of the party, now squished into a remote and malodorous corner of the tent, near the latrine, clutching the pages of a party platform that was never meant to bind anyone. These Democratic stalwarts appear intoxicated, high on the idea that they are part of a united front against the “fascist” Donald Trump and his imaginary storm troopers. The brass sound of martial music is heard, far off in the catered center of the tent. The generals have arrived, barking strategies to make Syria safe for “our” jihadists, re-bomb Libya, re-re-re-bomb Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia, and teach Russia and China the full meaning of geopolitical strangulation. Hillary’s cackle rings out above the bombast. She is pleased with her uniformed recruits.

“Trump has betrayed his class by raging against the free flow of money and jobs across borders.”

[dropcap]W[/dropcap]all Street is also in the house, too big to jail and definitely too fat for this tent. Michael Bloomberg, the 7th richest man in the country; Warren Buffet, who could buy and sell Bloomberg; and lesser plutocrats Meg Whitman and Mark Cuban, are part of Clinton’s “bipartisan cadre of billionaires [3].” Billionaires are, by nature, bipartisan, since they have no loyalties to country or party – only to their class. They are in Hillary’s Big Tent to trash one of their own, Trump, who has betrayed his class by raging against the free flow of money and jobs across borders, a heresy of the first order that is at the heart of Capital’s flight from the GOP, this year. Clinton claims she opposes the Trans Pacific Partnership corporate trade deal, but only the fools squeezed into the corner near the latrine feel compelled to believe her. The Democratic Party platform they clutch so tightly says the opposite [4].

MikeMorrell-KillIranians-Russians-234

CIA goon Mike Morrell explaining to Charlie Rose his bloodthirsty prescription for continuing American hegemony.

Spooks and goons infest the tent, like lice. Many “national security” operatives like to describe themselves as “non-partisan” — claiming they cause mass death and chaos for God and country, not party. Such a spook is Michael Morell, a former acting CIA director who gained entrance to Hillary’s Big Tent after penning a New York Times [5] article charging Donald Trump with “endorsing Russian espionage against the United States, supporting Russia’s annexation of Crimea and giving a green light to a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States.” Trump, said Morell, is “an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.” This is Morell’s first outing as a Democrat, but he fits right in with the weird, new ambiance in Hillary’s Big Tent, a place where the supposedly center-left party goes McCarthyite on the Republican candidate — an historical role reversal.

The Big Tent nearly burst at its seams when 50 self-described senior Republican national security officials [6] flashed their invitations and surged into the Queen of Chaos’ VIP section. “None of us will vote for Donald Trump,” said a letter brandished by the assorted assassins, mass murderers and imperial predators, including former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden, regime change specialist John Negroponte, former deputy secretary of state and World Bank president Robert Zoellick, former secretaries of Homeland Security Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff, and Eric Edelman, former national security advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney.

“Hillary’s Big Tent is a place where the supposedly center-left party goes McCarthyite on the Republican candidate — an historical role reversal.”

Robert Blackwell, a former aide to Henry Kissinger, endorsed Clinton, encouraging speculation that the Master of Destruction himself — the (onetime) Most-Wanted War Criminal in the World — would drag his evil carcass into Hillary’s tent. Kissinger is a dear friend [7] of Bill and Hill – if we can believe that real friendships exist among such creatures. According to Politico [8], “a person close to Clinton” has sent out feelers to GOP foreign policy big shots Condoleezza Rice, James Baker and George Shultz, as well – which would make Hillary’s tent a true place of Resident Evil.

Those fat cats that want to avoid the crush of the crowd at Hillary’s tent can simply send her the money they usually give to the GOP – which is apparently what donors to this year’s non-Trump Republican presidential candidates are doing [9]. Contributors to the Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Lindsey Graham and Chris Christie campaigns are more likely to send another check to Hillary Clinton than to Donald Trump.

Lesson: Clinton has inherited the Republican money base, which means she is the candidate of the “bipartisan” moneyed classes, period.

