Welcome to Open Carnage

A resource for Halo 1 modding and tech, with unique means of rewarding individual content creation and support. Have a wander to see why we're worth the time! EST. 2012

Weps

World Conflict Thread

280 posts in this topic
22 hours ago, WaeV said:

Looking at gold futures, there's actually a significant drop, maybe a decline in the faith of "paper gold"? http://finviz.com/futures_charts.ashx?t=GC&p=m5

I just realized that futures don't trade on the weekends? I thought they were 24/7 but apparently not.

 

They just opened again (opens at 6PM EST Sunday evenings), and... not much of a change really ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

uGLVIln.png

Weps likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Members of Open Carnage never see off-site ads.

Interesting read by the WSJ;

 

 

The Gathering Nuclear Storm
Lulled to believe nuclear catastrophe died with the Cold War, America is blind to rising dragons.

 

Even should nuclear brinkmanship not result in Armageddon, it can lead to abject defeat and a complete reordering of the international system. The extraordinarily complicated and consequential management of American nuclear policy rests upon the shoulders of those we elevate to the highest offices. Unfortunately, President Obama’s transparent hostility to America’s foundational principles and defensive powers is coupled with a dim and faddish understanding of nuclear realities. His successor will be no less ill-equipped.

Hillary Clinton’s robotic compulsion to power renders her immune to either respect for truth or clearheaded consideration of urgent problems. Theodore Roosevelt’s secretary of state once said that he was “pure act” (meaning action). Hillary Clinton is “pure lie” (meaning lie), with whatever intellectual power she possesses hopelessly enslaved to reflexive deviousness.

Donald Trump, surprised that nuclear weapons are inappropriate to counterinsurgency, has a long history of irrepressible urges and tropisms. Rather like the crazy boy-emperors after the fall of the Roman Republic, he may have problems with impulse control—and an uncontrolled, ill-formed, perpetually fragmented mind.

None of these perhaps three worst people in the Western Hemisphere, and few of their deplorable underlings, are alive to the gravest danger. Which is neither Islamic State, terrorism, the imprisoned economy, nor even the erosion of our national character, though all are of crucial importance.

The gravest danger we face is fast-approaching nuclear instability. Many believe it is possible safely to arrive at nuclear zero. It is not. Enough warheads to bring any country to its knees can fit in a space volumetrically equivalent to a Manhattan studio apartment. Try to find that in the vastness of Russia, China, or Iran. Even ICBMs and their transporter-erector-launchers can easily be concealed in warehouses, tunnels and caves. Nuclear weapons age out, but, thanks to supercomputing, reliable replacements can be manufactured with only minor physical testing. Unaccounted fissile material sloshing around the world can, with admitted difficulty, be fashioned into weapons. And when rogue states such as North Korea and Iran build their bombs, our response has been either impotence or a ticket to ride.

Nor do nuclear reductions lead to increased safety. Quite apart from encouraging proliferation by enabling every medium power in the world to aim for nuclear parity with the critically reduced U.S. arsenal, reductions create instability. The fewer targets, the more possible a (counter-force) first strike to eliminate an enemy’s retaliatory capacity. Nuclear stability depends, inter alia, upon deep reserves that make a successful first strike impossible to assure. The fewer warheads and the higher the ratio of warheads to delivery vehicles, the more dangerous and unstable.

Consider two nations, each with 10 warheads on each of 10 missiles. One’s first strike with five warheads tasked per the other’s missiles would leave the aggressor with an arsenal sufficient for a (counter-value) strike against the now disarmed opponent’s cities. Our deterrent is not now as concentrated as in the illustration, but by placing up to two-thirds of our strategic warheads in just 14 submarines; consolidating bomber bases; and entertaining former Defense Secretary William Perry’s recommendation to do away with the 450 missiles in the land-based leg of the Nuclear Triad, we are moving that way.

Supposedly salutary reductions are based upon an incorrect understanding of nuclear sufficiency: i.e., if X number of weapons is sufficient to inflict unacceptable costs upon an enemy, no more than X are needed. But we don’t define sufficiency, the adversary does, and the definition varies according to culture; history; the temperament, sanity, or miscalculation of leadership; domestic politics; forms of government, and other factors, some unknown. For this reason, the much maligned concept of overkill is a major contributor to stability, in that, if we have it, an enemy is less likely to calculate that we lack sufficiency. Further, if our forces are calibrated to sufficiency, then presumably the most minor degradation will render them insufficient.

Nor is it safe to mirror-image willingness to go nuclear. Every nuclear state has its own threshold, and one cannot assume that concessions in strategic forces will obviate nuclear use in response to conventional warfare, which was Soviet doctrine for decades and is a Russian predilection now.

