Hmmmmm, how do global 1% start a WW3 that involves not only Western and Eastern Europe but Asian nations as well as Arabic?
This sounds just like the manufactured tensions needed to do that. How does global banking involve civil unrest and war in US and Canada? Well, there is an economic collapse coming, US cities filling with global labor pool no doubt having those ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT 5% freemason/Greek civil unrest global banking players.
We have in US across all government, non-profit, academic institutions that global 2% of China's national politburo there because China and US global 1% are partners in ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for only the global 1%.
Syria Becomes World War Powderkeg As China Joins Russian Alliance With Assad
With China’s presence in Syria — and on the side of Russian and Syrian forces, no less — the last remaining global superpower has injected itself in the most hotly-contested military conflict on the planet.
by James Holbrooks
August 19th, 2016
By James Holbrooks
According to state-run Chinese news outlet Xinhua, the Chinese military — citing remarks made by a high-ranking military official during a rare trip to Damascus — is seeking closer ties with war-torn Syria, offering to supply humanitarian aid and even train Syrian military personnel.
On Tuesday, the Director of the Office for Military Cooperation of China’s Central Military Commission, Guan Youfei, flew to Damascus to have discussions with Syrian Defense Minister Fahad Jassim al-Freij,Xinhua says. Director Guan, speaking with Xinhua, noted historical ties between the two countries and highlighted the positive role China has played in seeking a resolution to the fighting in Syria.
Reuters points out that Xinhua, paraphrasing Guan’s words, states: “China’s and Syria’s militaries have a traditionally friendly relationship, and China’s military is willing to keep strengthening exchanges and cooperation.”
China depends on the Middle East for oil imports, but in the past has tended to leave diplomacy to member nations of the U.N. Security Council — chiefly, the U.S., Britain, France, and Russia. However, China has inserted itself more deeply of late.
“But China has been trying to get more involved, including sending envoys to help push for a diplomatic resolution to the violence there and hosting Syrian government and opposition figures.”
The news comes as Syrian government forces, backed by Russian airpower, have established a siege around Aleppo, the last remaining enemy stronghold. Syrian and Russian forces have established humanitarian corridors for which civilians and even rebel fighters can escape — and maintains daily ceasefires for them to do this. Given these developments, it appears the last stand of the rebels may be imminent.
As Underground Reporter has previously written:
“All evidence points to the fact that the Syrian government is attempting to give the rebels within Aleppo a chance to surrender without further bloodshed. The rebels, however, appear steadfast. It was recently reported that 7,000 fighters are headed toward Aleppo from the southwest.”
Interestingly — and, to be sure, concerningly — Xinhua noted that while Director Guan was in Damascus on Tuesday, he met with a Russian general; though the agency provided no further comment on the matter.
In April, China sent a special envoy to Syria in order to work toward a peaceful resolution to the conflict. The man sent to participate in the talks had previously “praised Russia’s military role in the war, and said the international community should work harder together to defeat terrorism in the region,” according to Reuters.
The prospect of Chinese involvement in Syria could prove troublesome to that very “international community.” While, thus far, China hasn’t demonstrated a desire to involve itself in the fighting directly, its presence will almost certainly escalate tensions between itself and the United States.
Remember, the U.S. and China are on the verge of all-out naval warfare in the South China Sea, with neither side willing to give an inch. Recall also that U.S.-led NATO is in Eastern Europe, along the border with Russia, conducting what many have called provocations in an attempt to elicit a response from the Russian military.
Now, with China’s presence in Syria — and on the side of Russian and Syrian forces, no less — the last remaining global superpower has injected itself in the most hotly-contested military conflict on the planet.
As Zero Hedge fittingly summarized:
“Which means that at this moment, every major world superpower is officially involved in the Syrian war, which has on various occasions been aptly called a powderkeg for what may be the next global military conflict — to be sure, all required players are now officially involved.”
What we are seeing in Syria including these recent attacks on both sides of chemical weapons issue is URBAN WARFARE. NATO with United Nations are rolling out weaponry and special forces tied to URBAN WARFARE just as we have shouted against here in US ------these same groups training in our US cities for URBAN WARFARE. We have read these few decades that the coming WW3 would be a war occurring in cities globally. What are major population zones in Western nations? GREAT BIG US CITIES.
So, we are reading of Syrian troops tied to special forces inside Syrian cities and NATO/United Nations using white sulfur weaponry inside urban centers in ways having in modern era broken international law.
The same global banking ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT 5% freemason civil unrest players creating this brutal war zone chaos are shipping in to US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones being staged to do the same in America. Not all of our global labor pool 99% of workers are tied to being players-----they have the same 5% overseas as we have here in US.
The reason we will not see a resolution to Syrian war is the opportunity urban warfare creates to global military complex in weapons development and urban war strategies.
WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND------THAT IS PHYSICS.
Newton's Third Law of Motion
Jan 29, 2018 ... It is also similar to Western aphorisms like 'what goes around comes around'. And surely Newton himself would have been familiar with the words, "for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap" 2 from a contemporaneous English translation of the Jewish and Christian texts.
Syria’s Urban Warfare
The Azaz area in Aleppo in 2012, after a bombardment [Image from Wikimedia].
A few weeks ago I noticed an odd trope turning up in discussion of the Syrian Civil War: an assertion, without much context, that the country is highly urbanised. I’ve certainly come across this idea before, and given the imbalance between the virtually uninhabited badiya (the Syrian desert out towards Iraq) and the Aleppo-Hama-Homs-Damascus line of cities in the country’s greener portions, it seems plausible. But if you examine the facts, it turns out that Syria’s rural-urban split is remarkably tilted towards the rural side.
(All of these data come from before the civil war, of course; I’m not even going to pretend that there are current figures.)
The percentage of Syria’s population living in cities was 56.1% in 2011, according to the UN World Urbanisation Prospects report. This places Syria at #100, slightly above Slovenia and China and just behind Serbia. Syria’s urbanisation rate is 3.1%, placing it above well over two-thirds of the world’s countries (a high urbanisation rate usually correlates with a low urban population). Globally, then, Syria certainly doesn’t count as a highly-urbanised country.
Within the Arab League, the statistics are even less impressive. Of the League’s Members, the only ones which are less urbanised are Egypt (43.5%), Mauritania (41.5%), Sudan (33.2%), and Yemen (32.3%). Syria’s neighbours are all significantly more urbanised, particularly Lebanon (87.2%) and Israel (91.9%), but even Jordan (82.7%), which really only has Amman. Among its regional and cultural companions, Syria is still one of the least urbanised nations.
Of course, it is always possible that varying methods of obtaining data within various countries render a comparison between countries more or less worthless, but I’d like to think that the United Nations pays at least marginal attention to using the same research methods in different countries. So, if we assume the figures to be true, where on earth does this idea that the country is a highly-urbanised nation come from?
I have a few theories about this. One is that as Syria’s rate of urbanisation (3.1%) is fairly high, particularly compared to neighbouring countries, those working inside the country or studying it would notice a strong pattern of rural-to-urban migration, which may contribute to an impression that the country’s urban population is larger than it really is. I’d imagine that most people who spend a prolonged period of time in cities –unless they’re explicitly studying the urban/rural gap– would probably come away with the idea that a higher percentage of the population lives in urban areas than is actually the case; certainly until I looked the figures up there seemed nothing unreasonable to me in Syria having an urbanisation rate of 70% or 80%.
But if we look at the context in which these claims are made, another explanation suggests itself: Syria’s “highly-urbanised” status is brought out to represent the fact that most of the fighting is taking place in cities, and that is certainly a point worth making. The extraordinary level of urban violence and destruction which has already occurred in Syria has left most of the country’s cities in ruins (among them its most populous city, Aleppo). Compared to the sort of warfare one imagines in most contemporary civil wars (South Sudan, the Central African Republic, Afghanistan, Somalia, Colombia, and so on) Syria’s is certainly an order of magnitude different. The national urban stalemate, in which the front lines lie inside city centres and across residential districts, is something which I associate with nothing more recent than the Bosnian Wars.