She is the candidate of the imperial war machine, whose operatives have flocked to her corner in dread of Trump’s willingness to make “deals” with the Russians and Chinese. She is the candidate of multinational corporations, which are perfectly confident she is lying about her stance on TPP and other trade deals. And she is the candidate of the CIA and its fellow global outlaws, who will thrive as never before with a president in the White House who cackles “We came, we saw, he died” when the leader of an African country is murdered by Islamic jihadists supported by the United States.

“The Clinton ticket will outspend Trump by five to one, by far the widest margin in modern U.S. election history.”

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he pestilence raging in Hillary’s Big Tent will inevitably lead to the death of millions, especially in Africa – and possibly of life on Earth. The demons swarming in her entourage are real, proven evils – as is she. On foreign policy, Trump’s stated positions are far less aggressive — yet, the “doomsday” scenario is successfully spun around his candidacy, not hers. This is partly because Trump’s raging and racist white American nationalism makes him seem like the “type” that would nuke on impulse, despite his rather consistent calls for less confrontation in the world — and even as Clinton promises to engage in new heights of provocation. However, the main reason the smell of Armageddon clings to Trump’s candidacy, is that the corporate news media, as a sector, has coalesced behind Clinton (whose husband multiplied corporate media wealth with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 [10]). They, too, have squeezed into the Big Tent.

The whole damn ruling class is now ensconced in the Democratic Party – the most dramatic effect of the breakdown of the duopoly system set off by Donald Trump’s white nationalist, anti-“free” trade revolt in the Republican ranks. I predict the Clinton ticket will outspend Trump by five to one, by far the widest margin in modern U.S. election history — that is, since the dawn of the television age. However, Trump’s historic defeat will not demobilize the 30 percent or so of the white population that makes up his core support: the angry white nationalists. They will find political expression, either through continued dominance of the Republican Party, or in alternative venues.

“The demons swarming in her entourage are real, proven evils – as is she.”

It is the Left that has yet to find its footing.

It will take time, and a great deal of work, for the other shoe to fall — for a viable social democratic electoral alternative to arise to pull Blacks, browns and white progressives out of Hillary’s Big Tent, and for an independent Black politics to reassert itself. Getting the Greens a secure place on the ballot, with 5 percent of the vote in November, is just a start. The real work of the next four years is in the streets, with social movements that sharpen the issues and illuminate the contradictions of capitalist rule in a white supremacist, imperial America. This struggle must incorporate a fierce discussion on the meaning of “fascism,” possibly the most misused term in the U.S. political vocabulary.

Fascists fly drones over other people’s countries. At home, they wear blue. The most dangerous ones are hanging out in Hillary’s Big Tent.


Source URL: http://blackagendareport.com/hillary_big_nasty_tent

Links

[1] http://blackagendareport.com/hillary_big_nasty_tent

[2] http://blackagendareport.com/taxonomy/term/6940

[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/us/politics/with-billionaires-backing-her-hillary-clinton-must-confront-how-to-deploy-them.html

[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/hillarys-pro-tpp-true-col_b_11076180.html

[5] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/opinion/campaign-stops/i-ran-the-cia-now-im-endorsing-hillary-clinton.html

[6] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/us/politics/national-security-gop-donald-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

[7] https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clintons-embrace-of-kissinger-is-inexcusable/

[8] http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/clinton-republican-elder-statesmen-kissinger-226680

[9] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/09/us/elections/Bush-Rubio-and-Kasich-Donors-give-to-Clinton.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

[10] http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/34789-democracy-in-peril-twenty-years-of-media-consolidation-under-the-telecommunications-act

[11] mailto:Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com

NOTE: ALL IMAGE CAPTIONS, PULL QUOTES AND COMMENTARY BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS


ABOUT THE AUTHOR

BAR's executive editor Glen Ford

BAR's executive editor Glen Ford

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com [11].


Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience. 

horiz-long grey



black-horizontal

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable

If you appreciate our articles, do the right thing and let us know by subscribing. It’s free and it implies no obligation to you—ever. We just want to have a way to reach our most loyal readers on important occasions when their input is necessary.  In return you get our email newsletter compiling the best of The Greanville Post several times a week.  