Ballistic missile defense is opposed and starved on the assumption that it would shield one’s territory after striking first, and would therefore tempt an enemy to strike before the shield was deployed. As its opponents assert, hermetic shielding is impossible, and if only 10 of 1,500 warheads were to hit American cities, the cost would be unacceptable. But no competent nuclear strategist ever believed that, other than protecting cities from accidental launch or rogue states, ballistic missile defense is anything but a means of protecting our retaliatory capacity, making a counter-force first strike of no use, and thus increasing stability.

 

In a nuclear world, unsentimental and often counterintuitive analysis is necessary. As the genie will not be forced back into the lamp, the heart of the matter is balance and deterrence. But this successful dynamic of 70 years is about to be destroyed. Those whom the French call our “responsibles” have addressed the nuclear calculus—in terms of sufficiency, control regimes, and foreign policy—only toward Russia, as if China, a nuclear power for decades, did not exist. While it is true that to begin with its nuclear arsenal was de minimis, in the past 15 years China has increased its land-based ICBMs by more than 300%, its sea-based by more than 400%. Depending upon the configuration of its missiles, China can rain up to several hundred warheads upon the U.S.

As we shrink our nuclear forces and fail to introduce new types, China is doing the opposite, increasing them numerically and forging ahead of us in various technologies (quantum communications, super computers, maneuverable hypersonic re-entry vehicles), some of which we have forsworn, such as road-mobile missiles, which in survivability and range put to shame our Minuteman IIIs.

Because China’s nuclear weapons infrastructure is in part housed in 3,000 miles of tunnels opaque to American intelligence, we cannot know the exact velocity and extent of its buildup. Why does the Obama administration, worshipful of nuclear agreements, completely ignore the nuclear dimension of the world’s fastest rising major power, with which the United States and allies engage in military jockeying almost every day on multiple fronts? Lulled to believe that nuclear catastrophe died with the Cold War, America is blind to rising dragons.

And then we have Russia, which ignores limitations the Obama administration strives to exceed. According to its own careless or defiant admissions, Russia cheats in virtually every area of nuclear weapons: deploying missiles that by treaty supposedly no longer exist; illegally converting anti-aircraft and ballistic missile defense systems to dual-capable nuclear strike; developing new types of nuclear cruise missiles for ships and aircraft; keeping more missiles on alert than allowed; and retaining battlefield tactical nukes.

Further, in the almost complete absence of its own “soft power,” Russia frequently hints at nuclear first use. All this comports with historical Soviet/Russian doctrine and conduct; is an important element of Putinesque tactics for reclaiming the Near Abroad; and dovetails perfectly with Mr. Obama’s advocacy of no first use, unreciprocated U.S. reductions and abandonment of nuclear modernization. Which in turn pair nicely with Donald Trump’s declaration that he would defend NATO countries only if they made good on decades of burden-sharing delinquency.

Russia deploys about 150 more nuclear warheads than the U.S. Intensively modernizing, it finds ways to augment its totals via undisguised cheating. Bound by no numerical or qualitative limits, China speeds its strategic development. To cripple U.S. retaliatory capability, an enemy would have to destroy only four or five submarines at sea, two sub bases, half a dozen bomber bases, and 450 missile silos.

Russia has 49 attack submarines, China 65, with which to track and kill American nuclear missile subs under way. Were either to build or cheat to 5,000 warheads (the U.S. once had more than 30,000) and two-thirds reached their targets, four warheads could strike each aim point, with 2,000 left to hold hostage American cities and industry. China and Russia are far less dense and developed than the U.S., and it would take more strikes for us to hold them at risk than vice versa, a further indictment of reliance upon sufficiency calculations and symmetrical reductions.

Russia dreams publicly of its former hold on Eastern Europe and cannot but see opportunity in a disintegrating European Union and faltering NATO. China annexes the South China Sea and looks to South Korea, Japan and Australasia as future subordinates. Given the degradation of U.S. and allied conventional forces previously able to hold such ambitions in check, critical confrontations are bound to occur. When they do occur, and if without American reaction, China or Russia have continued to augment their strategic forces to the point of vast superiority where one or both consider a first strike feasible, we may see nuclear brinkmanship (or worse) in which the United States—startled from sleep and suddenly disabused of the myth of sufficiency—might have to capitulate, allowing totalitarian dictatorships to dominate the world.

Current trajectories point in exactly this direction, but in regard to such things Donald Trump hasn’t the foggiest, and, frankly, Hillary Clinton, like the president, doesn’t give a damn.

The way to avoid such a tragedy is to bring China into a nuclear control regime or answer its refusal with our own proportional increases and modernization. And to make sure that both our nuclear and conventional forces are strong, up-to-date, and survivable enough to deter the militant ambitions of the two great powers rising with daring vengeance from what they regard as the shame of their oppression.

