Volgens Reuters heeft de VS afgelopen zondag een luchtaanval uitgevoerd op al-Shabaab in Somalië. Regeringswoordvoerders van de VS gingen niet specifiek in op wat voor soort aanval het ging, een aanval met drones, of een ‘normaal luchtbombardement’.
Zoals gewoonlijk berichtten de reguliere media over deze zaak*, zonder ook maar te hebben gevraagd naar het waarom en hoe (zoals gezegd). (en vaak zonder te vragen naar het aantal onverdachte slachtoffers, onverdacht daar de VS zich het recht voorbehoudt mensen die zij verdenken, met drones standrechtelijk, dus zonder enige rechtspraak, te vermoorden)
Vreemd genoeg is de invloed van al-Shabaab in Somalië bijna tot nul gereduceerd, ook heeft deze islamitische terreurgroep nooit enig westers doel aangevallen…….
Reuters sprak over al-Shabaab als zijnde gelinkt aan Al Qaida. Als zodanig zou al-Shabaab een doelwit zijn van de VS, dit vanwege de aanslagen van 911 in 2001. Echter in 2001 bestond al-Shabaab niet eens!!
Vreemd genoeg, volgens een artikel van Shahtahmasebi op Anti-Media, zijn alle terreurgroepen in Syrië geen doel van de VS, hoewel ze allen zijn gelinkt aan Al Qaida, behalve één dan: IS………
De VS verdedigt haar terroristische aanslagen (middels drones, luchtbombardementen en/of terreur via troepen op de grond) altijd met het argument, dat men deze uitvoert vanwege zelfverdediging, echter de VS troepen lopen alleen gevaar als ze weer eens illegaal een land binnenvallen (= extreme terreur!), waar ze niets te zoeken hebben, dan wel militair foute regimes steunen.
Saoedi-Arabië heeft de corrupte Somalische regering omgekocht en voor 50 miljoen dollar heeft deze regering de banden met Iran verbroken en assisteert S-A bij haar genocide op de sjiitische bevolking in Jemen……. Ook de VS biedt S-A hulp bij deze genocide, met drone aanvallen (die het ook al vanaf Obama op Somalië uitvoert), raketbeschietingen, bombardementen en geheime militaire acties op de grond…….
Shahtahmasebi maakt één kapitale fout in zijn artikel, volgens hem is Somalië een tussenstation voor wapenleveranties uit Iran voor de (sjiitische) Houthi rebellen. Ten eerste is dat in tegenspraak met zijn eerder genoemde deal tussen S-A en de Somalische regering en ten tweede zijn er nooit bewijzen geleverd voor deze wapenleveranties, al houden de westerse afhankelijke massamedia en het merendeel van de westerse politici vol dat dit wel zo is………
Somalië is strategisch uiterst belangrijk gelegen, één van de hoofdoorzaken voor het geweld van de VS en haar terreurpartner S-A…… Hetzelfde geldt overigens voor Jemen.
Lees dit verder prima artikel van Shahtahmasebi, waarin hij verder spreekt over een groot aantal militaire bases van de VS op Afrikaans grondgebied:
What
You Aren’t Being Told About The US’ War in Somalia
(ANTIMEDIA)—On
Sunday, the U.S. military carried out an airstrike in Somalia against al-Qaeda-linked terror group al-Shabaab, U.S. officials said on
Monday, as reportedby Reuters.
Officials
did not specify whether it was a drone strike, and the Pentagon has
not disclosed any additional information about the strike. The U.S.
has been drone-strikingSomalia
for some time now, a policy Barack Obama escalated.
As
is usually the case, the media reportsthese
developments without questioning the underlying narrative, and
millions of ordinary Americans go about their day without so much as
batting an eyelid. Just another day in Africa, right?
However,
even Reuters acknowledged
that al-Shabaab has been pushed out of Mogadishu, Somalia’s capital
city, and has lost control of most of the country’s cities and
towns. Further, according to
the Guardian, al-Shabaab
has never been implicated in any plots to strike the U.S. or Europe.
So
why is this group a concern for the United States? Is it simply
because they are aligned with al-Qaeda?
Consider
this passage from
the Intercept’s Glenn
Greenwald from March of last year:
“Since
2001, the U.S. government has legally justified
its we-bomb-wherever-we-wantapproach
by pointing to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force
(AUMF), enacted by Congress in the wake of 9/11 to authorize the
targeting of al Qaeda and ‘affiliated’ forces. But al Shabaab did
not exist in 2001 and had nothing to do with 9/11. Indeed, the group
has not tried to attack the U.S. but instead, as the New
York Times’ Charlie
Savage notedin
2011, ‘is focused on a parochial insurgency in Somalia.’ As a
result, reported Savage, even ‘the [Obama] administration does not
consider the United States to be at war with every member of the
Shabaab.’”
While
we are on the topic, try conducting a Google search on any
of the rebel groups currently
being supported – and not targeted – by the United States and its
allies in Syria. Try to find one that isn’t aligned with al-Qaeda.
It’s almost impossible.
The only major group in Syria that is currently not backed by
al-Qaeda in some way, shape, or form is ISIS.
Somalia
was one of the seven countries four-star General Wesley
Clark identified years
ago as a target of American military intervention following the
September 11 attacks in 2001. It is also one of the countries that
made it onto Trump’s infamously revised
travel ban,
which is now being enforced courtesy of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Although
under Barack Obama the U.S. was waging
a covert war in
Somalia rife with drone strikes and Special Forces on the ground,
Donald Trump has ramped
up this operation alongside
a number of other conflicts, particularly in Iraq and Syria. Trump
has also approved the deployment of regular U.S. troops to Somalia
for the first time since 1994. One of these troops has already
been killed in
a clash with the terror group.
To
put it simply, these American troops are not just advising and
training local troops, they are also directly
involved in
combat missions. As these clashes intensify, expect more American
deaths to come, and expect further deployments.
Such
deployments will also likely lead increased air strikes because the
U.S. argues that such strikes are
needed
to defend their troops from Islamic militants. However, even the New
York Times, an
establishment media outlet, can see right
through this
circular reasoning:
“In
its public announcements, the Pentagon sometimes characterizes the
operations as ‘self-defense strikes,’ though some analysts have
said this rationale has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. It
is only because American forces are now being deployed on the front
lines in Somalia that they face imminent threats from the
Shabab.” [emphasis
added]
To
recap, the United States essentially identified a group that poses no
threat to the United States or Europe and targeted it with drone
strikes over the course of Obama’s presidency. As we have seen
across the globe, drone strikes actually help turn small insurgent
groups into a very formidable forces due
to the instability these strikes create and the innocent lives they
take. In some instances, drone strikes targeting and eradicating a
group’s leaders can actually cause a more violent
person to
rise up and take control.
Did
America’s representatives of so-called democracy ever debate this
war in Somalia? What do ordinary Americans even know about Somalia or
al-Shabaab? Most Americans probably aren’t even aware that although
there is a central government of sorts, the country has been widely
regarded as a lawless, failed
state.
Can the average American point to Somalia on a map?
Indeed,
locating Somalia on a world map would aid the reader in understanding
the geostrategic importance of such a country. As Geopolitical
Futures has explained:
“Somalia’s
northern coast borders the Gulf of Aden, which leads to Bab
el-Mandeb, a narrow chokepoint through which all maritime traffic
from the Mediterranean Sea to the Indian Ocean must pass. Avoiding
this strait would take all goods from the Persian Gulf – including
oil – around the entire African continent to reach European and
American markets. It is also a valuable staging ground for navies to
project power on to the Arabian Peninsula.”
Somalia
is so important that Saudi Arabia offered $50
million to its government to break ties with Iran. Not surprisingly,
Somalia is now one of the countries assisting Saudi
Arabia in its invasion of Yemen, the poorest country in the Arab
world.
That
being said, Somalia is allegedly a transit point in a
supposed weapons route from
Iran to Yemen that supplies the Yemeni opposition with weaponry to
combat Saudi-led forces in the war-torn country. If the U.S.-backed
Saudi-led coalition is unsuccessful in crushing the Yemeni
resistance, and if a government is established in Yemen that aligns
itself with Tehran, the U.S. could slowly begin to lose strategic
maritime position and influence in this vital region.
In
this context, Somalia’s proximity to Yemen means the North African
nation is one of those strategic maritime areas the U.S. cannot
afford to lose.
Somalia’s
recently elected president, who was chosen in an election paid for
by the U.S. and the E.U., is supportive of
American military assistance even though his people are, in most
cases, banned from visiting the United States.
Further,
as Truthout observes,
Somalia is just one of many African locations in which the U.S.
military has asserted itself:
“The
US Africa Command oversees a vast array of ‘outposts’ —
categorized in Pentagon-speak as ‘consisting of two forward
operating sites [including the one official base in Djibouti], 13
cooperative security locations, and 31 contingency locations.’
Secret documents in 2015 listed thirty-six outposts ‘scattered
across 24 African countries. These include low-profile
locations — from Kenya to South Sudan to a shadowy Libyan airfield
— that have never previously been mentioned in published reports.
Today, according to an AFRICOM spokesperson, the number of
these sites has actually swelled to 46, including ’15 enduring
locations.’’”
The
problem with this region, from the perspective of America’s
warmongering class, is the underlying power struggle between the
United States and China. China is investing heavily in Africa and has
also signaled its intention to build
military bases in
Africa’s strategic areas. In turn, the U.S. needs to assert itself
as much as possible to counter the rise of the Chinese presence in
Africa. China has invested over
$200 billion in Africa to date, and Somalia regards China
as a “vital ally.”
In
another example, China is already using large investments
to squeeze the
U.S. out of Pakistan, a former U.S. client state. While there is much
to be made of China’s intentions and its actions, there is a
noticeable difference in that currently, China opts for alternative
ways of spreading its influence — as opposed to relentlessly
bombing nations into submission.