[email-subscribers namefield=”YES” desc=”” group=”Public”]

bandido-balance75

Nauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

GET EVEN.
Send a donation to 

The Greanville Post–or
SHARE OUR ARTICLES WIDELY!
But be sure to support YOUR media.
If you don’t, who will?

horiz-black-wide
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.




black-horizontal




Trump and the Bomb

 


By CHARLES PIERSON
horiz grey line

tgplogo12313


onald Trump has nukes on the brain. During the course of a one hour foreign policy briefing the Republican Presidential candidate asked the same question three times: “If we have nukes, why can’t we use them?”

Joe Scarborough broke the story on August 3 on his MSNBC Morning Joe program. Scarborough did not name his source.

Scarborough said that the briefing was “several months ago.” Scarborough did not say why he waited until now to tell us about it.

The Trump camp has denied the story. However, Trump has made similar remarks in the past. Chris Matthews discussed nuclear weapons with Trump during a March 30, 2016 town hall. Matthews argued that nuclear weapons should never be used. Then why do we have them, Trump asked? For deterrence, Matthews answered. Matthews was referring to the long standing strategic doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) under which the superpowers hold each other in a balance of terror. Any country which launches a nuclear attack will itself be destroyed.

John Noonan agrees that nukes must never be used. Noonan, a Jeb! Bush foreign policy adviser, has first-hand knowledge of nuclear deterrence. As a U.S. Air Force officer, Noonan served in a nuclear missile silo 100 feet beneath Wyoming. The same day as Scarborough’s revelation, Noonan launched a barrage of twenty tweets. Noonan tweeted: “[T]he whole idea behind nuclear deterrence is that you don’t use the damn things.” Noonan said that a President Trump “would be undoing 6 decades of proven deterrence theory. The purpose of nukes is that they are never used. Trump disagrees?”

Well, yes, Trump disagrees. So has every US Administration since Harry Truman. Max Fisher comments in the New York Times that:

Tellingly, though Mr. Trump drew outrage when he said in the March interview that he would not rule out using nuclear weapons in Europe, his comments reflect current nuclear doctrine. The United States reserves the right to use nuclear weapons under certain conditions, such as retaliation for a nuclear attack, anywhere it deems necessary.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has not yet responded to the Azteca soccer advertisement, in which he is featured.

Would he or wouldn’t he? That’s a question the public is really not allowed to know—regardless of politicians’ rhetoric. Capitalist politics, its inherent indecency and mendacity, has made honesty in diplomacy and even internal politics impossible. 

During the Cold War, when NATO forces were vastly outnumbered by the Warsaw Pact, the United States openly declared that a Soviet invasion of Western Europe would be met with nuclear weapons. People like Matthews and Noonan who delude themselves that the use of nuclear weapons has always been unthinkable, had better think again.


 BELOW : Another take on the “Donald & Nukes” meme, making the rounds. This one by Cenk Uygur, of The Young Turks, an independent leftist. 

Another problem: to listen to Matthews and Noonan you would think that the only function of nuclear arms is deterrence. Not so. The US has announced that it will spend $1 trillion over the next 30 years to upgrade the US nuclear arsenal. Much of that $1 trillion will go towards the design and production of tactical nuclear weapons. Unlike strategic nuclear weapons whose function is, yes, deterrence, tactical nukes are smaller, lower yield weapons designed to be used on the battlefield.

“During the Cold War, when NATO forces were vastly outnumbered by the Warsaw Pact, the United States openly declared that a Soviet invasion of Western Europe would be met with nuclear weapons.”

Since tactical nukes are less destructive than strategic weapons there is more of a temptation to use them. Using tactical nukes may escalate to full scale nuclear war.

These tactical nukes will join the approximately 1,750 strategic nuclear warheads the US maintains, according to the Washington DC-based Arms Control Association. As the US launches on its $1 trillion nuclear shopping spree we should not expect Russia and China to simply sit back and watch. What we can anticipate is a new arms race.