 

Source

 

 

Fascinating interview/documentary regarding the CIA and George H.W. Bush;

 

 

Edited by Weps
xvii likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

60 Minutes piece "The New Cold War";

 

Risk Of Nuclear Attack Rises

 What are the chances the next president would have to make a decision on whether to use nuclear weapons? It’s greater than you might think

 

 The following is a script from “The New Cold War” which aired on Sept. 25, 2016. David Martin is the correspondent. Mary Walsh and Tadd Lascari, producers.
 

 

President Obama’s nuclear strategy states that while the threat of all-out nuclear war is remote the risk of a nuclear attack somewhere in the world has actually increased. When that was written three years ago the risk came from a rogue nation like North Korea. Back then the U.S. and Russia were said to be partners but that was before Russia invaded Crimea, using military force to change the borders of Europe. And before its president, Vladimir Putin, and his generals began talking about nuclear weapons. For generations nuclear weapons have been seen as a last resort to be used only in extreme circumstances. But in this new Cold War the use of a nuclear weapon is not as unlikely to occur as you might think.

Air-launched cruise missiles being loaded onto a long range B-52 bomber at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.

David Martin: When you see it close up, it’s, it’s even bigger than you think it is.

Richard Clark: It is an impressive machine. About 185,000 pounds empty. But it’s built to carry weapons and gas.

Major General Richard Clark commands all of this country’s nuclear bombers.

David Martin: And these are the weapons?

Richard Clark: Yes sir. These are air-launch cruise missiles. It is the nuclear primary weapon for the B-52.

Clark told us these are training missiles so they are not armed with nuclear warheads.

A B-52 can carry 20 cruise missiles, six under each wing and eight in the bomb bay.
 

Richard Clark: So this is the rotary launcher. And it holds eight air-launched cruise missiles within the internal bomb bay of the B-52. It’s a tight fit but the way it works is the launcher rotates, allows the weapon to release and send it on its way.

David Martin: It looks like the chamber of a revolver.

Richard Clark: Same idea. Just much bigger bullets.

As the most visible arm of the American nuclear arsenal these bombers are meant to send a message to an international audience.

Richard Clark: We can put this aircraft anywhere we want, anytime we want and both our allies and our adversaries take note. 

David Martin: This is basically a nuclear show-and-tell?

Richard Clark: It’s not just a show-and-tell because it will deliver.
 

Within the last two years B-52s have begun sending that message directly to Russia, flying missions not seen since the Cold War. It started after Vladimir Putin changed history by invading an independent country, Ukraine, and seizing its Republic of Crimea.

Phillip Breedlove: The fact that military force would be used to change an internationally recognized border in the central part of Europe that was new.

Now retired, General Phillip Breedlove was the supreme Allied commander in Europe when Russia took over Crimea. The invasion was carried out by so-called little green men – Russian soliders wearing uniforms without insignia – but looming in the background were nuclear weapons.

David Martin: Was there ever any indication that Vladimir Putin was prepared to use his nuclear weapons in any way?

Phillip Breedlove: Vladimir Putin said himself that he would considered raising the alert status of his nuclear force.

David Martin: He had considered it?

Phillip Breedlove: He said it himself.

Putin said he had given an order to his military to be prepared to increase the readiness of his nuclear forces if the U.S. and NATO tried to block his takeover of Crimea. “We were not looking for a fight,” Putin said in this interview. But “we were ready for the worst-case scenario.” 

Phillip Breedlove: They see nuclear weapons as a normal extension of a conventional conflict.
David Martin: So to them nuclear war is not unthinkable?

Phillip Breedlove: I think to them the use of nuclear weapons is not unthinkable.

It says so in their military doctrine, signed by Putin in 2014, Russia “…shall reserve the right to use nuclear weapons . . . In the event of aggression . . . When the very existence of the state is in jeopardy.” 

Putin has personally directed nuclear exercises which have increased in both size and frequency, according to Breedlove.

David Martin: More threatening?

Phillip Breedlove: Certainly they get your attention.

David Martin: More aggressive?

Phillip Breedlove: Clearly.

And the U.S. responded with more aggressive exercises of its own. One year after Crimea four B-52s flew up over the North Pole and North Sea on an exercise called polar growl the B-52s were unarmed but that little fin on the side of the fuselage identified them as capable of carrying nuclear weapons.

Hans Kristensen: What I plotted here are the two routes for these planes.

Hans Kristensen, director of the nuclear information project at the federation of American scientists, used Google Earth to show us the message that sent Russia.

Hans Kristensen: Each bomber can carry 20 cruise missiles a maximum of them so we’re talking about potentially 80 cruise missiles that could have been launched against targets inside Russia at this particular time.