The main road of Sarajevo during the height of the siege in 1993 [Image from Wikimedia].
This level of intense warfare has all sorts of effects on cities: mass displacement of populations, division of cities across political lines, eradication of the normal routine of daily life (calling it ‘disruption’ seems rather mild), to say nothing of the damage sustained to regional and global heritage by the destruction of the Aleppo Mosque and Old City, the shelling of Krak des Chevaliers, bombings in the ruins of Palmyra, and countless other offenses against places which used to be the focal points of a lucrative tourist industry (although it’s important to point out that, with the possible exception of Palmyra’s desert ruins, the tourist sites are also vital points in the geography of everyday Syrian life, and their destruction is far more a loss to them than it is to Western tour groups).
All of these effects of urban warfare are encapsulated by the description of Syria as ‘urbanised’. With only just over half of the population living in urban centres, think how much more devastating things might have been, had the proportion been higher. But the effect of stating it in this way, as if Syria’s population naturally gravitated to the urban centres, may have unfortunate effects in the future. Once the war finishes (admittedly in about 200 years’ time, but it’s best to get your analysis in early), there will be an immense population of refugees hastening to return. The return of a displaced population is a challenge facing urban authorities at the end of most wars; combined with the scale of urban destruction Syria is already facing (to say nothing of what it could look like in a year, or 5 years) the situation would be catastrophic. To international agencies involved in managing refugee settlement, the standard belief that Syrian society used to be a largely urban one could be useful to justify keeping people in cities, where access to employment and resources is supposedly greater, than sending them back to their villages. Syria is not a highly-urbanised nation – but, despite the war (or because of it), it may yet become one.
Below we see a quote from CATO opinion on START TREATY. We try to show what REAL political philosophy looks like so we can understand when it is being corrupted. CATO was a FAT CAT living in pre-Christian world pushing STOICISM that looks much like today's NIHILISM ----the rich accumulating wealth anyway they can and the 99% having VIRTUE to accept their lot in life without complaint. So, CATO then as CATO think tank today was all about continuous wars and weaponry----even as this think tank PRETENDS to want to show restraint. OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% CATO promoted the neo-liberal philosophy------tell the 99% what they want to hear----then do what makes the global 1% rich and powerful.
Below we see a true statement regarding START TREATY. The treaty DOES add funding to an already bloated military budget propping up the massive global mercenary military complex adding NEW URBAN BUSTING NUKES.
'Both sides exaggerate. The treaty, which limits U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals and continues mutual inspections of them, would not affect missile defense. It would provide minor increases in intelligence and Russian goodwill. But passing it means handing taxpayers a substantial new tab on top of what we already pay for our bloated nuclear weapons complex. And rather than reducing the arsenal’s size and cost, the treaty props it up'.
CREATING PRODUCTS AND PATENTS THEN USING OUR US FEDERAL AGENCIES TO SEND MILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO MAKE THOSE GLOBAL CORPORATE PROFITS FOR SHAREHOLDERS.
Now, we see MYTH-MAKING revisionist descriptions of OLD WORLD ROMAN CATO admitting the guy was a FAT CAT looking out for his own interests in accumulating wealth that then states -----so too are today's US middle-class as their pensions and 401Ks are making them SHAREHOLDERS in building DEEP, DEEP, REALLY DEEP STATE. Know who has no control where our US pensions and 401Ks are invested? Our US 99% black, white, and brown citizens. Know who places our pensions and 401Ks into these GOD-AWFUL MILITARY COMPLEX corporations? Global MUNICIPAL BOND FUND corporations like PIMCO. PIMCO is of course global 1% CATO-------and our US middle-class had better stop being made SHAREHOLDERS for a measly few hundred in dividends.
MOVING FORWARD US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES ARE OF COURSE FILLING WITH GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUSES FOR ALL THESE GLOBAL MILITARY CORPORATIONS.
CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA's economy of stealing from the poor meets the economy of death and destruction global military complex---and that is very OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% CATO STOICISM----NIHILISM.
Syria Airstrikes Instantly Added Nearly $5 Billion to Missile-Makers' Stock Value
By Jen Wieczner
April 7, 2017
Raytheon stock surged Friday morning, after 59 of the company’s Tomahawk missiles were used to strike Syria in Donald Trump’s first major military operation as President.
Trump ordered the airstrike on the Syrian government Thursday night in retaliation for a deadly chemical weapons attack on civilians earlier this week that killed as many as 100 people. The U.S. blamed the attack on the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
The Tomahawk missile used in the strike is made by Raytheon (rtn, +0.90%), whose stock opened 2.5% higher Friday, adding more than $1 billion to the defense contractor’s market capitalization.
The shares of other missile and weapons manufacturers, including Boeing (ba, +1.53%), Lockheed Martin (lmt, +1.03%), Northrop Grumman (noc, +0.93%) and General Dynamics (gd, +1.43%), each rose as much as 1%, collectively gaining nearly $5 billion in market value as soon as they began trading, even as the broader market fell.
(All major U.S. stock market indexes dropped slightly in morning trading after the release of the weakest monthly jobs report in almost a year, which increased doubts about the strength of the American economy.)
The technology and equipment of the defense companies, which all have lucrative contracts with the U.S. government, was likely also used in Trump’s airstrikes on Syria. Lockheed Martin, for example, makes the Tactical Tomahawk Weapons Control System, one part of a three-pronged system needed to launch the missile; the product calculates the trajectory from a ship to the target. General Dynamics also makes technology used to fire Tomahawk missiles.
Boeing, meanwhile, makes other types of cruise missiles.
Defense contractor stocks have risen in the months since Trump was elected, spurred by his promises of a “historic” increase in U.S. military spending. The budget Trump proposed last month includes an additional $52 billion for the Department of Defense. Boeing stock has gained nearly 21% since the election, while General Dynamics stock is up 14% over the same period. (The S&P 500 has risen roughly 11% since election day.)
SENECA was indeed a FAT CAT PHILOSOPHER. Stoicism in pre-Christian Roman Empire was much the same as today's NIHILISM-----which is much the same as today's far-right wing LIBERTARIANISM. CATO was that continuous war Roman rich wanting to accumulate wealth anyway he could without thinking of morals, ethics, Rule of Law, God's Natural Law------live for today looking out for only one's own interests.
The global 1% extreme wealth justify extreme poverty, continuous wars with definitions of VIRTUE and HONOR relative to only those global 1%.
We have discussed KNIGHTS OF MALTA as a POST-CHRISTIAN era CATO martial philosophy pretending that Christian beliefs allow for continuous wars in this case in the name of GOD. Knights of MALTA is that global 1% freemason group very much embracing CATO/STOICISM.
MOVING FORWARD since REAGAN/CLINTON had goals of ending centuries of Western broad democratic structures including all citizens in governance and economy------those OLD WORLD CATHOLIC AND JEWISH MERCHANTS OF VENICE working for KINGS AND QUEENS have never left medieval CATO/STOICISM.
The GUARDIAN is of course that global banking 1% media outlet in this article does a good job dressing SENECA---AND CATO STOICISM down ----but weakens the SLAP DOWN by suggesting today's middle-class and US citizens are taking the same CATO attitude----buying those Asian global sweat shop cloths-----being those shareholders in global military complex------when our 99% US WE THE PEOPLE have never wanted our US corporations in overseas FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES and were faced with deliberate economic stagnation in keeping US citizens from rebuilding our local small business manufacturing--by the same global 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA OLD WORLD CATO FAT CATS.
There is no good in any human nature-----OH, REALLY???
Seneca, the fat-cat philosopher
Emily Wilson’s Seneca: A Life is published by Allen Lane. THE GUARDIAN
Fri 27 Mar 2015 11.00 EDT Last modified on Wed 29 Nov 2017 06.55 EST
One of the Roman super-rich, he railed against consumerism even as he accumulated more wealth. But then, aren’t we all hypocrites?