Around now, some of you are thinking:

“You’re missing the point. Trump’s comments to Matthews and what Joe Scarborough revealed about Trump prove that Trump is trigger happy. Other politicians can be trusted to use the Bomb only as a last resort, not Trump. Trump is mentally unbalanced and spiteful. Put Trump in the Oval Office and nuclear war is virtually certain to follow.”

Ah, yes, dat ole Mad Bomber Trump. How do I answer this accusation? I don’t have to. Set aside the question whether Donald Trump is any more irresponsible than other presidents (a lineup which has included Nixon and Reagan and George W. Bush). The only way Donald Trump will ever see the inside of the Oval Office is if he pays to take a White House tour. There is no point in speculating how bonkers Trump would be if he got his finger on the nuclear trigger. That is not going to happen.

Are Trump’s views scary? Sure. Trump’s indifference toward nuclear proliferation is particularly disturbing. But Trump is not the real problem. Trump’s views are mostly defense establishment orthodoxy. Trump will be defeated, but humanity will not be out of danger.

If you don’t like Trump’s stance on nuclear weapons, there is not much reason you should feel more comfortable with the defense Establishment. And who is more a part of the Establishment than Hillary Clinton? The neocons are flocking to her. Of the two major party candidates, it is Hillary Clinton, who as Senator voted for the Iraq war and as Secretary of State backed the bombing of Libya, who has a history of aggression.

Ask Hillary what she would do with nuclear weapons. Trump at least will give you an honest, albeit terrifying, answer.



NOTE: ALL IMAGE CAPTIONS, PULL QUOTES AND COMMENTARY BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS


ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Charles Pierson is a lawyer and a member of the Pittsburgh Anti-Drone Warfare Coalition. E-mail him at Chapierson@yahoo.com



BONUS

Trump wouldn’t be first to weigh nukes: Marc Ambinder
USA Today

More than one president considered strategic use of the nuclear threat during the Cold War.

kissinger-nixon-rumsfeld[dropcap]D[/dropcap]onald Trump has been excoriated over a report that he asked a foreign policy adviser why the U.S. couldn’t actually ever use nuclear weapons. “If we have them, why can’t we use them?” Trump asked, according to MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough.

While the Trump camp denied the report, almost surely he would not have been the first presidential candidate to break the nuclear taboo by asking those questions. He certainly would not be the first president to think about how nuclear weapons might be used offensively as a policy weapon.

In the summer and early fall of 1969, President Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger cooked up a plan, code-named Giant Lance, to try to jar the Soviets into pressuring the government of North Vietnam to negotiate more fruitfully with the U.S. How would they do this? They’d place U.S. nuclear forces on alert, seemingly randomly, for no good reason. The Soviets would detect this and assume that Nixon was crazy. They would reason: If Nixon was crazy, what else might he do with nuclear weapons? This fear would cause them to capitulate, to soften their tone, to comply. Who would negotiate with a madman?

In October of that year, the “readiness” alerts began, confusing even senior nuclear commanders in the USA who had not been apprised of the reasons. But they followed orders. The Soviets did indeed notice. They were indeed confused. But they did not react as Nixon had anticipated. They decided not to put their own forces on alert. Instead, as Jeffrey Kimball and William Burr report in their 2015 book, Nixon’s Nuclear Specter, the Soviets dispatched their ambassador to ask Kissinger what the hell Nixon was doing. Nixon’s flirtation with coercive nuclear diplomacy did not end the Vietnam War, nor did it rupture the Soviet relationship with North Vietnam.

The U.S. nuclear establishment began a more formal exploration of how to make strategic use of its weapons after Nixon left office. President Carter endorsed several studies and a change in nuclear doctrine that implicitly recognized the possibility that nuclear weapons might actually be useful in certain situations short of a full-scale conflict with the Soviet Union. America was moving toward a posture that would give the president more flexibility.

Jimmy Carter—perhaps one of the most decent men to occupy the White House in recent memory—did not escape the criminal legacy of the job. As the article noes he incautiously opened America's drift toward first strike, and did not veto the indecent notion of creating a jihad to mess the Soviets in Afghanistan. Neither the monster to be created, nor the incorrectness of helping to overthrow a government that was modernizing Afghanistan matter much when it came to America's imperial designs.