Using the cruise missiles range of 1500 miles, Kristensen plotted his own hypothetical lines showing how far they could potentially reach into Russia.

David Martin: And the end points of those red lines?

Hans Kristensen: Yes, each of them go to a facility in Russia that could be a potential target for nuclear weapons.

David Martin: The Russians would look at that and see it as a dry run for an attack on targets inside Russia.

Richard Clark: I guess they can draw the conclusions that they need to draw.

David Martin: Eighty cruise missiles in your face.

Richard Clark: It’s a lot of fire power.

David Martin: Was that the message?

Richard Clark: That’s a message for sure.

The last time American nuclear bombers flew a mission like that was during the Cold War.

Richard Clark: This was a significant exercise for us. We’re training the way we might have to fight.

It was an unmistakable warning -- but Rear Admiral Steve Parode says there’s no indication the Russian military has changed its thinking about nuclear weapons.

Steve Parode: Disturbingly, in recent years there have been specific doctrinal and public statements made by other

Russian leaders that indicate an evolved willingness to employ nuclear weapons in the course of conflict.

As director of intelligence for the U.S. Strategic Command, Parode spent the last two years gauging Russia’s nuclear intentions.

Steve Parode: I think that they feel that fundamentally the West is sociologically weaker and if they were to use a nuclear weapon in the course of a conflict between say NATO and Russia they might be able to shock the Western powers into de-escalating, freezing the conflict, into calling a cease fire.

David Martin: So they have a belief that they’re just tougher than us?

Steve Parode: Oh, that’s definitely true.

David Martin: And if they have to use nuclear weapons, we can’t, we can’t take it?

Steve Parode: I think that some people might think that.

Parode is not talking about the Armageddon of an all-out nuclear war which neither side could win. But the limited use of a few nuclear weapons which could convince the U.S. to back down.

David Martin: So, how would they shock us into surrender?

Steve Parode: They could strike a European target with a nuclear weapon, maybe an airfield they thought was vital to conflict between NATO and Russia.

David Shlapak: We’re looking at H-Hour. We’re looking at the, the moment before the conflict starts.

David Shlapak of the RAND Corporation directed a series of war games commissioned by the Pentagon in which Russia invaded the Baltic states of Estonia and Latvia -- two of the newer members of NATO and because of their location on the Russian border two of the most vulnerable.

David Shlapak: When the fight starts, the Russians have about 400 to 500 tanks on the battlefield. NATO has none.

The red chips represent Russian forces. The blue and white are NATO.

David Martin: The relative size of the stacks kind of says it all.

David Shlapak: It does, it does. This is not a happy picture for NATO.

As the scenario unfolds, Russian forces in red are storming the capitals of Estonia and Latvia.

David Shlapak: They can get there between a day and a half and two and a half days – 36 to 60 hours.

To retake Estonia and Latvia the U.S. and NATO would have to conduct a major build-up of military forces to drive the Russians out.

David Shlapak: One of the things you would expect Russia to do would be to begin rattling the nuclear sabre very aggressively, to say, “We’re here. This is our territory now. And if you come and try to take it away from us, we will escalate.”

David Martin: Escalate. Use nuclear weapons?

David Shlapak: Use nuclear weapons.

Russia has more than 1,000 short range nuclear weapons while the U.S. has less than 200 at air bases in Europe.

Hans Kristensen: There’s one in Germany…

The locations of American nuclear weapons are officially secret. But here’s what they look like. Hans Kristensen says he discovered this photo on a U.S. Air Force website showing the inside of a shelter where nuclear bombs would be loaded aboard American and NATO jet fighters.

Hans Kristensen: Each vault can have up to four nuclear bombs. They hang right next to each other.

Hans Kristensen: It can - it sinks into the ground with the weapons, levels completely with the surface.

David Martin: And just out of a doomsday movie the nuclear weapon rises out of the floor.

Hans Kristensen: Right.

The bomb is called the B-61 and it’s being upgraded by adding a new set of tail fins that give it greater accuracy. That would allow the B-61 to destroy its target using a lower-yield nuclear weapon which would decrease the number of civilian casualties. 

The air-launched cruise missile, says Major General Clark, can also be turned into a low-yield nuclear weapon.

Richard Clark: There is a variable yield option on this weapon, so we can change that yield within the weapon.

David Martin: You can dial in a yield?

Richard Clark: That’s what we call it, actually. Dial a yield.

David Martin: Does that make a nuclear weapon easier to use?

Phillip Breedlove: We do not plan to go there. We do not want to go there.

David Martin: But if you have this option which allows you to keep civilian casualties to a minimum and you’re really up against it, isn’t it easier?