Income inequality is one of the most important social issues of our time. There are vast gaps between the economies of different countries around the world: the poorest countries (Malawi, Burundi, Central African Republic) have GDPs per capita that are several hundred times smaller than those of the richest countries (such as Luxembourg and Norway). There are also vast disparities within individual western populations. In the US, the top 1% controls about 40% of the wealth; more than 20% is owned by the top 0.1%. Inequality on this scale is probably unprecedented in world history. In the Roman empire – a slave-owning, militaristic, undemocratic colonial power, which was the closest thing before the modern era to a globalised society – the top 1% of the Roman population probably controlled only about 16% of the empire’s riches.
What is it like to be in the wealthiest tier of society, either in ancient Rome or today? How do such people justify their own position of privilege, either to others or to themselves? In our society, the super-rich are generally not prolific writers, so we get only limited and mediated access to their state of mind. In Rome, things were different. The Roman Stoic philosopher, essayist, celebrity and dramatist Seneca was tutor, speech-writer and adviser to the emperor Nero, and he was also, not coincidentally, one of the very richest people of his age. He lived in the same period as Jesus, though he lasted longer before falling out with the authorities. Seneca was originally from Spain but he spent much of his life in Rome, except for a long convalescent sojourn in Egypt, and some years in exile on Corsica in the wake of a sex scandal. He was forced to kill himself at the age of about 60, in 65AD, under suspicion of conspiring against the emperor.
Seneca was obsessed with money and its discontents. He had a great deal of it. He came from a comfortable family background, although he was not in absolutely the top tier of the class system (being equestrian rather than senatorial in rank). He accumulated huge amounts of wealth and property in the service of Nero: we are told by the Greek historian Cassius Dio that he acquired more than 300m sestertii, a sum that put him easily in the top 0.1%. The average Roman senator was worth “only” about 5m, while the majority of the population lived on something closer to subsistence level; a single sestertius could buy two loaves of bread. Seneca was known to his contemporaries as “super-rich Seneca” (Seneca praedives, as Martial calls him). Enemies accused him of preying on affluent elderly people in the hope of being remembered in their wills, and of “sucking the provinces dry” by lending money at a steep rate of interest to those in the distant parts of the empire, including the unhappy inhabitants of Boudicca’s Britain. His bank balance was only part of his wealth: he also owned several villas around Italy with prosperous estates and vineyards attached, as well as the usual trappings of the elite, such as 500 citrus-wood tables with ivory legs, all alike – perfect for lavish dinner parties at which he could entertain 1,000 of his closest friends.
The interesting thing about Seneca’s wealth is not only how extensive it was, but how difficult it is to reconcile with his literary and philosophical discussions of riches. A central notion of Stoicism, the philosophical doctrine with which Seneca is most closely identified, was the idea that being virtuous is the only truly beneficial thing, and the only thing that can make a person truly happy: wealth, like health, freedom and status, is a merely “indifferent thing”. It is something we might rather have than not, since people generally prefer not being in abject poverty, but wealth does not make a fundamental contribution to human happiness. Other Stoic writers, however, do not spend as much time as Seneca does puzzling over the proper attitude towards riches. He worries repeatedly about the effects of consumerism on the psychological makeup of the consumer, who may become a “slave” to pleasure, and who may become so caught up in a cycle of false pleasure and unsatisfying satisfaction as to lose touch with any real needs: “Why do you have property overseas? Why more things than you’ve ever seen or known? Are you so horribly spoilt that you don’t even know your few slaves, or such a fat cat that you own more slaves than you can possibly remember?”
The problem, for Seneca, is not that owning slaves is bad for the slaves, or that the rich man’s wealth might be better spent feeding the hungry than buying another ivory-legged table. The problem is rather that owning too much – whether slaves or tables – can be damaging for the owner, because he (it is always “he”) will be unable to achieve what we all really need, which is the peace of mind that comes from virtue and truth. “We would belong to ourselves if those things were not ours,” he declares. Consumerist desires are essentially insatiable, because they are desires for things we do not really need: “You see, it’s not thirst; it’s disease.”
We should not be too surprised that Seneca was unable to imagine an alternative to a society that owned slaves and depended on vast income inequality. He could not think about wealth, or rather income inequality, as a social and structural issue as opposed to a problem for the wealthy individual in particular. Such cultural blind-spots are not unusual; presumably we have our own. More striking is the way that Seneca laid himself entirely open to the charges of hypocrisy, which were indeed levelled against him by contemporaries and many readers since antiquity. His idealisation of an ascetic lifestyle and explicit denunciations of consumerism are clearly hard to reconcile with his multimillionaire status. Seneca himself mimics the accusations of his critics, who ask, “Why do you talk so much better than you live?”Perhaps, in theory, the philosophical ideal could be achieved in life. At times in his writings, Senca fantasises about the possibility that one could be wealthy, even extremely wealthy, and maintain one’s ethical integrity. There are three main criteria for this, we are told. The virtuous rich man must maintain the correct, aloof and unslavish attitude towards his wealth, owning it without needing it, and willing to give it all up whenever necessary: “He is a great man who uses clay dishes as if they were silver; but he is equally great who uses silver as if it were clay.” Secondly, he must acquire riches in morally legitimate ways, so his money is not “stained by blood”. Thirdly, he must use his riches generously, to benefit those less well-off than himself – a provision which invites comparison to the charity work practised by rich philanthropists in our own time.
But there is no evidence Seneca managed to fulfil any of these conditions. He may have been fairly moderate in the realm of food and drink, but he also owned a great deal of stuff, and he writes in a way that certainly does not suggest emotional detachment from the details of material possessions. He notices, and obsesses over, the polished furniture, the wine older than its consumer, the earrings that cost more than a house, the birdhouses and silver and ornamental trees and exotic slaves. His wealth was certainly stained by blood: it came from an emperor who killed his stepbrother and his mother, as well as a number of less prominent people. Seneca was probably generous in the sense that he used his wealth for grand parties and to buy friends and influence, but he never seems to have donated it to the very poor of Rome, and never founded anything like the Gates Foundation: philanthropy of this systematic kind did not exist in the ancient world.
We might then label Seneca a hypocrite, since he failed to be ethically rich by his own criteria. But most of us, including those who would call themselves middle class rather than fat cats, would have to say the same, if we were fully honest with ourselves. We buy things we don’t need. We get caught up in consumerist desire and lose track of what we might really want in life. We purchase clothes manufactured by children and make investments in companies whose practices are stained by blood. We give too little and we keep too much. Seneca’s hypocrisy is an extreme and therefore visible case of a moral problem of which we should all be more conscious. Seneca, fat cat though he was, is admirable for his refusal to give up on a problem that he knew he had not solved, and for his willingness to keep on stating a confusing and difficult truth. He acknowledged that he himself was unable to live up to his own ideals, but he kept on wrestling with the gap between how he was and how he wanted to be: “I am not a wise man and I never will be,” he writes. “I haven’t reached health and I never will get there. I’m alleviating my gout, not curing it.”
The dress-down of CATO in the GUARDIAN leaves us to believe today's CATO FAT CATS like Bill Gates are different than those OLD WORLD global 1% with all those foundations. Today's CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA are dismantling all of what was ESTATE TAXES to keep OLD WORLD FAT CATS out of America pretending corporate foundations are PUBLIC BENEFIT when they are tax shelters hiding corporate profiteering. Who is making a mint from partnering with WORLD BANK in endless wars leading WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION? Bill Gates and his global PHARMA and medical device corporations. Remember, it is WORLD HEALTH UNITED NATIONS partnered with WORLD BANK/IMF promoting DEPOPULATION as CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY. Nothing does both than endless wars by global banking 1%.
'but he never seems to have donated it to the very poor of Rome, and never founded anything like the Gates Foundation: philanthropy of this systematic kind did not exist in the ancient world'.
Returning to today's CATO think tank article on START TREATY..........again, they make note of why START is bad-----the new nuclear treaty is simply addressing the retooling of weapons from one warhead with one bomb to one warhead with many bombs. Remember, national media made 99% US WE THE PEOPLE think OBAMA and START TREATY was about dismantling our nuclear arsenals.