Jimmy Carter—perhaps one of the most decent men to occupy the White House in recent memory—did not escape the criminal legacy of the job. As the article notes he incautiously opened America’s drift toward first strike, and did not veto the indecent notion of creating a jihad to mess the Soviets in Afghanistan. Neither the monster to be created, nor the incorrectness of helping to overthrow a government that was modernizing Afghanistan mattered much when it came to implement America’s imperial designs.

President Reagan inherited Carter’s policy, but he brought to office a seemingly naive belief that the nuclear establishment was wrong — that nuclear weapons could never be used because they were uniquely horrific. If one side used one, the other side would retaliate; everyone would get lost in the spasm of Armageddon. At first, Reagan had no idea how to manage the tensions among his policy aim of ending the Cold War, his personal preference for direct diplomacy, and his religious conviction that nuclear war had to be avoided at all costs.

Reagan’s words often sent mixed messages. The Soviets were an “evil empire,” he said in March 1983. Later that month, he confused everyone with his proposal for a Strategic Defense Initiative. Reagan thought it was the antidote to mutually assured destruction, a way to make nuclear weapons “impotent and obsolete.” But many of his advisers instead wanted it to be a trump card to establish offensive superiority over the Soviets. At times, the U.S. military seemed to be eager to poke the Soviet bear. Aggressive Navy exercises triggered numerous alerts across the Soviet Union and might have been one reason why Soviet defense forces shot down a Korean airliner that September.

Just two months later, NATO was conducting a nuclear release procedure drill called Able Archer. Col. Gen. Ivan Yesin, commander of a Soviet nuclear missile force, was hiding with his men in a makeshift camouflage command center somewhere in the thick forests outside Moscow. His regiment was on alert. Across the country, leave had been canceled for students at military universities. Intelligence services, aided by a paranoid Politburo and anxious senior generals, had indications that NATO might use this exercise to launch a pre-emptive strike against the Warsaw Pact. Or maybe the U.S. would use its new electronic warfare technology to fry command links between the Soviets and their allies, and from there, decapitate the political leadership of the U.S.S.R.

Yesin’s units, columns of heavy tractors bearing SS-20 Pioneer missiles capable of reaching Europe’s capitals, had been ordered to their wartime positions the day before. Yesin wanted to be with his men. If the order came, he would have launched the nukes without hesitation.

By the time the Russian alert during Able Archer ended, unusual activity across Europe had been detected by various NATO intelligence services, although its significance was missed. Months later, Reagan would learn about it. The CIA debated at the time whether “war scare” fears were real, but Reagan took them seriously. He redoubled his efforts at diplomacy. He modulated his rhetoric and expanded his empathy for Soviet fears. A few years later, along with Mikhail Gorbachev, he presided over the destruction of more nuclear weapons than anyone else on earth, including Yesin’s SS-20s.

Presidents can, have and do use nuclear weapons as instruments of policy. Many of these examples have been hidden from the public because they break with our understanding of nuclear deterrence. So our presidential nominees must be forgiven for asking these questions. That said, Trump has given us every reason to believe he should never, ever be allowed to answer them for us.



Editor's Note
Marc Ambinder, a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors, is working on a book about Able Archer and other nuclear brinksmanship in the Cold WarFollow him on Twitter: @marcambinder 


Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience. 

horiz-long grey



black-horizontal

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable

If you appreciate our articles, do the right thing and let us know by subscribing. It’s free and it implies no obligation to you—ever. We just want to have a way to reach our most loyal readers on important occasions when their input is necessary.  In return you get our email newsletter compiling the best of The Greanville Post several times a week.  

[email-subscribers namefield=”YES” desc=”” group=”Public”]

bandido-balance75

Nauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

GET EVEN.
Send a donation to 

The Greanville Post–or
SHARE OUR ARTICLES WIDELY!
But be sure to support YOUR media.
If you don’t, who will?

horiz-black-wide
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.




black-horizontal




Why the CIA is for Hillary Clinton

 


By PATRICK MARTIN
wsws.org
horiz grey line

tgplogo12313


Morrell: Such is the state of appalling ignorance of the US public and the abject state of the media that de facto criminals like this have the audacity to show themselves all over the place with impunity, and even take jobs with major channels as foreign policy advisers.