Phillip Breedlove: I don’t think that any decision to ever use a nuclear weapon could be categorized as easy.

David Martin: Less difficult?

Phillip Breedlove: Less difficult. We could say that.

Russia is also developing low-yield weapons which this declassified CIA document says could “…lower the threshold for first use of nuclear weapons...” “the development of low yield warheads that could be used on high-precision weapon systems would be consistent with Russia’s increasing reliance on nuclear weapons…” But “increasing reliance on nuclear weapons,” says Rear Admiral Parode, doesn’t mean Russia is eager to use them.
 

Steve Parode: I don’t perceive that they are, have become madmen with their fingers on the button. But I do believe they are more interested in considering how nuclear weapons could be used in conflict to either close a gap or to sustain the opportunity for victory.

David Martin: So what’s the scenario? What situation would get them to seriously consider the use of nuclear weapons?

Steve Parode: That is probably the greatest question I’m trying to answer today for Admiral Haney.
 

U.S. Strategic Command Center
 

That’s Admiral Cecil Haney, head of the U.S. Strategic Command, the man who would carry out a presidential order to launch a nuclear weapon.

Cecil Haney: Thank you. I appreciate the update. 

Low key and cerebral, Haney commands not only this country’s nuclear forces but its cyber weapons and space satellites as well.

David Martin: Is it riskier today?

Cecil Haney: Well I think today we’re at a time and place that I don’t think we’ve been to before.

It is Haney’s job to convince Vladimir Putin that resorting to nuclear weapons would be the worst mistake he could possibly make.

David Martin: When you look at what would work to deter Russia, do you have to get inside Putin’s head?

Cecil Haney: You have to have a deep, deep, deep understanding of any adversary you want to deter, including Mr. Putin.

David Martin: So how would you describe him psychologically?

Cecil Haney: Well, one I would say I’m not a psychologist. But I would just say he is clearly an individual that is an opportunist.

David Martin: Does it concern you that an opportunist has a nuclear arsenal?

Cecil Haney: It concerns me that Russia has a lot of nuclear weapons. It concerns me that Russia has behaved badly on the international stage. And it concerns me that we have leadership in Russia, at various levels that would flagrantly talk about the use of a nuclear weapon in this 21st century.

Source

 

 

 

Edited by Weps
xvii likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today India crossed the Line-Of-Control along the Pakistan/India Border in Kashmir. In an early morning surgical strike, Indian Special Forces hit multiple Pakistani militant sites, killing a number of Pakistani militants. The strike is in retaliation of the terror attack that occurred earlier in the month on an Indian military base near the Line-Of-Control in the Kashmir Region, that resulted in 18 Indian troops dead and for the capture of a Indian soldier by Pakistan Forces, when the soldier became lost and wandered into Pakistan held territory along the Line-of-Control. 

 

- Kashmir attack: India 'launches strikes against militants' (BBC)
India claims ‘surgical strikes’ against militants in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir (WaPo)

India targets militants with 'surgical strikes' across Kashmir frontier (Fox)
In escalation, India says launches strikes on militants in Pakistan (CNBC)

 

Ctk_Ol_TSUk_AATOB7.jpg

 

Some history on the Pakistan/India dispute (Should start at 11:30);

 

/spoiler]

 

Updates:

 

- Punjab On Maximum Alert; To Evacuate 1,000 Villages (NWI)

Kashmir: Pakistan calls emergency meeting amid 'deteriorating situation' (CNN)

Pak Alleges Elimination Of Indian Soldier Who ‘Inadvertently’ Crossed LoC (NWI)

After Surgical Strike, Pakistan Violates Ceasefire Along LoC (NWI)

Punjab On Red Alert After India’s Surgical Strikes In PoK; Schools Shut (NWI)

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

- John Kerry threatens to end Syria talks with Russia over Aleppo (CBS)

U.S.-Russia Talks for Syria ‘On the Verge’ of Collapse (US News)

- Kerry: US to possibly suspend Syrian diplomatic talks with Russia (WT)

Secretary of State John Kerry warns Russia to stop bombing of Aleppo (UPI)

 

My Opinion:

 

Secretary of State John Kerry has demanded Russia suspend combat operations in Syria or US-Russian talks regarding Syria and joint Anti-ISIS operations would be severed between the two.

 

Primarily citing "human rights" violations, such as bombing a hospital, dropping munitions into civilian areas, and damage to civil infrastructure. (All acts the US is/has preformed in both Afghanistan and Iraq, in October 2015, U.S. planes bombed a Doctors Without Borders (MSF) hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, killing 42.)