'Administration officials like noting that New START’s eventual limit of 1550 deployed strategic warheads is 30 percent less than what the 2002 Moscow Treaty allowed. But that is an accounting trick. Under New START’s counting rules, all warheads assigned to each bomber count as one warhead. When the word warhead means warhead, the treaty allows each state to deploy more warheads in 2017 than they could have in 2012 under the Moscow Treaty'.
There is no greater global banking 1% corporate shill than BUSINESS INSIDER. Here we see this media outlet selling the idea that China is a threat to US having been given the same nuclear warhead technology as RUSSIA/US START TREATY several years ago allowed to retool those nuclear arsenals. So, China being that OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for only the global 1%-----indeed has the same nuclear technology because they are partners with Russian, US, European, Arabic global 1%.
China has outfitted missiles capable of reaching the US with multiple nuclear warheads
May. 18, 2015, 2:08 PM
Sean Gallup/Getty Images
In a break from decades of cautious nuclear policy, China has started a process of upgrading its ballistic missile capabilities into a more potentially dangerous form.
Foregoing a longstanding policy of maintaining a small nuclear force, Beijing has begun to place multiple miniaturized nuclear warheads atop ballistic missiles, The New York Times reports citing a report from the Department of Defense. Missiles with multiple warheads are harder to intercept as each warhead could break off from its delivery system and aim for a separate target.
China has had the capability of miniaturizing nuclear weapons since at least the 1990s, but has avoided the move so as to prevent a potential arms race. The new direction of Beijing's nuclear weapons stance comes under the direction of President Xi Jinping, who has made a series of bold moves to increase Chinese power both regionally and globally.
According to the Pentagon's report, Beijing has re-engineered the DF-5, a variation of the CSS-4 intercontinental ballistic missile shown below, to be outfitted with multiple warheads. China has approximately 20 DF-5s currently in silos across the country, each of which could target almost the entirety of the US.
Altogether, the modified DF-5s could launch upwards of 40 warheads at North America, according to the Times. This modification is intended to produce maximum destruction while increasing the chances that a Chinese warhead could get past US missile interceptors.
"They're doing it," Hans M. Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists told the Times, "to make sure they could get through the ballistic missile defenses."
The US has placed missile defenses in California and Alaska with the intention of defending against a possible North Korean strike. The US also operates joint Aegis and Patriot missile systems in South Korea, and is aiming at deploying the highly advanced THAAD missile interceptor to the peninsula as well.
Although these missile shields are aimed against North Korea, they could also block a Chinese strike.
The sudden modifications come at a time of increased tension throughout Asia. Japan and the US have strengthened and reaffirmed military ties, and the US is increasingly playing a large role in the South China Sea in the support of the Philippines. Both countries are involved in disputes with China over the South China Sea.
The timing of the DF-5 upgrades is likely a signal to the US that China is a quickly rising power in the region with only a limited tolerance for meddling in its backyard.
"This is obviously part of an effort to prepare for long-term competition with the United States," Ashley J. Tellis, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told the Times. "The Chinese are always fearful of American nuclear advantage."
Below we see GLOBAL HEDGE FUND IVY LEAGUE HARVARD CORPORATION's global banking 1% media outlet BOSTON GLOBE selling this idea that START TREATY was a nuclear disarmament-------when is was always a RETOOLING for both nations.
America’s crucial nuclear nonproliferation treaty with Russia ...www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/02/05/america...America’s crucial nuclear nonproliferation treaty with ... under the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty. ... more nuclear weapons than our ...
US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE have had to endure CNN and national media making all kinds of propaganda surrounding these START TREATY deals-----from HILLARY AND PUTIN------to TRUMP AND PUTIN-----to conspiracies with Russia when all that was done with START TREATY was friendly business between global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS freemason players.
The GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM issue for our US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE is the RETOOLING making these bombs more lethal ------using technology civilized society would label brutal and barbarian-----and retooling geared toward URBAN WARFARE being the next round of endless wars to include Europe, US, and Canada.
Clinton Overstates Nuclear Achievement
By Eugene Kiely
Posted on April 27, 2016
Hillary Clinton overstates the impact of a 2011 nuclear agreement with Russia in a TV ad that says she was responsible for “securing a massive reduction in nuclear weapons.”
The agreement, known as New START, limits the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads — that is, nuclear weapons that are deployed on long-range (or strategic) launchers. But it does not require either side to destroy nuclear weapons or reduce their nuclear stockpile, and it doesn’t place limits on shorter-range nuclear weapons.
Also, Russia was below the limit for deployed strategic nuclear warheads when the treaty took effect in 2011, and it has increased them since then. So there hasn’t even been a reduction in Russia’s deployed strategic nuclear warheads under the agreement.
‘Massive Reduction’?The ad focuses on Clinton’s record on Social Security, health care and other issues. It has aired thousands of times in at least eight states, most recently during the April 26 Pennsylvania primary, according to Political TV Ad Archive.
The ad starts by showing images of world events as the narrator says, “The world a president has to grapple with. Sometimes you can’t even imagine. That’s the job and she’s the one who’s proving she can get it done.” The narrator then credits Clinton with “securing a massive reduction in nuclear weapons.”
The Clinton campaign told us that the ad refers to her work as secretary of state on the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), which limits the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads to no more than 1,550 each for Russia and the United States. It also limits “deployed and non-deployed strategic launchers and heavy bombers” to 800, including no more than 700 “deployed strategic launchers and heavy bombers,” according to a State Department fact sheet. (Long-range nuclear weapons are considered “strategic,” while shorter-range weapons are considered “nonstrategic,” as explained in a March report by the Congressional Research Service.)
The arms control treaty was approved by the Senate 71-26 on Dec. 22, 2010, and took effect
Feb. 5, 2011.
In addition to placing limits on deployed strategic nuclear warheads, New START requires “transparency and verification measures — including semi-annual data exchanges, notifications, and inspections” that provide “far more information about the other’s strategic forces than it would otherwise have,” as explained in a recent blog post by Steve Pifer, director of the Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative at the Brookings Institution.
But has New START resulted in “a massive reduction in nuclear weapons”? Not according to the data we reviewed and the experts we interviewed.
The information gathered as part of the treaty’s data exchanges shows Russia’s deployed strategic nuclear warheads were already below the treaty limits in February 2011, and Russia actually has increased those weapons, according to a report issued this month by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.
CRS, April 13: In February 2011, Russia reported that it had 1,537 warheads on 521 deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed heavy bombers. Russia also reported a total of 865 deployed and nondeployed delivery vehicles. At the time of this report, analysts expressed surprise that Russian forces were already below the treaty limits in New START when the treaty entered into force. … [I]n March 2016 Russia reported that it had 1,735 warheads on 521 deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed heavy bombers, within a total of 856 deployed and nondeployed launchers.
During that same time, the U.S. went from 1,800 warheads in 882 deployed delivery vehicles to 1,481 warheads on 741 deployed launchers.
Shortly before the agreement was signed, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute called it “disappointing” that the agreement did not call for the destruction of those weapons “withdrawn from operational deployment.”
“One disappointing feature of the new treaty is that it will not require the parties to verifiably eliminate the nuclear warheads withdrawn from operational deployment,” Shannon N. Kile, head of the institute’s nuclear project, wrote. “Such a provision would have contributed to ‘locking in’, or making irreversible, future force reductions. In doing so, it would have helped to address concerns about asymmetries in the two sides’ so-called upload potential (that is, the ability to rapidly redeploy nuclear warheads held in storage onto missiles and bombers).”
Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, told us in an email: “The treaty itself does not require destruction of a single nuclear warhead. Nor does it have any direct impact on how many nuclear warheads Russia and the United States may have in their total stockpiles.”
“So, the treaty has not secured a ‘massive reduction in nuclear weapons’ but reduced (compared to the previous START treaty) how many launchers may exist and be deployed and reduced how many warheads may be deployed on those launchers,” Kristensen said.