To
some countries, China might be a breath of fresh air in comparison to
its American counterpart.
De VN berekende dat vorig jaar 65 miljoen mensen (!!!) op de vlucht zijn geslagen vanwege een ‘dodelijk conflict’ (‘dodelijk conflict’, lees: illegale oorlog door VS begonnen of door VS veroorzaakte chaos, bijvoorbeeld middels een staatsgreep; waar de VS niet wordt genoemd in het VN rapport…..)………
De UNHCR die e.e.a. uitzocht verduidelijkte het cijfer, door voor te rekenen, dat er elke 3 seconden iemand moet vluchten…….. UNHRC voorzitter Filippo Grandi vindt dit onaanvaardbaar, echter wat hij niet vermeldde is wie er verantwoordelijk is voor de grote vluchtelingenstromen en dat is zowel direct als indirect de VS…….
De landen waarvan de meeste vluchtelingen komen (waar een flink aantal vluchtelingen ook in eigen land bleven, waar ze veelal alsnog niet veilig zijn) zijn Syrië, Afghanistan en Irak met respectievelijk 12, 4,7 en 4,2 miljoen vluchtelingen!! Afghanistan en Irak werden direct illegaal aangevallen door de VS, waar de oorlog in Syrië het gevolg is van manipulaties van de VS (en haar coalitiegenoten), waartoe de eerste stappen al in 2006 werden gezet………
De VS en landen als Saoedi-Arabië en Israël hebben terreurgroepen in Syrië van geld, wapens, voertuigen, training en medische zorg voorzien. Terreurgroepen die de laatste 6 jaar grote misdaden begingen (en nog begaan) tegen de Syrische bevolking, waardoor die op de vlucht zijn geslagen……
Colombia is het tweede land, wat betreft het aantal mensen die zijn gevlucht, maar liefst 7,7 miljoen mensen verlieten daar huis en haard……. Ook in Colombia is de VS voor een groot deel verantwoordelijk voor de reden waarom mensen vluchtten. Dit door de oorlog tegen drugs, waar de VS o.a. rechtse doodseskaders steunt en als het even kan grote delen van het loerwoud vergiftigd, zodat daar geen cocaïne kan worden geteeld en landbouwgrond onbruikbaar is geworden….. Dit nog naast het volproppen van het leger met VS wapens, waar Bill Clinton ‘Plan Columbia’ (Eng.) introduceerde. Hiermee werd het geweld in Colombia verder opgezweept en verdwenen mensenrechten naar de achtergrond, gevolg: vluchtelingen……..
Ook in Soedan heeft de VS enorme ellende veroorzaakt, de afscheiding van Zuid-Soedan is één op één ingegeven door de VS….. De reden daarvoor: Zuid-Soedan bezit grote olievoorraden, waarvoor China tegen de zin van de VS contracten had afgesloten met wat nu Noord-Soedan is…… Intussen zijn 3,3, miljoen Zuid-Soedanezen op de vlucht geslagen……
Grandi roept de wereld op te voorkomen dat mensen op de vlucht moeten slaan en roept op tot het aanpakken van het vluchtelingenprobleem. De schrijver van het hieronder geplaatste artikel, Webb stelt terecht dat Grandi beter eens op de oorzaak kan wijzen:de ‘onlesbare’ zucht naar verovering, macht en winst door het militair-industrieel complex in de VS (waar ter verduidelijking ook het politieke leiderschap toebehoort)….
UN
Report Reveals Nations Producing Most Refugees Were Targets of US
Intervention
A
UN report has shown that more than 65 million people were forced to
leave their home countries last year, becoming refugees due to deadly
conflict. The top nations from which refugees fled have one thing in
common, they were all targets of US intervention.
(MPN) — A
United Nations report has
shed light on the world’s burgeoning crisis of displaced peoples,
finding that a record 65.6 million were forced to vacate their homes
in 2016 alone. More than half of them were minors.
The Office
of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR),
which drafted the report, put the figure into perspective, stating
that increasing conflict and persecution worldwide have led to “one
person being displaced every three seconds – less than the time it
takes to read this sentence.”
UN
High Commissioner Filippo Grandi called the figure “unacceptable”
and called for “solidarity and a common purpose in preventing and
resolving the crisis.”
However,
what the UN report failed to mention was the role of U.S. foreign
intervention, indirect or direct, in fomenting the conflicts
responsible for producing most of the world’s refugees.
According
to the report, three of the nations producing the highest number of
refugees are Syria
(12 million refugees created in 2016), Afghanistan (4.7 million) and
Iraq (4.2 million).
Watch
the UNHCR’s New Global Trends Report:
The
conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are known to be the
direct result of U.S. military invasions in
the early 2000s, as well as the U.S.’ ongoing occupation of those
nations. Decades after invading both countries, the U.S.’
destabilizing military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan has
continued to increase in
recent years, with the Trump administration most recently
announcing plans
to send thousands of
soldiers to Afghanistan in the coming months. It is worth noting
that each U.S.
soldier in Afghanistan costs
U.S. taxpayers $2.1 million.
The
U.S. and its allies, particularly Israel and Saudi
Arabia,
have consistently funded “rebel” groups that have not only
perpetuated the Syrian conflict for six long years, but have
also committed
atrocity after atrocity targeting
civilians in Syrian cities, towns, and communities – a
major factor in
convincing Syrians to leave their homes.
The
report ranks Colombia as the world’s second-largest producer of
refugees, with 7.7 million Colombians displaced in 2016. Like Syria,
the U.S. has not directly invaded Colombia, but is known
to have extensively funded paramilitary groups,
also known as “death squads,” in the country since the 1980s,
when then-U.S. President Ronald Reagan declared a “war on drugs”
in Colombia.
U.S.
efforts have
long helped fuel the
civil war between the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)
and pro-government, U.S.-funded paramilitary groups. This conflict
has lasted for more than half a century.
In
2000, then-President Bill Clinton’s administration funded the
disastrous “Plan Colombia” with
$4 billion in U.S. taxpayer funds, ostensibly to fight drug
trafficking and insurgents. Almost all of this money was used to fund
the Colombian military and its weapon purchases. “Plan Colombia”
ultimately intensified armed violence, military deployments, human
rights abuses by the Colombian military, and – of course – the
internal displacement of Colombians. The legacy of U.S. policy in
Colombia and its continuing support of the nation’s right-wing,
neo-liberal regime have ensured that the chaos continues into the
present.
In
addition to the above, U.S foreign policy is also to blame for the
conflict in South Sudan, where the UN report found was home to the
fastest-growing displacement of people in the world. In 2011, the
U.S.
pushed South Sudan to secede from Sudan, as South Sudan holds the
vast majority of Sudan’s oil reserves — the largest oil reserves
in all of Africa. The U.S.’ push for the creation of an independent
South Sudan dislodged
Chinese claims to
Sudanese oil, as the Chinese had previously signed oil contracts with
the (now Northern) Sudanese government.
But
when nation-building efforts went awry and civil war broke out just
two years later, some
analysts suggested that
the conflict only started when South Sudan’s president began to
cozy up to China. According to the UN report, approximately 3.3
million people in South Sudan have fled their homes since the war
began.
Grandi
has called on the world’s nations to help prevent and resolve the
global refugee crisis. But he would also do well to point out the
common cause uniting many of the world’s worst conflicts – the
U.S. military-industrial complex’s insatiable lust for conquest,
power and profit.
VS topidioot en psychopathische oorlogshitser James ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis, godbetert de VS minister van Defensie, liet eind vorige week weten, dat China de Zuid-Chinese Zee militariseert…… ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!
Je moet het lef maar hebben als vertegenwoordiger van de hoofdverantwoordelijke voor het omringen van een fiks deel van China met militaire bases (de VS)!! Let wel: dat met meer dan 200 van die bases!!
Daarbij heeft de VS niets te zoeken in de Zuid-Chinese Zee, ondanks dat heeft deze grootste terreurentiteit op aarde intussen een fikse vlootopbouw in en in de buurt van de Zuid-Chinese Zee (dit naast de eerder genoemde militaire bases……)…..
‘De pot verwijt de ketel dat deze zwart ziet’ gaat niet eens op, daar de ketel wel legitiem aanwezig is in de Zuid-Chinese Zee!!
Mijn excuus, vergeten de functie van Mattis weer te geven en deze later toegevoegd. Tijdens het schrijven van deze toevoeging, hoorde ik in het BBC World Service radionieuws van 13.00 u (CET), dat Rex Tillerson, de VS minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, een al even grote oorlogshitser en daarmee toplobbyist voor het militair-industrieel complex, nog even olie aan het vuur toevoegde en China een grote bedreiging voor de regio noemde………..
Een staaltje hypocrisie waar je steil van achterover slaat: het pleidooi van oud-CDA-minister van BuZA, Ben Bot tegen het zich uit het klimaatakkoord terugtrekken van de VS, door het beest Trump….
Veel ‘mooie praatjes’ afgelopen vrijdag op Radio1 rond 15.40 u. van opperhufter Bot. Bot is vertegenwoordiger van een partij, die in feite nog minder wil den dan in het klimaatakkoord is afgesproken. De EU fractie van het CDA, de EVP heeft weten te voorkomen, dat de intensieve veehouderij* in het klimaatakkoord terecht kwam, evenals de bescherming van onze oceanen (het tegengaan van verzuring en verdere opwarming van de oceanen), de oceanen: één van de grootste bronnen van zuurstof op aarde……
Vervolgens stelde Bot, dat China de VS ‘van de troon wil stoten’ (ha! ha! ha!), vandaar de pro-klimaatakkoord geluiden uit China, waar men zelfs al voorloopt wat betreft het nemen van maatregelen n.a.v. dit waardeloze akkoord…. Een akkoord waarin niet wordt gesproken over de beprijzing van CO2, noch over het beschermen van de oceanen…….. Op zeker dat het CDA tegen beschermingsmaatregelen is voor de oceanen en gegarandeerd dat hetzelfde CDA achter de beslissing stond, de CO2 beprijzing uit het akkoord te houden, een beprijzing die nu werkelijk een lachertje is, beter gezegd zelfs een oplichterstruc…….