 

 

Syria is an allied state to Russia, the same as Japan, South Korea, ect... is the the US/NATO. Russia maintains a naval facility in Tartus where the Black Sea Fleet puts in for repair and replenishment...no different than the US maintaining naval facilities in countries such as Turkey, Greece, or Japan. 

 


 

The increased hostilities by the current administration is very worrisome. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, both the United States and Russian Federation have worked to foster better economic and diplomatic ties between each other, but since the beginning of it's time this administration has worked very hard to disrupt that relationship as much as possible. 

 

I think Putin is an effective leader, certainly one who knows his way around. His action regarding Ukraine and Crimea show he is all business and if it requires will not mince words when it comes to flexing national muscle. Let's not make any mistakes, the occupation of Crimea and continued siege of Ukraine is extremely aggressive and disruptive of both Eastern European diplomacy and world diplomacy. However, it should not be assumed the continued aggression against Ukraine is simply Russian Imperialism, both the US and NATO are involved in the region, with "little green men" all their own. 

 

What is so concerning is the actions of this administration. Handling the entire ordeal with the deftness of a rock through a plate glass window. Neither the US, nor NATO maintain any significant military forces to deter Russia from pushing further into Ukraine, let alone another former Soviet Bloc Eastern European nation.

 

Standard US fallback in areas where we lack the manpower or conventional force projection was to utilize nuclear muscle. However, with this administrations deemed goals of nuclear reduction, leading to eventual disarmament and inaction in maintaining a combat effective nuclear force, we are quickly becoming a a paper tiger. (Not to mention the near loss of nuclear weapons to Turkish anti-coup forces.)

 

For Mutually Assured Destruction to be a reality, all nuclear parties involved must maintain equal capability. If "Party A" loses or reduces part of their nuclear capability, then "Party B" sees a window of opportunity. This is because, "Party B" sees the ability to strike preemptively, because they can remove "Party A" the ability to retaliate effectively. What it boils down to is a game of numbers; how many nukes you can get airborne and how quickly, how many incoming you can shoot down/intercept or how much territory/infrastructure/population are you're willing to or can lose. This is where "Counter Value" and Counter Force" comes into play. 

 

"Counter Value" is everything not military such as population, civil infrastructure, ect... this scenario was safeguarded by an extensive network anti-ballistic missile systems, intercept aircraft, and an comprehensive Civil Defense program during the Cold War. This was all done away with once the Soviet Union fell and public and political sentiment felt the nuclear threat was over, which was a bad gamble. 

 

"Counter Force" is strictly targets of a military nature. Yes, conflicts subsisting of only battlefield use of nuclear weapons can happen without escalation, remember it's a game of numbers. The US does maintain an anti-ballistic missile network to protect it's nuclear weapons, fighter/bomber bases, command and control centers, and the entire military and government command structure. However, there is nothing safeguarding the civil sector. 

 

The question is, during a time where our forces are worn down from decades of war, suffering from monetary and manpower shortcomings, with aging and worn equipment, and a deteriorated nuclear force...why are we antagonizing two major nuclear and conventional world powers, almost to the point of war? Rather than seeking to foster a competitive diplomatic and economic relationship with both? Or building our military strength, like both nations we seem to be aggressive with are doing, in the event things are taken too far?

 

 

 

Updates (3:22 EST 08/30/16)

 

Pakistan/India:

 

- Live Blog: Surgical strikes across LoC (TOI/IT) 

Pakistan captures Indian soldier along disputed Kashmir border (CNN)

 

-------------------------------------------------------------

 

Russia:

 

Russian article on the building of additional fallout shelters;

 

Moscow fully prepared underground shelters for the evacuation of the population

 

(Google Translation into English)

 

MOSCOW, September 29 - RIA Novosti underground shelters for the population of Moscow is ready for 100%, you can hide them in the entire population of the city, he told reporters Thursday the deputy chief of Russia's capital GUMCHS Andrei Mishchenko.


"As a result of the introduction of new approaches of conducting civil defense in Moscow, an inventory of buildings of the city underground space that allows you to plan your cover 100% of the population", - he said.

 

Mishchenko also noted that the improvement of civil defense in the capital carried out in the following areas: further development of the regulatory framework, modernization of control and warning systems, the development of civil defense forces, improving the system of training of the population in the area of civil defense, the development of international cooperation in the field of civil defense.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Weps
xvii and WaeV like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

----------------------------------

 

Updates (9:20 EST 09/01/16):

 

Pakistan/India:

 

Pakistan and India exchange fresh fire as tensions rise (Aljazeera)

India, Pakistan soldiers exchange fire across frontier, no casualties (Reuters)

India relocates 10,000 from around Kashmir as tensions rise (CNN)

On nukes, US has this 'direct message for Pakistan' (TOI)

 

---------------------------------------------------------

Updates (4:00AM EST 09/02/16)

 

Some very interesting ADS-B data here, data of aircraft in the air around Israel;

 

 

 


Ctvgx_Ji_VMAAxy_Ov.jpg
 

 

 

Starting from the top here; 

 

 

- EO-5C (US Army 3MIB) designed as EO-5B ARL-C (Airborne Reconnaissance Low - COMINT)

 


- E-8C is the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System, used in airborne ground surveillance, battlefield management, and as a command & control aircraft. It's with the Georgia National Guard apart of the 115 Air Control Wing. 