His email explained the impact of the treaty in some depth:
Kristensen, April 26:
When the treaty entered into force in 2011, Russia was already below the limit in deployed launchers, so they have not been required to reduce that category. Instead they have reduced non-deployed launchers. In contrast, the United States was above the treaty limit for both deployed and non-deployed launchers, so it has been busy dismantling and denuclearizing so-called phantom launchers — that is, missile silos and bombers that were not actually used in nuclear planning but had not yet been destroyed or carried equipment that made them accountable under the treaty. … Overall, in the case of the United States, the reduction in launchers will have been most significant for phantom launchers versus actual nuclear committed launchers. As for deployed warheads, the two countries have made slight adjustments to their deployed warheads. The United States has reduced and Russia has increased slightly. The Russian increase is a temporary anomaly caused by their transition from Soviet-era weapons to modern weapons. They are expected to meet the limit in 2018.
As Kristensen indicated, Russia still has two years to bring its number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads within the treaty’s limits, and he believes it will. Others are skeptical of Russia, which has become more aggressive militarily under President Vladimir Putin.
“Some analysts have questioned whether the increase in Russian warheads reported in March 2016 indicates that Russia may eventually withdraw from New START without reducing to its limit of 1,550 deployed warheads,” CRS says in its report. “Others, however, note that Russia does not need to meet the limits until February 2018, so the warhead level in March 2016 should not be of concern.”
But even if the U.S. and Russia abide by the treaty limits, the reduction in nuclear weapons would be historically modest, experts say.
On its website, the Clinton campaign says the New START treaty “will make the world safer by reducing U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals to their smallest size in 50 years.” But this is misleading.
The bulk of that reduction occurred before New START took effect in 2011, as shown in Figure 1 of a June 2015 report by the Carnegie Moscow Center. “[T]he agreements that have followed the unprecedented reductions of START I called for increasingly marginal reductions in [strategic nuclear forces] levels,” the Carnegie report said. START I, which was originally known simply as START, took effect in 1994 and ended in 2009.
“It is an overstatement — to put it mildly — to say that the treaty has reduced US and Russian nuclear arsenals to their smallest size in 50 years,” Kristensen told us. “The overwhelming part of that reduction occurred in the 1990s long before the New START treaty was signed at a time when the two countries retired and dismantled nuclear weapons at an impressive rate.”
The New York Times in a news story this month described the New START agreement as producing “modest reductions in strategic nuclear forces” that could be undermined by the pursuit of “a new generation of smaller, less destructive nuclear weapons” by Russia, the United States and China.
SMALLER, LESS-DESTRUCTIVE???? OH, REALLY NEW YORK TIMES?
New York Times, April 16: Russia initially cooperated, signing in 2010 the New Start treaty, which made modest reductions in strategic nuclear forces.
That year, Mr. Obama offered another olive branch: He ordered the American military to reduce the number of warheads atop its land-based missiles to one, from as many as three. That was a signal to show the missiles were more about defense than offense.
Moscow did not reciprocate. Instead, with treaty ink barely dry, it began deploying a new generation of long-range missiles that bore four miniaturized warheads. It continues such actions today, even while adhering to overall treaty limits.
Kile, of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, also called the agreement “decidedly modest in the scope and scale of its ambitions.”
“I think modest is a good general description of New START,” Tom Z. Collina, director of policy at the Ploughshares Fund, which seeks to reduce and ultimately eliminate nuclear weapons, told us in an email. “If you look at other presidents — Republican presidents — they have done much more.”
In October 2014, Kristensen did an analysis of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile in the post-Cold War era and concluded that “the Obama administration so far has had the least effect on the size of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile of any of the post-Cold War presidencies.” Obama reduced the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile by 10 percent in six years. By comparison, George W. Bush reduced the stockpile by 50 percent followed by his father, President George H.W. Bush, who reduced it by 41 percent in four years.
“Combined, the Bush presidents cut a staggering 14,801 warheads from the stockpile during their 12 years in office – 1,233 warheads per year,” Kristensen wrote. “President Clinton reduced the stockpile by 23 percent during his eight years in office.”
At a recent press conference, President Obama said that he had hoped to negotiate another agreement with Russia shortly after New START that would have lowered the limit yet again on deployed nuclear warheads, but he acknowledged that that will not happen before he leaves office in January.
“Because Mr. Putin came into power, or returned to his office as President, and because of the vision that he’s been pursuing of emphasizing military might over development inside of Russia and diversifying the economy, we have not seen the kind of progress that I would have hoped for with Russia,” Obama said.
All this is not to say that the New START agreement isn’t valuable. Collina credited Obama and Clinton for lowering the ceiling, even if modestly, and providing “transparency and predictability” by requiring the semi-annual data collection that allows the two nuclear powers to know how many nuclear weapons the other side has.
But the record doesn’t show that Clinton was responsible for “securing a massive reduction in nuclear weapons.”
What START TREATY did was retool nuclear weapons for creating different kinds of BOOMS---------and it retooled missile delivery away from short range to only long range missiles.
Eliminating short range nuclear MISSILES while allowing long range nuclear missiles does nothing to curb nuclear weapon development and use. A third world nation behind on nuclear development is usually that nation only able to build a short range missile. Having global banking 1% nations all having long-range nuclear missiles assures more safety for global 1% while opening all 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE to unlimited nuclear threats.
Chinese global 1% were super-star heroes for our Wall Street and European global banking FRAUDS-----laundering all that hundreds of trillions in global banking fraud against the 99% of US and European citizens----looting our US and European treasuries---we are sure this global banking partnership---Asian global 1%------Arabic global 1%----European global 1% will allow for all kinds of WW3 global war threats as well.
So, START TREATY makes missile guidance systems long-range able to carry multiple bombs on single warheads------ADVANCING the threat to all global 99% of citizens.
99% GLOBAL WE THE PEOPLE want nuclear disarmament and global banking 1% keep MOVING FORWARD more destructive nuclear weapons.
Nuclear Warheads vs. Nuclear Missile: Which is More Powerful?
Updated: 05 Sep 2017
Nuclear Warheads vs. Nuclear Missile: Which is More Powerful?
Nuclear Warheads or Nuclear Missiles, which is more dangerous?
The answer is quite difficult, and to distinguish one of the two as more dangerous will be absolute stupidity. Whether it's a Nuclear Missile or a Nuclear Warhead, both are equally capable of initiating a genocide. To be honest, Nuclear weapons are synonymous to mass destruction and one of the unfortunate accidental inventions in the history of mankind.
To know which is more dangerous- warheads or missiles, let us know the types of nuclear weapons first.
So, What Are The Types Of Nuclear Weapons Available On Earth?
#1. Nuclear Bombs: These were first introduced in the year 1945 by the USA. The popular examples of nuclear bombs are: Mark 1 (Little Man) used against Hiroshima, and Mark 3 (Fat Man) used against Nagasaki. The nuclear bombs presently used are the B61 and B83.
#2. Nuclear Artillery Shells: Nuclear artillery, the subset of limited-yield tactical weapons (nuclear weapons) that are used in ground battle-fields. These are short-range weapons that can be delivered only using a cannon. The W48 and the W79 are the last used Nuclear artillery shells, and they were in use till 1992.
#3. Atomic Demolition Munitions: ADMs were light-weight nuclear weapons that were emplaced by soldiers or special forces. The last ADM in use was W54/Special Atomic Demolition Munition, which was discontinued after 1989.
#4. Missile Warheads: The nuclear explosives are used with a missile. W88 for use in Trident II SLBM W76 for Trident I SLBM. W78 for LGM-30 Minuteman III; and the W87 for Minuteman III ICBM are still in stocks for use in the multiple countries.
Image result for nuclear bomb
(Image Courtesy: Business Insider)
What Is A Nuclear Warhead?