Het CDA is mede verantwoordelijk voor het feit, dat de CO2 uitstoot in Nederland de laatste jaren verder is toegenomen, i.p.v. afgenomen…… Logisch, ‘we zijn, wat betreft de luchtvervuiling, nu eenmaal graag het slechtste jongetje van de EU klas…….’ Schijt aan de rond de 18.000 vroegtijdige overlijdens, die hier jaarlijks te betreuren zijn t.g.v. van jarenlange inademing van auto-uitstoot (vroegtijdige overlijdens na een akelig ziekbed…)… Door diezelfde uitstoot loopt ook nog eens een groot aantal kinderen long- en luchtwegklachten op……..
Bot is even vergeten, dat China een groot deel van het jaar opgescheept zit met de gevolgen van de vuile lucht, woestijnvorming (met grote gevolgen voor de gezondheid van aan paar honderd miljoen Chinese burgers), waarbij het land ook nog regelmatig wordt geplaagd, door steeds heftiger wordende tyfoons (en alle gevolgen van deze stormen, zoals overstromingen…)…. Dat en niets anders is de reden, dat men in China meer doet dan vele andere landen op onze kleine aarde!!
Als Bot zo begaan is met de vervuiling van het milieu, de klimaatverandering en het welzijn van dieren, waarom is hij dan nog lid van het uiterst rechtse, totaal onverantwoordelijke en inhumane CDA??!!!
* In Nederland worden jaarlijks 500 miljoen dieren (een half miljard!!) groot- en doodgemarteld, daarbij komt een enorme hoeveelheid methaangas vrij, één van de sterkste broeikasgassen op onze aarde, waarmee de klimaatverandering verder wordt aangejaagd…….
Voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, klik op één van de labels die u onder dit bericht aantreft.
PS, naast het onderwerp klimaatakkoord, doet Bot zich ook nog eens voor als een bedachtzaam staatsman en dat voor een partij, die achter de fascistische maatregelen tegen vluchtelingen staat, die de Hongaarse zusterpartij van het CDA, de Fidesz o.l.v. de corrupte fascist Orbán heeft genomen……… Bot moet zich doodschamen dat hij nog lid is van het meer dan smerige CDA!!
Hier een ‘rondje Stan van Houcke’ met twee berichten, één van afgelopen vrijdag en daaronder een bericht van afgelopen zaterdag. In het eerste artikel betoogt Paul Craig Roberts o.a., dat in het boek 1984 van George Orwell onwelgevallige informatie wordt verwijderd (ook uit de archieven), terwijl het nu al zo zot is, dat die informatie niet eens wordt gepubliceerd door de reguliere (massa-) media en het overgrote deel van de politici er geen aandacht aan besteden………
Zo liet de hoogste autoriteit van de Russische strijdkrachten, luitenant generaal Viktor Poznihir weten, dat de Russische generale staf heeft geconcludeerd dat Washington een oorlog tegen Rusland voorbereidt…… Me dunkt een bericht waarna alle seinen in de westerse reguliere media op rood hadden moeten staan….. Roberts stelt dat zegge en schrijve een dagblad in de VS dit bericht bracht, het bericht is ‘ook niet’ terug te vinden in andere westerse media……. Geen politicus heeft een woord vuil gemaakt aan deze uiterst verontrustende zaak…….
Vergeet niet dat het Pentagon, Obama en Trump al hebben gesteld, dat de VS een eerste aanval met kernwapens in de toekomst niet uitsluit, een verklaring die de Britse feeks May, die premier mag spelen, voor Groot-Brittannië herhaalde na haar aanstelling als premier…… (GB is ook een kernwapenstaat)
Dit gecombineerd met de uitlating van Poznihir, zou bij iedereen de haren overeind moeten doen staan, immers als Rusland overtuigt is dat de VS een kernaanval wil uitvoeren, waar neocons (neoconservatieven) in de VS stellen, dat de Russische kernwapens in één klap uitgeschakeld kunnen worden, is de kans groot dat Rusland ‘op de knop zal drukken……’ Immers Rusland (noch China) zullen gelaten wachten op hun vernietiging door de VS……
In de 70er en 80er jaren van de vorige eeuw, zou dit tot massale demonstraties hebben geleid in het westen, helaas is daar nu, ongelofelijk genoeg, geen sprake van, terwijl de situatie nu veel ernstiger is dan destijds………
Het tweede artikel van The Saker gaat in op die zogenaamde mogelijkheid van de VS, de kernwapens van de Russen met een eerste kernaanval uit te schakelen. Een ongelofelijk dom idee, zo wordt overduidelijk betoogd. Vandaar de concludie van The Saker, dat het gevaar niet van technologische doorbraken komt, maar uit de hoofden van neoconservatieven, die werkelijk denken dat een kernoorlog is te winnen…..
Mensen het is al met al een behoorlijk lang verhaal, maar meer dan de moeite waard!!
Are
You Ready to Die?
Paul Craig Roberts
In
George Orwell’s 1949 dystopian novel, 1984,
information that no longer is consistent with Big Brother’s
explanations is chucked down the Memory Hole. In the real American
dystopia in which we currently live, the information is never
reported at all.
On April 26—16 days ago—Lt. Gen.
Viktor Poznihir, Deputy Chief of the Main Operations Directorate of
the Russian Armed Forces, stated at the Moscow International Security
Conference that the Operations Command of the Russian General Staff
has concluded that Washington is preparing a nuclear first strike on
Russia.
The Times-Gazett in Ashland, Ohio, was
the only US print media that a Google search could turn up that
reported this most alarming of all announcements. A Google search
turned up no reports on US TV, and none on Canadian, Australian,
European, or any other media except RT and Internet sites.
I have been unable to find any report
that any US Senator or Representative or any European, Canadian, or
Australian politician has raised a voice of concern.
No one in Washington got on the
telephone to tell Putin that this was all a mistake, that the US was
not preparing a nuclear first strike on Russia, or ask Putin how this
serious situation could be defused.
Americans do not even know about it,
except for my readers.
I would have expected at least that
the CIA would have planted the story in the Washington Post, the New
York Times, CNN, MSNBC, and NPR that General Poznihir was expressing
his personal opinion, nothing to be taken seriously. But apparently
Americans and their European vassals are not to even know that such
an accussation was made.
As I reported some time ago and more
recently in my column about North Korea, the Chinese leadership has
also concluded that the US intends a nuclear first strike against
China.
Alone either Russia or China can
destroy the US. If they act together, the destruction of the US would
be redundant. What is the intelligence, if any, and morality, clearly
none, of the US leadership that recklessly and irresponsibly invites
Russia and China to preemptWashington’s attack on them with an
attack on the US?
Surely not even insouciant Americans
are so stupid as to think that Russia and China will just sit there
and wait for Washington’s nuclear attack.
I lived through every stage of the
Cold War. I participated in it. Never in my life have I experienced
the situation where two nuclear powers were convinced that the third
was going to surprise them with a nuclear attack.
I supported Trump because he, unlike
Hillary, said he would normalize relations with Russia. Instead he
has raised the tensions between the nuclear powers. Nothing is more
irresponsible or dangerous.
We currently are in the most dangerous
situation of my lifetime, and there is ZERO AWARENESS AND NO
DISCUSSION!
How can this be? Putin has been
issuing warnings for years. He has told the Western presstitute media
on more than one occasion that they, in their dishonesty, are pushing
the world to nuclear war. Putin has said over and over, “I issue
warnings and no one hears.” “How do I get through to you?”
Maybe the morons will hear when
mushroom clouds appear over Washington and New York, and Europe
ceases to exist, as it will if Europe continues the confrontation
with Russia as is required from Washington’s well-paid vassals.
Within the last several years I
reported the Chinese government’s reaction to US war plans for a
nuclear strike on China. The Chinese showed how their submarines
would destroy the West Coast of the US and their ICBM’s would finish
off the rest of the country.
I reported all of this, and it
produced no response. The Memory Hole wasn’t needed, as neither
Washington nor the presstitutes nor the Internet noticed. This is
insouciance to the thousandth degree.
In America and its subservient,
crawling on their knees vassal states, the information never gets
reported, so it never has to be put down the Memory Hole.
If you convince someone that you are
going to kill them, they are going to kill you first. A government,
such as what exists in Washington, that convinces powerful countries
that they are targeted, is a government that has no respect
whatsoever for the lives of its own people or the peoples of the
world or for any life on planet Earth.
Such a government as Washington is
evil beyond all measure, as are the media whores and European,
Canadian, Australian, and Japanese vassal states that serve
Washington at the expense of their own citizens.
Despite all their efforts to believe
otherwise, the Russian and Chinese leaderships have finally arrived,
belatedly, at the realization that Washington is evil to the core and
is the agent of Satan.
For Russia and China, the Satanic Evil
that rules in the West has reduced the choice for Russia and China to
them or us.
For
weeks now I have been getting panicked emails with readers asking me
whether the USA had developed a special technology called “super
fuses” which would make it possible for the USA to successfully
pull-off a (preemptive) disarming first strike against Russia.
Super-fuses were also mentioned in combination with an alleged lack
by Russia of a functioning space-based infrared early warning system
giving the Russians less time to react to a possible US nuclear
attack.