 

- C-5M "Super Galaxy", very serious transport/air mobility aircraft. Capable of transporting  270,000lb (135tons) of materiel (36 standard 463L pallets, 73 troops, or two M1 tanks). This aircraft is specifically apart of the 22nd Airlift Squadron, under the 60th Operations Groups, with the 60th Air Mobility Wing. The 50th Operations Groups is apart of the US Air Force global reach mission to put supplies and troops anywhere in the world reliably and in a hurry at a moments notice. 

 

- CN-295M, medium transport aircraft capable of carrying Military transport version. Capacity for 71 troops, 48 paratroops, 27 stretchers, five large pallets or three light vehicles. This one is Egyptian Air Force.

 

- Oman flagged aircraft of unknown model or unit, but it is military. 

 

- Sentinel R1, a airborne battlefield and ground surveillance aircraft on the same level as the E-8C JSTARS both are inter-operable with each other, as well as NATO Alliance Ground Surveillance. This aircraft is with Royal Air Force 5th Squadron specifically tasked with Ground Reconnaissance.

 

- Ukrainian flagged aircraft of known model or unit markings, unknown if military. 

 

- Another Oman flagged aircraft of unknown model or unit, but it is military.

 

- Three MC-130H "Combat Talon II", which is a bird you don't see often. This is a VERY specialized aircraft originally designed to support clandestine operations in Vietnam, the "Talon II" was designed specifically for the Iranian Hostage Rescue forces but never used in the operation. It's designed to land and take-off from an are the size of a large soccer field, currently it fills the roll of infiltration, exfilltration, and resupply of special operations forces,as well air air refueling of special operations helicopters and tilt-rotors. On-board avionics include a TF/TA radar, defensive countermeasures suite, Doppler radar/GPS tie-in to the planes inertial navigation system. It's capable of carrying 77 troops, 52 paratroopers or 57 litters. This aircraft are with the 1st Special Operations Wing, 15th Special Operations Squadron, Air Force Special Operations. Seeing one is odd, three in the same area...

 

- Another Sentinel R1, also apart of RAF 5th Squadron

 

- Another CN-295M with the Egyptian Air Force

 

- C17 "Globemaster", large transport aircraft capable of carrying 170,900lb of materiel (85tons) 102 paratroopers or 134 troops with palletized and sidewall seats or 54 troops with sidewall seats (allows 13 pallets) only or 36 litter and 54 ambulatory patients and medical attendants or and M1 tank. This aircraft is with the 62nd Airlift Wing under the Eighteenth Air Force of Air Mobility Command and is tasked with supporting worldwide combat and humanitarian airlift contingencies. 

 

- C-146A "Wolfhound", tactical transport aircraft used specifcally by the US Air Force Special Operations, primarily in covert insertion, extraction and resupply of special operations forces. This aircraft is apart of the 27th Special Operations Wing, 524th Special Operations Squadron. Mission fo the 27th SOW includes  infiltration, exfiltration and resupply of special operations forces; air refueling of special operations rotary wing and tiltrotor aircraft; and precision fire support. These capabilities support a variety of special operations missions including direct action, unconventional warfare, special reconnaissance, counter-terrorism, personnel recovery, psychological operations and information operations.

 

- KC-767A, air refuel tanker and tactical transport aircraft, apart of the Italian 14th Wing.

 

- C-135FR, air refuel tanker with the French Air Force (GRV00.093 is a French Air Force unit).

 

- Another C-5 "Super Galaxy" with the 60th AMW

 

- C-40A is a critical logistics support aircraft capable of carrying 121 passengers and 30,000 pounds od cargo. Its flight deck features a flight management computer system with an integrated GPS, and is compatible with future GATM/FANS operating environment (RNP-1). This aircraft is with the US Navy Reserves (VR-58) Fleet Logistics Support Squadron VR-58.

 

- P-8A "Poseidon" is an anti-submarine warfare (ASW), anti-surface warfare (ASUW), and shipping interdiction, along with an electronic signals intelligence (ELINT) role. This aircraft is the US Navy.

 

- A Mexican flagged G-III "Gulfstream", the aircraft is showing as belonging to the Mexican General Coordination of the Presidential Air Transport Unit.