In common words, a nuclear warhead is the explosive head of a missile. Warheads contain the explosive material, basically the TNT. In layman's language, a warhead is the top part of the missile that goes “boom” after hitting the target.
Now, coming to the second question, what is a nuclear missile?
So, as said above, nuclear warheads are the explosive things that go “boom”, the missiles are the carriers that deliver the warheads to the specified target. Basically, missiles follow a given trajectory and are topped with warheads to target a specific location. The missile and the warhead, together form the nuclear weapon system.
To explain it further, let's take a practical example of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) with MIRV nuclear warheads. So, the term intercontinental in ICBM means that the range of these missiles is a thousand miles, can even spread further reaching another continent.
Now, the MIRV which stands for Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicles meaning multiple warheads that will eject individually as they approach the target.
Image result for nuclear warhead
(Image Courtesy: Wikipedia)
Difference Between A Nuclear Warhead And A Nuclear Missile :
#1. Missiles are the carrier (delivery system), warheads, the things that explode.
#2. Missiles carry multiple warheads, whereas, a warhead can be used individually.
#3. Warheads have smaller impact area, whereas, as said above missiles can impact a whole continent.
Now, the final answer- Nuclear warheads or missiles, which is more dangerous?
Depending on the area of impact, a number of casualties, and the amount of destruction that a missile is capable of, Nuclear missiles are more dangerous. Nuclear missiles are capable of creating 5-8 times more impact as compared to a single warhead, which is evident from the fact that missiles carry multiple warheads.
Image result for Difference between a nuclear warhead and a nuclear missile
(Image Courtesy: Pitra Kids Network)
If you find this article interesting, or you have something more to add to it, let us know in the comment section.
(Featured Image Courtesy: Reinvent)
We can talk of the START TREATY RUSSIA/US retooling creating single warheads with multiple bombs------which CATO THINK TANK clearly identifies as a mis-identification of what these nuclear weapons really look like-----in fact these START TREATY retooling nuclear weapons look just like this article -----which makes us believe China stole these technologies back in CLINTON ERA ----when expansion of Foreign Economic Zones in China moving all US corporations was occurring.
'China has been known to be developing multiple-warhead technology, which it obtained from the United States illegally in the 1990s'.
So, our US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE can believe what START TREATY RUSSIA/US agreement includes is what China is being outed as having-----and as this article states-----these multiple warhead bombs are designed for URBAN WARFARE.
WHEN OUR US CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA NOW TRUMP ARE OLD WORLD GLOBAL BANKING 1% FREEMASONS WORKING FOR THEM ---TAKING US TO COLONIAL STATUS-----
US citizens and our European 99% can anticipate WW 3 having lots of urban destruction. It is cheaper demolition for MOVING FORWARD building global corporate campuses and global factories in US GHETTO COMMUNITIES.
The WASHINGTON FREE BEACON is that far-right wing Bush neo-con media while Boston Globe and UK Guardian is that global neo-liberal media outlet. This Bush media blaming Clinton for any neo-conservative military complex weaponry development-----is crazy stuff.
China Tests ICBM With Multiple Warheads (Thanks to Clinton-era tech transfer)
December 18, 2014
Washington Free Beacon
China carried out a long-range missile flight test on Saturday using multiple, independently targetable reentry vehicles, or MIRVs, according to U.S. defense officials.
The flight test Saturday of a new DF-41 missile, China’s longest-range intercontinental ballistic missile, marks the first test of multiple warhead capabilities for China, officials told the Washington Free Beacon.
China has been known to be developing multiple-warhead technology, which it obtained from the United States illegally in the 1990s.
ILLEGALLY? OH. REALLY???
However, the Dec. 13 DF-41 flight test, using an unknown number of inert maneuvering warheads, is being viewed by U.S. intelligence agencies as a significant advance for China’s strategic nuclear forces and part of a build-up that is likely to affect the strategic balance of forces.
China’s nuclear arsenal is estimated to include around 240 very large warheads. That number is expected to increase sharply as the Chinese deploy new multiple-warhead missiles.
The current deployed U.S. strategic warhead arsenal includes 1,642 warheads. All 450 Minuteman III missiles have been modified to no longer carry MIRVs. However, Trident II submarine-launched missiles can carry up to 14 MIRVs per missile.
Additionally, the development of China’s multiple warhead technology was assisted by illegal transfers of technology from U.S. companies during the Clinton administration, according to documents and officials familiar with the issue.
Details of the flight test and the number of dummy warheads used during it could not be learned.
However, the DF-41 has been assessed by the National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC), the intelligence community’s primary missile spy center, as capable of carrying up to 10 warheads.
Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Jeff Pool declined to comment on the DF-41 test. “We encourage greater PRC transparency regarding their defense investments and objectives to avoid miscalculation,” Pool said in response to questions about the Chinese missile launch.
China’s government has made no mention of the test, which was carried out at an unknown missile test facility. Past tests of the DF-41 have been carried out at the Wuzhai Missile and Space Testing facility, located about 250 miles southwest of Beijing.
A report made public earlier this month by a congressional China commission stated that the DF-41 will be able to carry up to 10 warheads and is expected to be deployed next year.
“The DF-41, which could be deployed as early as 2015, may carry up to 10 MIRVs, and have a maximum range as far as 7,456 miles, allowing it to target the entire continental United States,” the report said. “In addition, some sources claim China has modified the DF–5 and the DF–31A to be able to carry MIRVs.”
China also conducted a flight test in late September of another long-range missile, called the DF-31B that also could be outfitted to carry MIRVs.
“China could use MIRVs to deliver nuclear warheads on major U.S. cities and military facilities as a means of overwhelming U.S. ballistic missile defenses,” the report by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission said.
NASIC intelligence analyst Lee Fuell told the commission that China’s mobile MIRV-modified missiles provide greater targeting with fewer missiles and allow for a larger reserve of missiles during a conflict.
“China is likely to employ a blend of these three as MIRVs become available, simultaneously increasing their ability to engage desired targets while holding a greater number of weapons in reserve,” Fuell was quoted as saying in the report.
A classified NASIC report dated Dec. 10, 1996 stated that China developed a “smart dispenser” for launching multiple satellites using technology developed under a contract with Motorola to launch Iridium communications satellites. The technology transfer was approved by the administration of President Bill Clinton.
“An initial NAIC study determined that a minimally-modified [smart dispenser] stage could be used on a ballistic missile as a multiple-reentry vehicle post-boost vehicle” that could be used for multiple warheads “with relatively minor changes.”
In 2000, the State Department fined Lockheed Martin Corp. $13 million for improperly exporting weapons data on the rocket technology used in multiple-warhead missiles
The U.S. data was provided to China’s state-run Great Wall Industries, a missile manufacturer, through a Hong Kong company called Asiasat and used in systems called expendable perigee kick motors—a key element used in MIRV guidance.
The kick motors are used to position a multiple warhead “bus” or stage as part of the targeting process.
The transfers were made under loosened export controls by the Clinton administration beginning in 1993.
Larry Wortzel, a former military intelligence official who specialized on China, said the Chinese military has been working on a MIRV-modified DF-41 for a number of years.
Wortzel said Chinese military research literature has documented work on the DF-41 but the Pentagon “has been reluctant to discuss or confirm these developments.”
“The United States is now threatened with a more deadly and survivable nuclear force that makes our weak ballistic missile defenses less effective,” Wortzel said. “We need to improve our own defenses and modernize our own deterrent force as the Chinese are doing.”
OH, WE SEE------GIVE CHINA THE TECHNOLOGY THEN USE THAT AS A REASON FOR WHAT SHOULD BE A FIRST WORLD CIVILIZED SOCIETY TO GO GANGBUSTERS WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
Rick Fisher, a specialist on the Chinese military, said the advent of China’s MIRV capability should mark the end of U.S. efforts to reduce the number of nuclear warheads.
“The Chinese have not and likely will not disclose their nuclear warhead buildup plans, Russia is modernizing its nuclear forces across the board and violating the INF treaty with new classes of missiles, so it would be suicidal for the Washington to pursue a new round of nuclear reductions as is this administration’s preference.”