While
there is a factual basis to all this, the original report already
mislead the reader with a shocking title “How
US nuclear force modernization is undermining strategic stability:
The burst-height compensating super-fuze”
and by offering several unsubstantiated conclusions. Furthermore,
this original report was further discussed by many observers who
simply lack the expertise to understand what the facts mentioned in
the report really mean. Then the various sources started quoting each
other and eventually this resulted in a completely baseless “super
fuse scare”. Let’s try to make some sense of all this.
Understanding
nuclear strikes and their targets
To
understand what really has taken place I need to first define a
couple of crucial terms:
Hard-target
kill capability: this refers to the capability of a missile to
destroy a strongly protected target such as a underground missile
silo or a deeply buried command post.
Soft-target
kill capability: the capability to destroy lightly or
unprotected targets.
Counterforce
strike: this refers to a strike aimed at the enemy’s military
capabilities.
Countervalue
strike: this refers to a strike on non-military assets such as
cities.
Since
strategic nuclear missile silos and command posts are well protected
and deeply buried, only hard-target kill (HTK) capable missiles can
execute a counterforce strike. Soft-target kill (STK) capable systems
are therefore usually seen as being the ultimate retaliatory
capability to hit the enemies cities. The crucial notion here is
that HTK capability is not a function of explosive power, but
of accuracy. Yes, in theory, a hugely powerful weapon can
compensate to some degree for a lack of accuracy, but in reality both
the USA and the USSR/Russia have long understood that the real key to
HTK is accuracy.
During
the Cold War, intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) were more
accurate than submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) simply
because targeting from the surface and from a fixed position was much
easier than targeting from inside a submerged and moving submarine.
The American were the first to successfully deploy a HTK capable SLBM
with their Trident D-5. The Russians have only acquired this
capability very recently (with their R-29RMU Sineva SLBM).
According
to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists just a decade ago only 20% of US
SLBMs were HTK capable. Now, with the ‘super-fuse’ 100% of US
SLBMs are HTK capable. What these super-fuses do is very accurately
measure the optimal altitude at which to detonate thereby partially
compensating for a lack of accuracy of a non-HTK capable weapon. To
make a long story short, these super-fuses made all US SLBMs HTK
capable.
Does
that matter?
Yes
and no. What that means on paper is that the US has just benefited
from a massive increase in the number of US missiles with HTK
capability. Thus, the US has now a much larger missile force capable
of executing a disarming counterforce strike. In reality, however,
things are much more complicated than that.
Understanding
counterforce strikes
Executing
a disarming counterforce strike against the USSR and, later, Russia
has been an old American dream. Remember Reagan’s “Star Wars”
program? The idea behind it was simple: to develop the capability to
intercept enough incoming Soviet warheads to protect the USA from a
retaliatory Soviet counter strike. It would work something like this:
destroy, say, 70% of the Soviet ICBM/SLBMs and intercept the
remaining 30% before they can reach the USA. This was total nonsense
both technologically (the technology did not exist) and strategically
(just a few Soviet “leakers” could wipe-out entire US cities, who
could take such a risk?). The more recent US deployment of
anti-ballistic missile systems in Europe has exactly the same purpose
– to protect the USA from a retaliatory counterstrike. Without
going into complex technical discussions, let’s just say that this
point in time, this system would never protect the USA from anything.
But in the future, we could imagine such a scenario
1)
The USA and Russia agree to further deep cuts in their nuclear
strategic forces thereby dramatically reducing the total number of
Russian SLBM/ICBMs.
2)
The USA deploys all around Russia anti-ballistic systems which can
catch and destroy Russian missiles in the early phase of their flight
towards the USA.
3)
The USA also deploys a number of systems in space or around the USA
to intercept any incoming Russian warhead.
4)
The USA having a very large HTK-capable force executes a successful
counterforce strike destroying 90% (or so) of the Russian
capabilities and then the rest are destroyed during their flight.
This
is the dream. It will never work. Here is why:
1)
The Russians will not agree to deep cuts in their nuclear strategic
forces
2)
The Russians already have deployed the capability to destroy the
forward deployed US anti-ballistic system in Europe.
3)
Russian warheads and missiles are now maneuverable and can even use
any trajectory, including over the South Pole, to reach the USA. New
Russian missiles have a dramatically shorter and faster first stage
burn period making them much harder to intercept.
4)
Russia’s reliance on ballistic missiles will be gradually replaced
with strategic (long-range) cruise missiles (more about that later)
5)
This scenario mistakenly assumes that the USA will know where the
Russian SLBM launching submarines will be when they launch and that
they will be able to engage them (more about that later)
6)
This scenario completely ignores the Russian road-mobile and
rail-mobile ICBMs (more about that later)
Understanding
MIRVs
Before
explaining points 4, 5 and 6 above, I need to mention another
important fact: one missile can carry either one single warhead or
several (up to 12 and more). When a missile carries several
independently targetable warheads it is called MIRVed as in “multiple
independently targetable reentry vehicle”.
MIRVs
are important for several reasons. First, one single missile with 10
warheads can, in theory, destroy 10 different targets. Alternatively,
one single missile can carry, say 3-4 real warheads and 6-7 decoys.
In practical terms what look like one missile on take-off can turn
into 5 real warheads, all targeted at different objectives and
another 5 fake decoys designed to make interception that more
difficult. MIRVs, however, also present a big problem: they are
lucrative targets. If with one of “my” nuclear warheards I can
destroy 1 of “your” MIRVed missiles, I lose 1 warhead but you
lose 10. This is one of the reasons the
USA is moving away from land-based MIRVed ICBMs.
The
important consideration here is that Russia has a number of possible
options to chose from and how many of her missiles will be MIRVed is
impossible to predict. Besides, all US and Russian SLBMs will remain
MIRVed for the foreseeable future (de-MIRVing SLBMs make no sense,
really, since the entire nuclear missile carrying submarine (or SSBN)
is a gigantic MIRVed launching pad by definition).
In
contrast to MIRVed missile, single warheads missiles are very bad
targets to try to destroy using nuclear weapons: even if “my”
missile destroys “yours” we both lost 1 missile each. What is the
point? Worse, if I have to use 2 of “mine” to make really sure
that “yours” is really destroyed, my strike will result in me
using 2 warheads in exchange for only 1 of yours. This makes no sense
at all.
Finally,
in retaliatory countervalue strikes, MIRVed ICBM/SLBMs are a
formidable threat: just one single R-30 Bulava (SS-N-30) SLBM or one
single R-36 Voevoda (SS-18) ICBM can destroy ten American cities. Is
that a risk worth taking? Say the USA failed to destroy one single
Borei-class SSBN – in theory that could mean that this one SSBN
could destroy up to 200 American cities (20 SLBMs with 10 MIRVs
each). How is that for a risk?
Contrasting
the US and Russian nuclear triad
Strategic
nuclear weapons can be deployed on land, in the oceans or delivered
by aircraft. This is called the “nuclear triad”. I won’t
discuss the aircraft based part of the US and Russian triads here, as
they don’t significantly impact the overall picture and because
they are roughly comparable. The sea and land based systems and their
underlying strategies could not be any more different. At sea, the
USA has had HTK capabilities for many years now and the US decided to
hold the most important part of the US nuclear arsenal in SSBNs. In
contrast, the Russians chose to develop road-mobile intercontinental
ballistic missiles. The very first one was the RT-2PM Topol (SS-25)
deployed in 1985, followed by the T-2PM2 «Topol-M» (SS-27) deployed
in 1997 and the revolutionary RT-24 Yars or Topol’-MR (SS-29)
deployed in 2010 (the US considered deployed road-mobile strategic
missiles, but never succeeded in developing the technology).
The
Russians are also deploying rail-mobile missiles called RT-23
Molodets (SS-24) and are about to deploy a newer version called RS-27
Barguzin (SS-31?). This is what they look like:
SSBNs
and road and rail mobile missiles all have two things in common: they
are mobile and they rely on concealment for survival as neither of
them can hope to survive. The SSBN hides in the depths of the ocean,
the road-mobile missile launcher drives around the immense Russian
expanses and can hide, literally, in any forest. As for the
rail-mobile missile train, it hides by being completely
indistinguishable from any other train on the huge Russian railroad
network (even from up close it is impossible to tell whether what you
are seeing is a regular freight train or a missile launching special
train). To destroy these systems, accuracy is absolutely not enough:
you need to find them and you need to find them before they fire
their missiles. And that is, by all accounts, quite impossible.
The
Russian Navy likes to keep its SSBNs either under the polar ice-cap
or in so-called “bastions” such as the Sea of Okhotsk. While
these are not really “no-go” zones for US attack submarines
(SSN), they are extremely dangerous areas where the Russian Navy has
a huge advantage over the US (if only because the US attack submarine
cannot count on the support of surface ships or aircraft). The US
Navy has some of the best submarines on the planet and superbly
trained crews, but I find the notion that US SSNs could find and
destroy all Russian SSBNs before the latter can launch unlikely in
the extreme.
As
for the land-based rail-mobile and road-mobile missiles, they are
protected by Russian Air Defenses which are the most advanced on the
planet, not the kind of airspace the US would want to send B-53, B-1
or B-2 bombers in. But most importantly, these missiles are
completely hidden so even if the USA could somehow destroy them, it
would failed to find enough of them to make a first disarming strike
a viable option. By the way, the RS-24 has four MIRVs (make that 4 US
cities) while the RS-27 will have between 10 and 16 (make that
another 10 to 16 US cities vaporized).