 

- C-160R, general purpose aircraft with the French Air Force. the "R" designation denotes renovation, but the aircraft has three missions air refueling, troop transport, and electronic intelligence gathering. 

 

- Another C-17 "Globemaster", this one is with the 437th Airlift Wing, 18th Air Force, Air Mobility Command. Primarily mission of air mobility transport to airland or airdrop in troops, equipment, and supplies. 

 

- Another P-8 "Poseiden" with the US Navy. 

 

- KRJ-145LR, trasport aircraft with the Belgium Air Force (21SM is a Belgian 21st Squadron, 15th Air Trasport Wing)

 

 

Source



 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Weps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

--------------------------------------------------------

 

Update (9:15PM EST 09/02/16)

 

Moscow is to hold mass civil defense training drills in which all Muscovites will being participating in. This on the heels of the announcement that Russian Civil Defense has 100% occupancy space for the entirety of Moscow in hardened underground structures. In total, 40,000,000 people can be accommodated in the cities shelters. 

 

Last year it was announced Russia had finished construction on dozens of new shelters, in connection with upgrading existing shelters build during the Cold War.  

 

All-Russian training for civil defense will be held from 4 to 7 October (Interax)

 

English translation via Chrome;



All-Russian Emergency Situations Ministry will hold a training session for civil defense, which will cover more than 40 million people, according to "Interfax" the director of the Civil Defence Department of the Ministry Oleg Manuilov.

 

"Training will be held from October 4 to 7 will be attended by more than 40 million people, more than 200 thousand professionals rescue units, 50 thousand pieces of equipment..." - He said.

 

federal agencies are involved in the executive, heads of regions, local authorities and organizations.

Also working out of civil defense will involve abnormal emergency rescue teams. During the training will be a reality check drawn up plans for different periods and the commitment of all forces and means to act.

 

"In practice, the notification will be worked out and collect the governing federal departments and agencies, executive bodies of subjects of the Russian Federation and local self-government", - said Manuilov. There will be worked out action by the evacuation issue of personal protective equipment, sanitary, deployment obmyvochnyh points.

 

"In addition, the alert will be given civil defense structures In coordination with the regional and municipal authorities will be checked by the system of emergency population warning of disaster occurrence, or the threat thereof." - Said Manuilov.

 

During the workout, and will inspect individual subordinate medical institutions on the quality of care.

 

xvii likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Weps said:

--------------------------------------------------------

 

Update (9:15PM EST 09/02/16)

 

Moscow is to hold mass civil defense training drills in which all Muscovites will being participating in. This on the heels of the announcement that Russian Civil Defense has 100% occupancy space for the entirety of Moscow in hardened underground structures. In total, 40,000,000 people can be accommodated in the cities shelters. 

 

Last year it was announced Russia had finished construction on dozens of new shelters, in connection with upgrading existing shelters build during the Cold War.  

 

All-Russian training for civil defense will be held from 4 to 7 October (Interax)

 

English translation via Chrome;

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 


All-Russian Emergency Situations Ministry will hold a training session for civil defense, which will cover more than 40 million people, according to "Interfax" the director of the Civil Defence Department of the Ministry Oleg Manuilov.

 

"Training will be held from October 4 to 7 will be attended by more than 40 million people, more than 200 thousand professionals rescue units, 50 thousand pieces of equipment..." - He said.

 

federal agencies are involved in the executive, heads of regions, local authorities and organizations.

Also working out of civil defense will involve abnormal emergency rescue teams. During the training will be a reality check drawn up plans for different periods and the commitment of all forces and means to act.

 

"In practice, the notification will be worked out and collect the governing federal departments and agencies, executive bodies of subjects of the Russian Federation and local self-government", - said Manuilov. There will be worked out action by the evacuation issue of personal protective equipment, sanitary, deployment obmyvochnyh points.

 

"In addition, the alert will be given civil defense structures In coordination with the regional and municipal authorities will be checked by the system of emergency population warning of disaster occurrence, or the threat thereof." - Said Manuilov.

 

During the workout, and will inspect individual subordinate medical institutions on the quality of care.

 

 

 

 

Scary shit man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, ZION said:

 

Scary shit man.

 

Indeed.

 

It's apparent Russia (China as well) see a possible dark future. However, the US, nor the UK have had anything this comprehensive in terms of civil defense since the 80's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Weps said:

 

Indeed.

 

It's apparent Russia (China as well) see a possible dark future. However, the US, nor the UK have had anything this comprehensive in terms of civil defense since the 80's. 

 

Israeli airspace receiving more attention, IS attacks, the utter destruction of Damascus/Syria "ceasefire" (Biblical prophecy iirc)...

 

Hmm...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.