Fisher, with the International Assessment and Strategy Center, said China may deploy a combination of single-warhead and multiple warhead DF-41s, with the single warhead version carrying a huge “city buster” multi-megaton bombs.
“The beginning of China’s move toward multiple warhead-armed nuclear missiles is proof that today, arms control is failing to increase the security of Americans,” Fisher said. “Instead, it is time to be rebuilding U.S. nuclear warfighting capabilities, to include new mobile ICBMs, new medium range missiles and new tactical nuclear missile systems.”
Georgetown University Professor Phillip Karber has studied China’s nuclear forces and believes its arsenal is far larger than the U.S. intelligence estimate of 240.
“The Chinese development of the DF-41 has been a long term, methodical process,” Karber said. “However, if as we suspect they are going to put a MIRVed version of the missile on both rail and road-mobile launchers, the number of reentry vehicles could grow quite rapidly depending on the number of warheads they end up putting on the missiles.”
The DF-41 was revealed inadvertently by the Chinese government last summer when details, including the fact that it will be a multi-warhead missile, appeared on a provincial government website before being quickly censored and removed.
The Shaanxi provincial government announced June 13 in a progress report on its Environmental Monitoring Center Station that the DF-41 missile was among its projects.
“On-site monitoring for Phase Two of the project’s final environmental assessment and approval of support conditions for the development of the DF-41 strategic missile by the 43rd Institute of the 4th Academy of Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) was initiated,” the notice said. AVIC is China’s state-owned aerospace and defense conglomerate.
A state-run Global Times report, also later censored and taken offline, quoted a Chinese expert as saying the missile will carry multiple warheads.
The flight test Saturday was the third such test for the new DF-41. The Free Beacon first reported the second flight test of the missile in December 2013. The first flight test was carried out July 24, 2012
After several years of silence on the DF-41, the Pentagon disclosed the existence of the new missile in its latest annual report on the Chinese military, made public in June.
“China also is developing a new road-mobile ICBM known as the Dong Feng-41 (DF-41), possibly capable of carrying multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRV),” the report says
This article does a good job showing all the different vehicles for delivering these multi-warhead bombs including DRONES. DRONES are indeed the favorite bomb delivery system and they are MOVING FORWARD URBAN WARFARE weaponry.
Now, will we have ARMAGEDDON? Again, global banking 1% work so hard to sell the END TIMES in MOVING FORWARD. This is not end times----what we see being built is the methodology of selective demolition of Western cities making way for US CITIES AS FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE---global corporate campuses and global factories.
What we see as well is lots of GEEK TALK of using CITY BUSTERS------as SPACE X LAUNCH TECHNOLOGY------adding more BOOM for the SPACE X BLASTERS.
Shame on POPULAR SCIENCE for being END WORLD propagandists.
The nuclear arsenals of China and the U.S.: Plans for a future armageddon
A quick run-down of they have now, and what they'll get in the coming decades.
By Jeffrey Lin and P.W. Singer January 27, 2017 POPULAR SCIENCE
The B-52 is the old workhorse of the U.S. bomber fleet, with an average age of more than 45 years. It can carry a wider range of weapons, and loiter longer without refueling, than any other bomber.
A.P. Photo/U.S. Air Force
In both Beijing and Washington D.C., nuclear weapons and their delivery systems have become particularly big news lately. In China, the DF-41 Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) is already driving in the streets of Manchuria. Stateside, President Trump has just received a briefing at the Pentagon on America's nuclear plans.
Here's a quick run-down of the nuclear systems of both countries—and what they are planning to obtain in the next 25 years:
The Minuteman III, a static display at a USAF base in North Dakota, is the workhorse of America's landbased nuclear deterrent.
Both nations have intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) buried inside fortified underground missile silos. China's workhorse ICBM is the massive, 183-ton DF-5, which has a range of over 7,450 miles and the capacity to carry 3.2 tons—as either be a 5 megaton "city buster" hydrogen bomb, or, more recently, 3 to 8 multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) nuclear warheads, that can each individually strike a different target. While powerful, the DF-5 uses liquid fueled engines, requiring a lengthy fueling process before launch, making it vulnerable to a first-strike attack. The US's LGM-30G Minuteman III ICBM, of which 440 are based in Midwestern silos, is much smaller and carries only three nuclear warheads. However, its solid-fueled engines make it far more survivable, since it can be launched in mere minutes.
DF-31A ICBM China
The DF-31A ICBM is China's most capable nuclear missile, with a range of 11,200 km and multi warhead potential.
Mobile ICBMs, carried on dedicated carrier trucks, can be launched in any open space; their mobility makes them more survivable and harder to find compared to their larger, silo-bound brethren. America does not have any known mobile ICBMs, but China has two solid-fueled variants: the DF-31A and DF-41. The three-stage DF-31A, with an estimated range of over 6,835 miles, has a payload of three to five 150 kiloton MIRV warheads, making it powerful enough to strike most of the continental USA from Chinese territory.
In one of the clearest photos of the DF-41 ICBM, the TEL truck transits through the streets of Daqing, northeastern China.
Hyperwarp at China Defense Forum
The 9,320-mile-range DF-41 ICBM is one of the world's most lethal missiles. Weighing about 80 tons, it is carried and launched by a 12X12 all-terrain truck, and can also be launched from rail. Its payload of 12 MIRV nuclear warheads can be augmented with decoys and jammers to confuse enemy sensors, letting the actual warheads slip past missile defenses. Currently, a Chinese Rocket Force brigade of 10-12 launchers is forming in northeastern China, near the Russian border. (Ironically, the DF-41 poses little threat to Russia there since its large minimum range makes it impossible to hit most Russian territory from its current position)
In the future, the USAF Strategic Command hopes the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) ICBM can replace the Minuteman III, which is likely to remain only silo-based. China is likely to continue with advanced derivatives of the DF-31 and DF-41 missiles; further iterations would likely have increased accuracy, more sophisticated decoys to spoof missile defense systems, and hypersonic gliders.
Air Launched Cruise Missile Boeing AGM86
The ALCM AGM-86B is the primary nuclear strike weapon carried by the venerable B-52 bomber.
America has a clear lead in nuclear-capable bombers with its stealthy B-2 and venerable B-52 bombers. While both bombers can carry nuclear gravity bombs, the AGM-86 Air Launched Cruise Missile is the primary nuclear strike weapon for the B-52. The 1,490-mile-range ALCM carries a 150 kiloton (adjustable) W80 nuclear warhead and has some stealth characteristics. Similarly, China's only bomber, the H-6K (less than half the size of the B-52), also uses stand-off attack, in the form of the nuclear capable CJ-20 cruise missile. However, the combined combat radius of the H-6K (2,175 miles) and CJ-20 range (1,243 miles) are too short to reach continental US territory.
CJ-10 DH-10 China Cruise Missile H-6 bomber
A H-6M bomber can carry two DH-10 cruise missiles (or rather, the air launched KD-20 variant), giving China a strategic strike capability previously held only by the U.S. and Russia. The newer H-6K bomber can carry 7 KD-20s, while the planned H-X stealth bomber will probably be able to carry at least a dozen cruise missiles.
Chinese Military Aviation
H-20 Stealth Bomber H-X China
Chinese officials have already stated their need for a strategic bomber that can at the very least, strike Hawaii and other mid Pacific targets. Noted artist Bai Wei has put together information from Chinese research articles and leaks to produce this speculative picture of the H-20 stealth bomber, which may fly by this decade.
Both nations are focusing on new stealth bomber programs. The USAF plans to receive the first B-21 Raider stealth bomber in the 2020s, while China is anticipated to fly the larger H-20 stealth bomber in the same timeframe. The B-21 is believed to be a highly networked, twin-engine aircraft, about two thirds the size of the 200-ton B-2, while the H-20 has been floated in defense circles as a four-engined, 200-ton bomber with global reach.