Looking
at geography and cruise missiles
Finally,
let’s take a look at geography and cruise missiles. Two Russian
cruise missiles are especially important to us: the Kh-102 and the
3M-14K(?):
KH-102
3M-14K
Range:
5500km
2600km
Launcher:
Strategic
bomber
Aircraft,
ship, container
Warhead:
Nuclear
450kt
Nuclear
(unknown)
What
is important with these two cruise missiles is that the KH-102 has a
huge range and that the KM-14K can be fired from aircraft, ships and
even containers. Take a look at this video which shows the
capabilities of this missile:
Now
consider where the vast majority of US cities are located – right
along the East and West coasts of the USA and the fact that the US
has no air defenses of any kind protecting them. A Russian strategic
bomber could hit any West Coast city from the middle of the Pacific
ocean. As for a Russian submarine, it could hit any US city from the
middle of the Atlantic. Finally, the Russians could conceal an
unknown number of cruise missile in regular looking shipping
container (flying a Russian flag or, for that matter, any other flag)
and simply sail to the immediate proximity to the US coast and
unleash a barrage of nuclear cruise missiles.
How
much reaction time would such a barrage give the US government?
Understanding
reaction time
It
is true that the Soviet and Russian space-based early warning system
is in bad shape. But did you know that China never bothered
developing such a space based system in the first place? So what is
wrong with the Chinese, are they stupid, technologically backward or
do they know something we don’t?
To
answer that question we need to look at the options facing a country
under nuclear missile attack. The first option is called “launch
on warning”:
you see the incoming missiles and you press the “red button”
(keys in reality) to launch your own missiles. That is sometimes
referred to as “use them or lose them”. The next option is
“launch on strike”:
you launch all you got as soon as a nuclear strike on your territory
is confirmed. And, finally, there is the “retaliation
after ride-out“:
you absorb whatever your enemy shot at you, then take a decision to
strike back. What is obvious is that China has adopted, whether by
political choice or due to limitation in space capabilities, either a
“launch on strike” or a “retaliation after ride-out” option.
This is especially interesting since China possesses relatively few
nuclear warheads and even fewer real long range ICBMs .
Contrast
that with the Russians who have recently confirmed that they have
long had a “dead hand system” called “Perimetr”
which automatically ascertains that a nuclear attack has taken place
and then automatically launches a counterstrike. That would be a
“launch on strike” posture, but it is also possible that Russia
has a double-posture: she tries to have the capability to launch on
warning, but double-secures herself with an automated “dead hand”
“launch on strike” capability.
Take
a look at this estimate of worldwide stocks of strategic nuclear
warheads: While China is credited with only 260 warheads, Russia
still has a whopping 7,000 warheads. And a “dead hand”
capability. And yet China feels confident enough to announce a “no
first use” policy. How can they say that with no space-based
nuclear missile launch detection capability?
Many
will say that the Chinese wished they had more nukes and a
space-based based nuclear missile launch detection capability, but
that their current financial and technological means simply do not
allow that. Maybe. But my personal guess is that they realize that
even their very minimal force represents a good enough deterrent for
any potential aggressor. And they might have a point.
Let
me ask you this: how many US generals and politicians would be
willing to sacrifice just one major US city in order to disarm China
or Russia? Some probably would. But I sure hope that the majority
would realize that the risk will always remain huge.
For
one thing, modern nuclear warfare has, so far, only been “practiced”
only on paper and with computers (and thank God for that!)? So nobody
*really* knows for sure how a nuclear war would play itself out. The
only thing which is certain is that just the political and economic
consequences of it would be catastrophic and totally unpredictable.
Furthermore, it remains very unclear how such a war could be stopped
short of totally destroying one side. The so-called “de-escalation”
is a fascinating concept, but so far nobody has really figured this
out. Finally, I am personally convinced that both the USA and Russia
have more than enough survivable nuclear weapons to actually decide
to ride out a full-scale enemy attack. That is the one big issue
which many well-meaning pacifist never understood: it is a good thing
that “the USA and Russia have the means to blow-up the world ten
times over” simply because even one side succeeded in destroying,
say, 95% of the US or Russian nuclear forces, the remaining 5% would
be more than enough to wipe-out the attacking side in a devastating
countervalue attack. If Russia and the USA each had, say, only 10
nuclear warheads then the temptation to try to take them out would be
much higher.
This
is scary and even sick, but having a lot of nuclear weapons is safer
from a “first-strike
stability”
point of view than having few. Yes, we do live in a crazy world.
Consider
that in times of crisis both the US and Russia would scramble their
strategic bombers and keep them in the air, refueling them when
needed, for as long as needed to avoid having them destroyed on the
ground. So even if the USA destroyed ALL Russian ICBM/SLBMs, there
would be quite a few strategic bombers in holding patterns in staging
areas which could be given the order to strike. And here we reach one
last crucial concept:
Counterforce
strikes require a lot of HTK capable warheads.
The estimates by
both sides are kept secret, of course, but we are talking over 1000
targets on each side at least listed, if not actually targeted. But a
countervalue strike would require much less. The US has only 10
cities with over one million people. Russia has only 12. And,
remember, in theory one warhead is enough for one city (that is not
true, but for all practical purposes it is). Just look what 9/11 did
to the USA and imagine of, say, “only” Manhattan had been truly
nuked. You can easily imagine the consequences.
Conclusion
1: super-fuses are not really that super at all
The
super-fuses scare is so overblown that it is almost an urban legend.
The fact is that even if all the US SLBMs are now HTK capable and
even if Russia does not have a functional space-based missile launch
detection capability (she is working on a new one, by the way), this
in no way affects the fundamental fact that there is nothing, nothing
at all, that the USA could come up with to prevent Russia from
obliterating the USA in a retaliatory strike. The opposite is also
true, the Russians have exactly zero hope of nuking the USA and
survive the inevitable US retaliation.
The
truth is that as far back as the early 1980s Soviet (Marshal Ogarkov)
and US specialists had already come to the conclusion that a nuclear
war was unwinnable. In the past 30 years two things have dramatically
changed the nature of the game: first, an increasing number of
conventional weapons have become comparable in their effects to small
nuclear weapons and cruise missiles have become vastly more capable.
The trend today is for low-RCS (stealth) long range hypersonic cruise
missiles and maneuvering ICBM warheads which will make it even harder
to detect and intercept them. Just think about it: if the Russians
fired a cruise missile volley from a submarine say, 100km off the US
coast, how much reaction time will the US have? Say that these
low-RCS missile would begin flying at medium altitude being for all
practical purpose invisible to radar, infra-red and even sound, then
lower themselves down to 3-5 m over the Atlantic and then accelerate
to a Mach 2 or Mach 3 speed. Sure, they will become visible to radars
once they crosses the horizon, but the remaining reaction time would
be measured in seconds, not minutes. Besides, what kind of weapon
system could stop that missile type of anyway? Maybe the kind of
defenses around a US aircraft carrier (maybe), but there is simply
nothing like that along the US coast.
As
for ballistic missile warheads, all the current and foreseeable
anti-ballistic systems rely on calculations for a non-maneuvering
warhead. Once the warheads begin to make turns and zig-zag, then the
computation needed to intercept them become harder by several orders
of magnitude. Some Russian missiles, like the R-30 Bulava, can even
maneuver during their initial burn stage, making their trajectory
even harder to estimate (and the missile itself harder to intercept).
The
truth is that for the foreseeable future ABM systems will be much
more expensive and difficult to build then ABM-defeating missiles.
Also, keep in mind that an ABM missile itself is also far, far more
expensive than a warhead. Frankly, I have always suspected that the
American obsession with various types of ABM technologies is more
about giving cash to the Military Industrial Complex and, at best,
developing new technologies useful elsewhere.
Conclusion
2: the nuclear deterrence system remains stable, very stable
At
the end of WWII, the Soviet Union’s allies, moved by the
traditional western love for Russia, immediately proceeded to plan
for a conventional and a nuclear war against the Soviet Union
(see Operation Unthinkable and Operation
Dropshot).
Neither plan was executed, the western leaders were probably rational
enough not to want to trigger a full-scale war against the armed
forces which had destroyed roughly 80% of the Nazi war machine. What
is certain, however, is that both sides fully understood that the
presence of nuclear weapons profoundly changed the nature of warfare
and that the world would never be the same again: for the first time
in history all of mankind faced a truly existential threat. As a
direct result of this awareness, immense sums of money were given to
some of the brightest people on the planet to tackle the issue of
nuclear warfare and deterrence. This huge effort resulted in an
amazingly redundant, multi-dimensional and sophisticated system which
cannot be subverted by any one technological breakthrough. There is
SO much redundancy and security built into the Russian and American
strategic nuclear forces that a disarming first strike is all but
impossible, even if we make the most unlikely and far-fetched
assumptions giving one side all the advantages and the other all the
disadvantages. For most people it is very hard to wrap their heads
around such a hyper-survivable system, but both the USA and Russia
have run hundreds and even thousands of very advanced simulations of
nuclear exchanges, spending countless hours and millions of dollars
trying to find a weak spot in the other guy’s system, and each time
the result was the same: there is always enough to inflict an
absolutely cataclysmic retaliatory counter-strike.
Conclusion
3: the real danger to our common future
The
real danger to our planet comes not from a sudden technological
breakthrough which would make nuclear war safe, but from the demented
filled minds of the US Neocons who believe that they can bring Russia
to heel in a game of “nuclear chicken”. These Neocons have
apparently convinced themselves that making conventional threats
against Russia, such as unilaterally imposing no-fly zones over
Syria, does not bring us closer to a nuclear confrontation. It does.
The
Neocons love to bash the United Nations in general, and the veto
power of the Permanent Five (P5) at the UN Security Council, but they
apparently forgot the reason why this veto power was created in the
first place: to outlaw any action which could trigger a nuclear war.
Of course, this assumes that the P5 all care about international law.
Now that the USA has clearly become a rogue state whose contempt for
international law is total, there is no legal mechanism left to stop
the US from committing actions which endanger the future of mankind.
This is what is really scary, not “super-fuses”.
What
we are facing today is a nuclear rogue state run by demented
individuals who, steeped in a culture of racial superiority, total
impunity and imperial hubris, are constantly trying to bring us
closer to a nuclear war. These people are not constrained by
anything, not morals, not international law, not even common sense or
basic logic. In truth, we are dealing with a messianic cult every bit
as insane as the one of Jim Jones or Adolf Hitler and like all
self-worshiping crazies they profoundly believe in their
invulnerability.