Morrell: Such is the state of appalling ignorance of the US public and the abject state of the media that de facto criminals like this have the audacity to show themselves all over the place with impunity, and even take jobs with major channels as foreign policy advisers.

In an op-ed column in Friday’s New York Times, former top CIA official Michael Morell publicly endorsed Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. In the article, Morell branded Clinton’s Republican opponent, Donald Trump, as a pawn of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Morrell retired from the CIA in 2013 after a 33-year career, having spent two decades in high-level positions in Washington. His duties included preparing the President’s Daily Brief for George W. Bush. For three years he was deputy director, running the agency day-to-day, and he had two stints as acting director, for three months in 2011 and for four months in 2012-2013.

The crimes with which Morell is associated are legion. He was a top official throughout the period of CIA kidnappings (renditions) of victims who were then held in secret prisons and tortured. He helped lead the CIA when it was carrying out drone missile assassinations and other forms of covert state terrorism. Throughout his tenure in Langley, Virginia, the CIA was engaged in war crimes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria and many other countries.

After Morell left the agency, Obama appointed him to the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies, which prepared a whitewash of National Security Agency spying following the revelations by Edward Snowden. He then moved seamlessly to a position as a well-paid media commentator for CBS News, while joining the campaign of former CIA officials to block the release of the Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture.

That such an individual comes out publicly in support of Hillary Clinton says a great deal about the nature of the Democratic presidential campaign and the type of administration Clinton will head in the event that she wins the November election.

Morell’s op-ed column appears under the headline: “I Ran the CIA. Now I’m Endorsing Hillary Clinton.” As far as the New York Times is concerned, support for Clinton from an organization that is identified around the world with torture and murder should be shouted from the rooftops. It is something to be proud of, a positive credential for the Democratic presidential nominee.


SIDEBAR
As the world enters still darker hours, CBS has led the parade of big media scoundrels doing the bidding for the empire. This network’s impudence has no limits. Since the election circus began, they have been in full battle mode shilling away for Hillary Clinton, with overpaid charlatans like Charlie Rose, one of their “star reporters”, doing practically open commercials for Clinton. Topping off such prostitution, they have had the “great idea” to hire a former high CIA operative, Mike Morrell, as as “credible source” to supposedly interpret news about international affairs to a clueless public. Here’s brainless Norah O’Donnell, a pretty vacuity, “interviewing” Morrell, which in modern American journo language means providing Morrell with a huge megaphone to shout his lies to the four corners of the planet—virtually unchallenged. Thank you, CBS, thank you, Norah, for such a great example of serious journalism. But why expect more from empty entities like O’Donnell when the august Grey Lady is also playing the same game? Morrell of course is welcome across the entire US/Western media spectrum. 

 



[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he former CIA official declares Clinton “highly qualified to be commander in chief,” praises “her belief that America is an exceptional nation that must lead in the world,” and notes that in the internal discussions over US intervention in the Syrian civil war, “she was a strong proponent of a more aggressive approach.”

Morrell denounces Trump as unqualified to be president, in part because of his volatile personality and lack of national security experience, but mainly because of his supposed connection to Russia.

He writes: “President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia was a career intelligence officer, trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump’s vulnerabilities by complimenting him. He responded just as Mr. Putin had calculated…

“Mr. Trump has also taken policy positions consistent with Russian, not American, interests—endorsing Russian espionage against the United States, supporting Russia’s annexation of Crimea (sic) and giving a green light to a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States. (An outright lie.) In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.”

This extraordinary allegation adds fuel to the campaign launched by pro-Clinton pundits like New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, portraying Trump as a “Siberian candidate” whose campaign represents a Russian intervention into the US elections.