B-21 Bomber Raider
The strategic workhorse for the 21st USAF, the B-21 will use a variety of sensors, networked capabilities and electronic attack to operate in conventional and nuclear missions, starting in the 2030s.
The B-21 will be armed with the Long Range Stand Off (LRSO) missile for long-range nuclear strike missions. It will be a stealthy cruise missile, with AI and enhanced electronic warfare capabilities to survive enemy air defenses. Meanwhile, China's GS-6A stealth cruise missiles could be the basis for a nuclear capable version.
Trident II D5 SLBM USA
Trident II D5
The Trident II D5, the most advanced SLBM in the world, is used by both the USN and the Royal Navy- it provides a flexible combination of a significant payload, high accuracy and long range.
SSBNs are the last, and most secretive, leg of the nuclear triad. Currently, the US Navy has a combination of the stealthy Ohio SSBNs and three stage, solid fueled Trident II D5 missiles. Ohio SSBNs can hide anywhere in the oceans until directed to launch their 24 Trident II missiles, the D-5 can carry up to 12, 100 kiloton W76 warheads or reach a range of over 12,000km. While latest Chinese SSBN, the Type 094A and its 12 6,213-mile range JL-2A missiles, can attack parts of the continental USA from Chinese home waters, the PLAN still has a long ways to establish a credible naval nuclear deterrent, as its submarines are not as stealthy.
Columbia class SSBN SSBN-X USN
The Columbia SSBN, the successor to the Ohio class SSBN, will be more stealthy and otherwise survivable.
Capable as they are, the Ohio SSBNs are due to be replaced by the Columbia SSBN, of which the first will enter service in 2031. Compared to the Ohio, the Columbia will carry only 16 missiles, but have quieter electrical propulsion and pump-jet propulsion. For its part, China will likely field a follow on to the Type 094A, the prospective Type 096 SSBN, which is expected to be stealthier than the Type 094A. The Type 096 may also carry a newer missile to replace the JL-2.
China Type 094A Type 094 SSBN Nuclear Submarine
Old and New
The newer Type 094A (top) has a bigger missile payload bay, and stealthier features. While an improvement over the Type 094 SSBN, it's still a stopgap feature until the next generation Type 096 comes online.
While the world's nuclear powers, through the Nonproliferation Treaty, have committed to the ultimate goal of global nuclear disarmament, the reality is that they will keep and continue to build nuclear arsenals of warheads and delivery platforms for the foreseeable future. And while the nuclear arsenal of the future may resemble today's weapons in the shape of missiles, bombers, and submarines, advance in fields like robotics, hypersonic propulsion, and missile defenses could transform the deadly science of nuclear weapons.
Here we have that POST-CHRISTIAN martial philosophy of ENDLESS WARS as was seen in CATO STOIC philosophic times PRE-CHRISTIAN. Note this is BUSH COUNTRY----DALLAS and indeed Bush is that OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% FREEMASON with KNIGHTS OF MALTA.
It is Bush neo-conservatives that push the military and spying/surveillance global corporations and it is the Clinton neo-liberals providing all the global Wall Street fraud to move all US wealth to those OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% KINGS AND QUEENS all while embracing FAR-RIGHT WING AYN RAND NIHILISM----same as CATO'S stoicism.
And yes, today's US CATO INSTITUTE providing a good analysis of START TREATY are simply being the next TELL THE MASSES WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR-----and then do what makes global 1% accumulate wealth and power LIBERTARIANS.
Add to CATO martial philosophy the Clinton neo-liberal morphing to far-right wing global corporate campus MARXISM-----MARXISM is the same route to making all of US far-right, authoritarian, militaristic, extreme wealth extreme poverty -------and FAT CAT SENECA AND CATO would love this.
This secret society KNIGHTS OF MALTA are a major source of our 5% ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT FREEMASON/GREEK PLAYERS----and sadly they are tied to wanting jobs no doubt working for these global military complex corporations. WAKE UP-----those 5% are going under the bus just as all US citizens being left unemployed MOVING FORWARD economic collapse.
All that is BUSH is of course filling our BALTIMORE CITY economy MOVING FORWARD US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE policies which will be brutal and destructive ----
Our 99% of Catholic citizens really have to end this pretense that OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% CATHOLIC KINGS AND QUEENS are doing something BENEVOLENT.
Back to University of Dallas News
Politics Professor Invested as Knight of Malta
Gladden Pappin and family
Date published: Jan. 9, 2018
“The Order of Malta has an emphasis that is very ancient,” said Assistant Professor of Politics Gladden Pappin, who was invested in the order in November as a Knight of Magistral Grace. “There is a deep connection to the Catholic European heritage.”
The Sovereign Military Order of Malta is a Roman Catholic lay religious order and the oldest chivalric order still in existence, dating from the mid-11th century in Jerusalem; Pope Paschal II recognized its sovereignty in 1113. It was originally established as a hospital by the Knights Hospitaller — as the Knights of Malta were then known — to serve pilgrims to the Holy Land. The order’s founding is credited to the Blessed Gerard along with a group of monks. With approximately 70 professed religious at its heart, the order today consists of around 13,000 knights and dames, primarily lay members who have made a solemn commitment to uphold the motto and goals of the order, which include the defense of the faith and service of the poor.
As Pappin explained, the order has always exhibited an active spirituality that stresses the spiritual aspect of charitable service.
“Acts of charity are about sanctification,” he said. “Members of the Order of Malta join for this reason: to glorify God through the sanctification of their lives and the performance of spiritual and corporal acts of mercy. It is a religious order because the professed knights can take vows of obedience, poverty and chastity. As lay members, we focus on works of charity as well as the defense of the faith and all issues of life.”
After receiving both his bachelor’s degree and doctorate from Harvard, Pappin became involved with the order during a research fellowship at the University of Notre Dame, where he is a permanent fellow and senior adviser of the Center for Ethics and Culture; he met some members and began to cooperate with their works. He came to teach at UD this past fall, drawn here by the university’s distinctly Catholic identity and renown in political philosophy.
“Students here receive a very serious education,” he said. “Nobody winds up here accidentally; they know they’re going to learn something hard to find elsewhere.”
The Order of Malta has a significant presence in the Dallas area, with several dozen members here; the American Association is headquartered in New York.
The order was among the first responders to Hurricane Harvey. Malteser International, an organization governed by the order, provides many of the order’s medical services; while Malteser employs some medical personnel who aren’t members of the order and thus is a distinct entity, it is supported and run by the order. Many of the order’s members are medical professionals.
The Order of Malta has a long and storied history in Europe; now based in Rome, it has full diplomatic relations with 107 countries and permanent observer status at the United Nations. Neutral and nonpolitical, the order can mediate in both civil and armed conflicts, intervening as a protective force.
“Any Catholic can become an auxiliary of the order, helping to carry out the corporal and spiritual works of the order,” said Pappin. “And like any religious order, it will invite people to consider deeper involvement.”
Aside from being a Knight of Malta, Pappin teaches courses on Aristotle and Machiavelli here at UD and is the deputy editor of American Affairs, a quarterly journal of public policy and political thought, which he co-founded with the editor, Julius Krein, at the beginning of 2017. With a worldwide print distribution and a focus on reconsiderations of contemporary political matters, the journal has been widely discussed in the media. Pappin’s own scholarship focuses on early modern political and ecclesiastical thought, the development of modern liberalism, and contemporary political questions. He is also a member of the Osage Nation.
Pappin enjoys traveling, especially in Europe and specifically to France; the Order of Malta actually leads a pilgrimage to Lourdes every year, during which thousands of knights and dames tend to the sick. He is the father of two young children, and his wife, Jeanette, is an artist.
“It’s a matter of spirituality and, in the case of the Order of Malta, one based in the noble tradition of protection and service,” said Pappin.
In the photos: Top: Pappin receives the insignia of the order from Jack Pohrer, president of the American Association, at St. Patrick's Cathedral, New York, on Nov. 3, 2017. Body of story: (L-R) Jeanette, Clement (4), Marie-Thérèse (5), and Gladden Pappin.