It
is the immense sin of the so-called “Western world” that it let
these demented individuals take control with little or no resistance
and that now almost the entire western society lack the courage to
even admit that it surrendered itself to what I can only call a
satanic cult. Alexander Solzhenitsyn prophetic words spoken in 1978
have now fully materialized:
A decline in courage may be the most striking feature that an outside observer notices in the West today. The Western world has lost its civic courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, in each government, in each political party, and, of course, in the United Nations. Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling and intellectual elites, causing an impression of a loss of courage by the entire society. There are many courageous individuals, but they have no determining influence on public life (Harvard Speech, 1978)
Five
years later, Solzhenitsyn warned us again saying,
To the ill-considered hopes of the last two centuries, which have reduced us to insignificance and brought us to the brink of nuclear and non-nuclear death, we can propose only a determined quest for the warm hand of God, which we have so rashly and self-confidently spurned. Only in this way can our eyes be opened to the errors of this unfortunate twentieth century and our hands be directed to setting them right. There is nothing else to cling to in the landslide: the combined vision of all the thinkers of the Enlightenment amounts to nothing. Our five continents are caught in a whirlwind. But it is during trials such as these that the highest gifts of the human spirit are manifested. If we perish and lose this world, the fault will be ours alone.
We
have been warned, but will we heed that warning?
Klik voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, op één van de labels die u hieronder terug kan vinden, dit geldt (nog) niet voor de labels: HTK, ICBM, MIRV, SLBM, SSBN, SSN, STK en super-fuse
Gelukkig heeft de ex-mensenrechtenadvocaat Moon Jae-in de presidentsverkiezingen in Zuid-Korea gewonnen. Moon is tegenstander van een harde opstelling tegen Noord-Korea en naar grote waarschijnlijkheid, zal hij de raketten die de VS op Zuid-Koreaanse bodem wil plaatsen linea recta(al) terugsturen naar de VS. Moon heeft al aangekondigd voor overleg op bezoek te gaan in Noord-Korea en heeft daarnaast meteen de betrekkingen met Noord-Korea heropend voor handel, hulp en samenwerking!!
Gelukkig een leider met gezond verstand in Zuid-Korea, een verademing voor de wereld, daar Moon niet zal dansen naar de pijpen van de VS. Daarmee wordt de kans op oorlog met China* sterk verminderd en daar hebben we allemaal baat bij, daar dit hoogstwaarschijnlijk op een nucleaire oorlog zou zijn uitgedraaid en daarmee zou WOIII een feit zijn geworden………
Benieuwd hoe lang Moon getolereerd zal worden door de stille macht achter de Zuid-Koreaanse regering en niet afgezet of zelfs (met hulp van de CIA) vermoord zal worden……..
* De agressieve opstelling van de VS tegen Noord-Korea is vooral ingegeven, door de wens China uit te schakelen als één van de wereldmachten. Immers met VS raketten op Zuid-Koreaanse bodem, zou de VS direct beschikken over raketten, die in een mum van tijd met atoomkoppen kunnen worden uitgerust, kernraketten die dan in feite aan de Chinese grens zouden staan. Tevens zouden deze raketten Russische doelen kunnen bereiken. Langs de westelijke Russische grens heeft de VS een raketschild gebouwd (dat zou klaar moeten zijn), zogenaamd tegen Iraanse raketten, terwijl deze raketten, zoals eerder beschreven, kunnen worden uitgerust met kernkoppen en van defensieve raketten worden ingezet als aanvalsraketten……. Tel dit op bij de uitlatingen van de VS, dat het zich het recht voorbehoud het atoomwapen niet langer als afschrikkingmiddel te gebruiken, maar als eerste aanvalswapen en het is niet moeilijk te bedenken wat dit voor de wereld zou betekenen…………..
Afgelopen donderdag bracht Anti-Media een artikel met de titel: ‘What You Need to Know About the U.S.-North Korea Conflict Right Now’, vrij vertaald: ‘Wat u direct moet weten over het conflict tussen de VS en Noord-Korea’.
Het opperhoofd van het U.S. Pacific Command, admiraal Harry Harris, vertelde het Congres afgelopen woensdag, dat de militaire opbouw in Zuidoost-Azië er niet op gericht is, Noord-Korea aan te vallen. Nee, die opbouw is erop gericht, de Noord-Koreaanse leider Kim Yung-un af te schrikken, zodat hij stopt met ‘kernproeven’* en niet nog meer tests doet met raketten (die amper luchtwaardig zijn, zoals telkens weer blijkt). Harris stelt dat de VS de Noord-Koreanen iet op hun knieën wil dwingen, maar tot rede wil brengen………
Later stelt Harris, dat Noord-Korea wel degelijk een direct gevaar is voor Zuid-Korea, Japan en de VS…. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Harris gaf wel toe, dat de militaire opbouw van de VS ‘om N-Korea tot rede te brengen’ totaal buiten proporties is, wat betreft de slagkracht van dit land……
Vandaag een artikel van P.C. Roberts op Information Clearing House. Hij betoogt terecht dat de handelingen van de VS er duidelijk op gericht zijn, Rusland en China op de knieën te dwingen, middels een eerste kernaanval op die landen…… Niet zo vreemd, als je de uitlatingen van Harris in ogenschouw neemt: de enorme militaire opbouw (buiten alle proporties) in Zuidoost-Azië.
De VS is in Z.o.-Azië o.a. bezig een enorme vloot (‘armada’) samen te stellen, waarbij zelfs 3 vliegdekschepen en de grootste VS kernonderzeeër betrokken zijn. Daarnaast heeft de VS op meerdere plekken in datzelfde gebied (op land) raketten gestationeerd, raketten die zogenaamd alleen defensief zullen worden ingezet. Lullig genoeg heeft de VS een nieuwe serie raketten, die simpel van anti-raket kunnen worden omgevormd tot kernraket met meerdere kernkoppen…….
Hetzelfde gebeurt overigens met Rusland: de VS staat met de NAVO voor een groot deel van de Russische westgrens, waar het continu grootscheepse militaire oefeningen houdt en intussen een ‘raketschild’ heeft gebouwd, zogenaamd tegen Iraanse raketten, terwijl ook deze raketten in een mum van tijd, kunnen worden omgebouwd tot kernraketten met meerdere kernkoppen……..
Roberts wijst op de uitlatingen van de VS (al onder Obama), dat de VS zich het recht voorbehoud, een aanval (zonder reden daarvoor) met kernraketten te starten…… (hetzelfde heeft de inhumane feeks May, de premier van Groot-Brittannië gedaan, kort nadat zij vorig jaar aantrad….)
Roberts concludeert dan ook dat de VS haar hegemonie over aarde wil afdwingen, precies zoals de Russen dit na uitvoerig onderzoek ook al concludeerden.
Nogmaals terecht stelt Roberts dat dit gevaarlijke spel van de VS de vernietiging van de aarde zal bewerkstelligen (middels WOIII)….. Roberts is teleurgesteld in het linkse activisme, dat door conflicten is verbrokkeld en geen wereldwijd protest kan ontketenen, zoals in de 80er jaren, tegen de kruisraketten (of eerder tegen de illegale oorlogen die de VS voerde in Zuidoost-Azië..)……
Uiteraard likt het overgrote deel van de westerse politici de hielen van hun VS voorbeelden, waar de reguliere westerse media alle VS/NAVO propaganda voor zoete koek slikken en deze uitventen als de enige waarheid (waarbij het ene nepnieuws bericht na het andere wordt opgelepeld, e.e.a vooral middels haat- en angstzaaien…..)…… Daar durft men keer op keer landen als Rusland, Noord-Korea en Iran van gewelddadige expansie te betichten, terwijl daar maar één land echt voor aan is te wijzen: de VS, de grootste terreurentiteit op onze kleine planeet………
Gezien dat laatste is het niet zo vreemd dat N-Korea rare bokkensprongen maakt, immers de VS is niet te vertrouwen, ‘ook niet’ als een land de pogingen staakt, om een atoombom te construeren, dat heeft Libië moeten ondervinden in 2011, dit land werd door de VS en andere westerse landen (o.l.v. de VS) naar god geholpen, waar het eens rijkste land van Afrika, nu zo ongeveer het armste is, een land dat in totale chaos is gedompeld……….
Eén ding is zeker, middels het conflict met Noord-Korea, militariseert de VS in feite het hele zeegebied van China, waar het een paar honderd militaire bases in de buurt van datzelfde gebied heeft…… Precies zoals de VS dit ook heeft in voor Rusland strategische gebieden……. Terwijl de rest van de EU wordt gebruikt voor opslag van militaire hardware, zo biedt Nederland plaats aan extra kernkoppen (sterke geruchten) en tanks (zeker) van de VS………
Eerst vindt u hieronder het artikel van Anti-Media en daarna van ICH. Onder het artikel van ICH, kan u klikken voor een ‘Dutch translation’ (NL vertaling).
What
You Need to Know About the U.S.-North Korea Conflict Right Now
What You Need to Know About the U.S.-North Korea Conflict Right Now
(ANTIMEDIA)Washington,
D.C. — Keeping
in step with the latest bullet point from the mainstream narrative,
the head of the U.S. Pacific Command, Admiral Harry
Harris, told Congress
Wednesday that the military buildup in East Asia is not intended for
a proactive attack on North Korea. Rather, he claimed, it is to deter
the nation’s rogue leader, Kim Jong-un.
Promising
legislators that the U.S. would be ready to defend allies in the
region “with
the best technology” the
military has to offer, Harris said the North Korean leader — who
has ordered multiple
missile tests of late, creating an international stir — will attack
American cities as soon as he can.