The Clinton campaign has embraced and promoted these McCarthyite smears, issuing a video Friday posing the question, “What is Donald Trump’s connection to Vladimir Putin?” The video, available on YouTube, consists of clips of right-wing media figures, including Joe Scarborough, Charles Krauthammer and George Will, denouncing Trump for his praise for Putin, interspersed with questions suggesting that Trump has secret business ties to Russia and is being financed by Russian oligarchs.

In style and political content, the video recalls the ravings of the John Birch Society, the anticommunist organization of the 1950s and 1960s that claimed leading US political figures, including President Eisenhower, were Soviet agents.

This underscores the drastic shift to the right in the political orientation of the Democratic Party. It does not oppose Trump on the basis of his militarism or his authoritarian contempt for democratic rights. Instead, the Clinton campaign is presenting itself as the authoritative party of the military-intelligence complex and the political establishment, appealing to billionaires, the military brass and the intelligence agencies.

In the form of Trump vs. Clinton, the US electoral system has provided working people the “choice” between an openly fascistic demagogue and an avowed representative of the Pentagon, the CIA and the financial establishment hell-bent on launching new imperialist wars.

The barrage of claims by the corporate media that Trump, as distinct from “normal” US politicians, is deranged deserves only contempt. Both Trump and Clinton are deadly enemies of the working class. They may be opposed to one another in the election campaign, but that is no argument for working people to take sides. Rather, workers and youth must draw the conclusion that the entire political system is deeply dysfunctional and should be swept away.

The Democratic Party is appealing, not to the mass opposition and disgust with Trump on the part of working people, but to the opposition to Trump within the US ruling elite, whose main concern is that the Republican candidate’s friendly gestures towards Putin, his open questioning of the value of NATO, and his expressed reservations about US wars in the Middle East are cutting across the bipartisan foreign policy consensus in Washington.

This poses immense dangers to the working class. The logic of the Democrats’ anti-Trump campaign is to channel mass opposition to Trump behind preparations for war with Russia, a nuclear-armed power. In the event of a Democratic victory—increasingly likely according to polling this week—Clinton will claim a mandate for war policies that can be carried out only through a frontal assault on the living standards and democratic rights of American workers. This demonstrates that the differences between Clinton and Trump are purely tactical: how best to subordinate the working class to the war drive of American imperialism.

As the World Socialist Web Site has previously pointed out, Trump did not crawl out of the Manhattan sewers or a Munich beer hall. He emerged from the well-heeled, corrupt circle of real estate speculators in New York City, where he had the closest ties with the Democratic Party machine. He was molded and promoted for decades by the corporate-controlled media and the political establishment. He and the Clintons are old friends: he invited them to one of his weddings; they asked for his money for their political campaigns and bogus charities.

If Trump is suddenly branded as a monster who must be kept out of the White House, it is only because the US financial aristocracy and the military-intelligence apparatus have a different monster in mind, one they consider more dependable: Hillary Clinton. She’s the monster who is on message—on Ukraine, Russia, NATO and the anti-Chinese “pivot to Asia.” She knows which generals to salute and which billionaires to flatter. She’s a “safe pair of hands,” which means she can be relied on to kill the right people.

That is the meaning of Clinton’s endorsement by the CIA’s Michael Morell and, more generally, the wave of support for her campaign from billionaires, Republicans, generals and the media.

NOTE: ALL IMAGE CAPTIONS, PULL QUOTES AND COMMENTARY BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Patrick Martin is a senior editorial writer for wsws.org.

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience. 

horiz-long grey



black-horizontal

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable

If you appreciate our articles, do the right thing and let us know by subscribing. It’s free and it implies no obligation to you—ever. We just want to have a way to reach our most loyal readers on important occasions when their input is necessary.  In return you get our email newsletter compiling the best of The Greanville Post several times a week.  

[email-subscribers namefield=”YES” desc=”” group=”Public”]

bandido-balance75

Nauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

GET EVEN.
Send a donation to 

The Greanville Post–or
SHARE OUR ARTICLES WIDELY!
But be sure to support YOUR media.
If you don’t, who will?

horiz-black-wide
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.




black-horizontal