Despite
the United States’ innocent intentions in Asia, however — the
military hardware is there to bring Kim “to his senses, not
to his knees,” says Harris — the admiral also reminded
Congress that a first-strike move against North Korea is still a
possibility.
“As
[US President Donald] Trump and [Defense Secretary James] Mattis have
said, all options are on the table,” Harris
said.
Indeed,
Harris seems to think it will, in fact, come to that.
“I
don’t share your confidence that North Korea is not going to attack
South Korea, Japan, or the United States…once they have the
capability,” he
told Congress.
As
to that fancy technology the admiral referred to, some of it is
currently upsetting a lot of South Koreans. From a Reutersreport on
Wednesday:
“The
U.S. military moved parts of an anti-missile defense system to a
deployment site in South Korea Wednesday amid heightened tensions
over North Korea’s missile and nuclear weapons programs, triggering
protests from villagers and China.”
Like
the situation in Japan, many South Koreans feel the
U.S. presence in their country only exacerbates regional tensions. To
them, the deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense
(THAAD) system could potentially be viewed as an act of aggression.
Strangely,
Harris also actually admitted to Congress that the military buildup
in East Asia is overkill and that the carrier strike group currently
making its way to the Korean Peninsula is far more powerful than
anything Kim Jong-un could throw at it.
“The
weapons that North Korea would put against the Carl Vinson strike
group are easily defended by the capabilities resident in that strike
group,” Harris said.
Getting
lyrical, the admiral reassured Congress of U.S. military might.
“If
it flies it will die, if it’s flying against the Carl Vinson strike
group,” he
said, referring to North Korean missiles.
Still,
Harris insists, the threat is significant enough that the U.S.
actually needs more firepower in the Pacific.
“The
United States may need to strengthen its missile defense,
particularly in Hawaii,”Reuters writes, “given
the advancing threat from North Korea’s missile and nuclear weapons
programs, the top U.S. commander in the Pacific told Congress
Wednesday.”
According
to the U.S. military, the initial deployments of the THAAD system in
South Korea will be operational within days,
just about the time the Carl Vinson strike group is scheduled
to arrive at
the peninsula.
April
28, 2017 “Information
Clearing House” – Not everyone likes to hear about the
threat of nuclear war. Some find refuge in denial and say that
nuclear war is impossible because it makes no sense. Unfortunately,
humankind has a long record of doing things that make no sense.
In
previous posts in recent years I have pointed out both written
documents and changes in US war doctrine that indicate that
Washington is preparing a preemptive nuclear attack on Russia and
China. More recently, I have shown that Washington’s demonization
of Russia and President Putin, the incessant lies about Russian deeds
and intentions, and the refusal of Washington to cooperate with
Russia on any issue have convinced the Russian government that
Washington is preparing the Western populations for an attack on
Russia. It is obvious that China has come to the same conclusion.
It
is extremely dangerous to all of mankind for Washington to convince
two nuclear powers that Washington is preparing a preemptive nuclear
strike against them. It is impossible to imagine a more reckless and
irresponsible act. Yet this is precisely what Washington has done.
Lt.
Gen. Viktor Poznikhir, Deputy Head of Operations of the Russian
General Staff has concluded that Washington in pursuit of global
hegemony is implementing an anti-ballistic missile system that
Washington believes can prevent a Russian nuclear response to a US
pre-emptive
attack. http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/04/us-forces-preparing-sudden-nuclear.html
Careful
studies have convinced the Russians that Washington is investing in
and arranging components that have no other function than to
devastate Russia and cripple the country’s retaliatory capability.
In short, Washington is preparing to launch a nuclear
war. https://www.rt.com/news/386276-us-missile-shield-russia-strike/
As
I explained previously, the theory behind this insane scheme is that
after America’s preemptive strike Russia will be so devastated that
Russia would not retaliate with any remaining forces out of fear that
Washington would launch a second major strike. Washington also plans
to use agents in place to assassinate as many members as possible of
the Russian government, thus leaving the government in confusion
without leadership.
Yes,
the insane American/Israeli neoconservatives are this determined to
exercise hegemony over the world.
Yes,
Washington is sufficiently criminally insane to risk the destruction
of life on earth based on the supposition that Washington’s offense
will work perfectly and Russia and China’s capabilities will be so
degraded that no retaliatory response will occur.
One
might hope that the American and Western populations would be
outraged that Washington is so power-crazed that Washington is
subjecting all life to such risks. But there is no sign of an
anti-war movement. The Western leftwing has degenerated into Identity
Politics in which the only threat comes from white heterosexual males
who are portrayed as misogynists, racists, and homophopes. The
Western leftwing is no longer war-conscious. Indeed, the leftwing has
become diverted into such silly irrelevancies as transgender rights
to toilets of their choice. The impotence of the Western left is so
overwhelming that the left might as well not exist.
Where
then is the hope? Russia and China cannot simply sit there and await
America’s preemptive nuclear strike.
Possibly
Washington does not intend a preemptive strike, but only to convince
Russia and China that Washington’s preparations give Washington so
much predominance in a conflict that Russia and China will submit to
Washington’s hegemony. But this interpretation of Washington’s
intention implies no less risk. Why would Russia and China wait for
Washington to complete its preparations for war, preparations that
permit Washington to turn Russia and China into puppet states?
The
US military/security complex has clearly prevailed over Trump’s
intention to normalize relations between the US and Russia, and
anti-Russian venom continues to pour out of NATO and Washington’s
European vassal states. The majority of the American people seem to
have accepted the propaganda that Russia is the number one threat to
the United States. With propaganda controlling the explanation,
Washington’s aggressive actions are explained as defense against a
threat and not as a policy that will end life on earth.
The
chances are high that life on earth is approaching its end. The
responsibility lies heavily on the American people, whose success,
due to the mistakes of others, made Americans think that they are
exceptional and privileged. Unaware of the inhumane threat to all
life that is embodied in the neoconservative claim that Americans are
exceptional and indispensable, the self-satisfied American public is
unaware of the consequences of such hubris. Hubris is leading them,
and the entire world, to slaughter in thermo-nuclear war.
The
neoconservative claim of American exceptionalism is the identical
claim made for Germans by Hitler. If Americans are indispensable,
everyone else is dispensable and can be “bombed into the stone age”
as one US government official put it, or nuked as Washington intends
to do to Russia and China. The claim of American exceptionalism is
not accepted by Russia and China. Therefore, the insane, crazed
monsters who rule over the West in Washington are bringing life on
earth to an end.
And
there are no protests. The idiot British, the idiot Germans, the
idiot French, Italians, Canadians, Australians, Belgians, Greeks,
Portuguese, Spanish, Japanese, rally behind the insanity that is
Washington.
And
so apparently do the American people, a population stupid beyond all
belief.
* ‘Kernproeven’, althans zoals de reguliere westerse pers en westerse politici in navolging van de VS en de bluf van de Noord-Koreanen, deze proeven noemen. Vreemd genoeg werd er na geen Noord-Koreaanse ondergrondse kernproef, radioactieve straling gemeten, iets dat normaal wel te meten is na een ondergrondse kernproef. M.a.w. de Noord-Koreanen brengen een enorme hoeveelheid springstof tot ontploffing, zoveel dat deze eenzelfde ‘aardbeving’ teweeg brengt, als die door een ondergrondse kernproef opgewekt…….
Voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, klik op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terug kan vinden, dit geldt niet voor de labels: H. Harris, Holbrooks en Poznikhir,
In China is men terecht goed pissig over het besluit van de VS een raketschild in Zuid-Korea te plaatsen, ‘als verdediging tegen een raketaanval van Noord-Korea….’ ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! BBC World Service (radio) meldde dit gisteren in het nieuws van 1.00 u. (CET)
Men heeft de laatste dagen, na een multi-raketlancering van Noord-Korea, internationaal goed haar best gedaan, deze lanceringen en daarmee de raketten tot zeer gevaarlijk te ‘bombarderen’. Zo zouden eerdere lanceringen doelbewust door de VS middels computervirussen zijn gesaboteerd…….. M.a.w.: die raketten waren prima in orde, maar een computervirus heeft ze doen falen……. Alsof er ook maar één raketgeleerde in Noord-Korea is, die het in zijn kop zou halen, een virus in de desbetreffende computers los te laten………
Het is dan ook duidelijk: de VS gaat in Zuid-Korea een ‘raketschild’ plaatsen, zoals de VS dit langs de Russische grens heeft gedaan (of nog bezig is te doen) ‘tegen raketten’ uit Iran. Let wel: met raketten die in een mum van tijd omgevormd kunnen worden tot aanvalsraketten met meerdere kernkoppen…….. Wat betreft het raketschild langs de Russische grens, is het intussen wel duidelijk dat daar direct de aanvalsvariant met kernkoppen (uitgeruste raketten) worden geplaatst (of al geplaatst zijn)…….
De VS heeft China omsingeld met militaire bases en deze raketten zijn het sluitstuk, althans voordat de VS China daadwerkelijk gaat aanvallen, ‘mooi voordeel’ met die raketten kunnen ook Russische doelen worden bestookt……….
De VS heeft China inderdaad laten weten, dat het zich geen zorgen hoeft te maken, daar het ‘defensieve raketten’ zijn…….. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!
Obama gaf het Pentagon de vrije hand in de gebieden rond China en heeft de boel op scherp gezet in de Zuid-Chinese Zee, waar de VS nu al drie vliegdekschepen in de directe nabijheid heeft. Al onder Obama werd de relatie met China op scherp gezet en begon men daadwerkelijk te dreigen, dat de VS zou ingrijpen als China ‘niet inbond…..’
Even ter vergelijking: in de wateren rond het grondgebied van de VS, heeft de VS allang haar belangen veilig gesteld met o.a. militaire bases. Niemand die zich daar druk om maakt en nooit werd dit voorgelegd aan het VN Hof van Arbitrage in Den Haag…….. Dit terwijl in tegenstelling tot China, de VS zich sinds WOII als een uiterst agressief ‘land’ heeft getoond aan de wereld, dit middels illegale oorlogen, staatsgrepen en andere manipulaties, in landen waar het niets te zoeken heeft……
De VS (en de NAVO landen) zijn uit op oorlog, niet alleen met China, dat werd met dit raketschild ten overvloede nog eens bewezen……. Waarbij niet vergeten moet worden, dat de NAVO niet alleen militair wordt geleid door de VS, dit daar de zetbazen als de Hoop Scheffer en nu Stoltenberg, door de VS aangewezen als secretaris-generaal, de plicht hebben als eerste de belangen van de VS te behartigen………
Klik voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terug kan vinden.
PS: Noord-Korea heeft geen atoombom, men hooft nooit straling kunnen meten in de dagen na ondergrondse kernproeven, iets dat ‘normaal’ wel te meten is. Het gaat dan ook om explosies die worden opgewekt met enorme hoeveelheden explosieven……. Wat betreft de raketten, de kwaliteit van die dingen is belabberd, alsof men dat niet weet in het Pentagon…….
Afgelopen zaterdagmiddag in het BBC World Service nieuws van 14.00 u. het bericht dat China haar defensie uitgaven met 7% opschroeft. Voorts werd gemeld dat de VS 4 keer meer uitgeeft aan defensie dan Rusland. Dat is een grove leugen, volgens de nieuwste Sipri cijfers, geeft de VS 4 keer meer uit aan defensie, dan Rusland en China bij elkaar opgeteld*.
Het angstzaaien voor China begon ermee, dat de ‘deskundige correspondent’ stelde, dat de Chinese militaire uitgaven waarschijnlijk een stuk hoger zijn, dan de iets meer dan 13% (van het nationaal bbp) die Sipri aangeeft. Nee, dat is niet te bewijzen, men loopt daarvoor even naar buiten en steekt een natte vinger in de lucht. Terwijl al jaren blijkt, dat de cijfers van Sipri uiterst betrouwbaar zijn………..
Een andere deskundige stelde na het nieuws, dat China nu weliswaar 7% meer gaat uitgeven aan militaire middelen, maar dat dit jarenlang 10% op jaarbasis was (en of de luisteraar naar het programma na dit cijfer, maar even snel wit om de neus wilde worden van angst….)… Terwijl de VS de afgelopen 20 jaar China aan vele kanten heeft omsloten met militaire bases, om over het eerder genoemde defensie budget van de VS maar te zwijgen…….. Met andere woorden: gezien de agressie van de VS, zoals we die vanaf WOII hebben gezien, of zelfs alleen die agressie in de eerste 17 jaar van deze eeuw**, is het op z’n zachtst gezegd niet zo vreemd, dat een land als China meer gaat uitgeven aan defensie……..
En ja hoor, daar ging men los over ‘de Chinese agressie’ in de Zuid-Chinese Zee……… Alsof China landen is binnen gevallen en daar oorlogsmisdaden als massamoorden heeft begaan……. Nogmaals: terwijl er meer dan honderd VS bases rond China liggen…….
Trouwens wat betreft het VS budget aan militaire uitgaven, is het maar zeer de vraag of alles wordt meegeteld, bij mijn weten, zijn veel operationele kosten van dat leger geheim. Daarnaast kan je stellen, dat de CIA niet alleen een geheime dienst is, maar ook een dienst die diverse geheime operaties uitvoert in het buitenland, dit met speciale legercommando’s.
Bij nazoeken van cijfers kwam ik ook een tabel tegen van het goochelcijferinstituut CBS over defensie uitgaven. De cijfers die het CBS oplepelt zijn meestal van erg regering bevoordelend gehalte en onbetrouwbaar. Eén opmerkelijk getal, waar het CBS stelt dat iedere Nederlander jaarlijks € 450,– kwijt is aan defensie en dat dit in Duitsland op € 370,– per jaar ligt. Over GB gaf het CBS geen bedrag, vreemd daar GB wel ruim boven de norm uitgeeft aan ‘defensie’ (lees, net als bij VS: oorlogsvoering)……..
Aangezien het CBS onze regering graag uit de wind houdt met fantasiecijfers, valt dan ook te vrezen, dat Nederlanders amper minder uitgeven aan defensie dan de Britten….. Let wel: in Groot-Brittannië rekent men deels ook de uitgaven voor oorlogvoering mee in het budget, niet zo vreemd dus, dat de uitgaven daar een stuk hoger liggen dan hier……
Volgens het CBS hebben de invallen in Irak en Afghanistan vooral sterk op het VS defensie-budget gedrukt. Men lult maar niet over Nederland, waar we de eerste jaren 1 miljoen euro per dag kwijt waren aan de totaal onzinnige oorlog tegen Afghanistan, een bedrag dat later opliep naar meer dan 1,5 miljoen euro per dag!!
* Volgens de laatste cijfers van Sipri geven de EU landen Groot-Brittannië, Frankrijk, Duitsland en Italië al meer dan 2 keer zoveel uit aan defensie, dan Rusland….. Let wel 4 NAVO landen. U begrijpt dat met alle EU-NAVO leden bij elkaar opgeteld, plus die buiten Europa, ofwel de westerse militaire uitgaven voor defensie te samen, het absolute ‘wereldrecord’ is (‘wat een eer….’)……. Overigens staat Saoedi-Arabië op de 3de plek wat betreft militaire uitgaven.
** In de eerste 17 jaar vermoordde de VS al zo’n 2 miljoen mensen (waarvan 1,5 miljoen in Irak). Vanaf WOII tot het jaar 2000 ligt dat cijfer rond de 20 miljoen………
Afgelopen vrijdag berichtte Tyler Durden op ZeroHedge dat de VS een derde ‘supervliegdekschip’ richting Zuid-Chinese Zee heeft gezonden…. Het is duidelijk, nadat de VS een totaal aantal van 400 militaire bases rond China heeft ingericht, dat diezelfde VS met deze (tot nu toe) laatste daad China aan de ketting wil leggen (een daad die niet anders gezien kan worden dan een daad van agressie…..)……
Gezien de uitlatingen van de psychopathische fascist Trump t.a.v. China, belooft dit niet veel goeds, al moet vooral niet vergeten worden, dat vooral de Obama regering bezig is geweest met het stichten van een wereldwijd VS imperium……. Dezelfde regering Obama die de beslissing heeft genomen zich ‘teweer te stellen tegen China’ en deze vliegdekschepen richting China heeft gezonden, als zou China de VS hebben omringd met militaire bases………
US
Deploys Third Carrier Group In Asia To Boost “Naval Air Forces”
In Disputed South China Sea
For
a brief but
tense period,
two weeks ago the US found itself without a single aircraft carrier
in any area of the globe. The absence of a deployed U.S. Navy
aircraft carrier, long seen as a symbol of American power projection,
was noteworthy because according
to Fox,
“it is believed to be the first time since World War II that at
least one U.S. aircraft carrier has not been deployed.”
However,
things are gradually getting back to normal following the recent
deployment of ships and units from the Carl Vinson Carrier Strike
Group, which departed San Diego for a regularly scheduled deployment
to the western Pacific last week.
Nimitz-class
aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70), Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 2,
and embarked Destroyer Squadron (CDS) 1 deployed with
Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Lake Champlain (CG 57)
and Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers USS Michael Murphy
(DDG 112) and USS Wayne E. Meyer (DDG 108).
The
Vinson Strike Group is deployed to “support” the
diplomatically tense situation in the Pacific Rim. According to Naval
Technology,
this new deployment is part of US Navy’s attempt to boost its naval
air forces in disputed part of the Asian region.
“Our
forward presence contributes to freedom of navigation and lawful use
of the sea, as well as furthers operational training and enabling the
exchange of culture, skills, and tactical knowledge,” said
Commander, CSG 1, Rear Adm. James W. Kilby. Ported in Pearl Harbor,
Michael Murphy will join the Carl Vinson CSG* later this month as the
strike group makes their way to the western Pacific according to
the Navy’s
website.
The
Carl Vinson CSG deployed with approximately 7,500 Sailors and will
focus on maritime security operations and theater security
cooperation efforts. The strike group assets will conduct bilateral
exercises in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region to include anti-submarine
warfare, maneuvering drills, gunnery exercises, and visit, board,
search, and seizure (VBSS) subject matter expert exchanges.
Carl
Vinson also deployed with the embarked aviation squadrons of CVW-2
which include the “Black Knights” of Helicopter Sea Combat
Squadron (HSC) 4, the “Blue Hawks” of Helicopter Maritime
Strike Squadron (HSM) 78, the “Bounty Hunters” of Strike
Fighter Squadron (VFA) 2, the “Blue Blasters” of VFA-34,
the “Kestrels” of VFA-137, the “Golden Dragons”
of VFA-192, the “Black Eagles” of Carrier Airborne Early
Warning Squadron (VAW) 113, the “Gauntlets” of Electronic
Attack Squadron (VAQ) 136, and the “Providers” of Fleet
Logistic Support Squadron (VRC) 30.
The
South China Sea is also where China’s only aircraft carrier, in a
recent show of force to Taiwan, conducted
naval drills in late December and
early January.
* CSG: The carrier strike group is a flexible naval force that can operate in confined waters or in the open ocean, during day and night, in all weather conditions. A carrier strike group
(CSG) is a type of carrier battle group of the United States Navy. It is
an operational formation composed of roughly 7,500 personnel,
usually an aircraft carrier, at least one cruiser, a destroyer squadron
of at least two destroyers or frigates, and a carrier air wing of 65 to
70 aircraft.
==============
Klik voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terug kan vinden.
