I WANT TO THANK the American Military-Industrial Complex (MIC), their
captive politicians, the nation’s propagandizing and sabre-rattling media, and
of course, their familiars and followers in the Collective West, for providing
me with an eagle-eye view of eastern Europe and the European borderlands of
Russia. Before the war started in 2022, if you’d asked me to draw a map of
Ukraine as it sits in eastern Europe, I’d probably get the borders all wanky,
extending them into Poland or Hungary (which would tee-off Poles and Hungarians,
to be sure. Same goes for Slovakia, Romania and Moldova. If you asked where
Transnistria was, all you’d get from me was a blank stare and a frown. But
today, I’m well versed in Ukraine’s eastern provinces. I know the whys and wherefores around Crimea, where Ukraine’s
cities are, where the battlelines are drawn, where rivers flow, the country’s
ports, the terrain’s highs and lows, etc.
The same goes for western Russia, from its border with
Ukraine, on to Moscow, then the Baltic Sea and Saint Petersburg, up to its Western
neighbors, Finland and Sweden,* and that old NATO standby, Norway, and finally north
towards the frigid waters of the Arctic Ocean. And don’t get me started on the
Middle East! I can find Gaza and the various nations of the ME on a map blindfolded!
Along with names, dates and places (more or less).
TO ABUSE Samuel Johnson’s maxim: war helps wonderfully to
concentrate the mind. And so, I can’t wait for one to break out between China
and the U.S. over Taiwan, or in the East or South China Seas! It’ll be another
geography lesson brought to you your local MIC oligarchy.
%20YouTube.jpg) |
JB: "Heh-heh. Gotcha! Cough, Cornpops!"
|
AND IT MIGHT BE OUR LAST lesson if things get out of hand
in any of these theatres of conflict. In recent days, the increasingly unstable
president of Ukraine (though his term in office expired last year and he rules
by diktat, no longer the country’s legal president) mused that Ukraine should
develop its own nuclear weapons program. Zelensky and “The Bomb”—what could go
wrong? BTW, that’s a good way to ensure Kiev gets turned into an ashtray, if el presidente
ever ventures down that road. As for the conflict in Ukraine, it continues at
pace with both Washington and Moscow doing their share of nuclear sabre rattling.
For example, earlier this year, Joe “Where’s my ice cream?!” Biden quietly
changed America’s nuclear doctrine. Now, America will expand its
nuclear targeting arrays to be able to conduct a “first strike” option against China,
Russia and North Korea, all three at the same time. The change in U.S. nuclear
launch protocols seems to be in response to China’s declared goals of increasing its nuclear stockpiles to keep its
deterrence effect viable and to maintain its ability to strike back.
“The
Chinese leadership undoubtedly considers its nuclear arsenal to be very
vulnerable.” (NZZ) One reason Beijing may feel vulnerable is because of advances in nuclear warhead and delivery platform technologies that make a first strike more 'attractive', if I can put it that way, even winnable. Incidentally, China is the only
major nuclear power to have a “no first use” policy, that is, it will not use
nuclear weapons first, in any nuclear exchange. Worryingly, the U.S. and Russia have changed their nuclear
protocols, in recent months, to adopt more first-strike scenarios, even against an non-nuclear state if that state's aggression is deemed threatening enough to either Russia or the U.S. [If the globe’s
nuclear weapon states all declared a
"no first use" protocol in their strategic defense policies, all of us would sleep better at
night. Ed.]
 |
Ted Postol
|
MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) PROFESSOR TED POSTOL,
someone regarded as one of the top experts on nuclear weapons and missile
defense, tells us in this video how the United
States proposes to revamp its missile targeting system to include China’s
anticipated ICBM (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile) expansion while still being able to target all the Russian missile
silos and command and control sites, industrial centres, ports, transportation
hubs, energy grid, etc. that it previously targeted. IN THE DIAGRAM below, on the left-hand side we
have a hardened missile silo targeted by incoming ballistic missiles, with the
“lethal volume” zone, in green, indicating where a 100 kt1 warhead
detonation would destroy the emplaced ICBM. [100 kt=100 “kilotons”,
one-hundred-thousand tonnes of TNT. By comparison, the bombs dropped on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 had a 14 kt and a 25 kt explosive force respectively.
Ed.] Note in the diagram: of the nine ballistic warheads
launched at the target, only four successfully hit ground zero inside the “lethal
volume”. IIUC, Ted’s chart depicts the probability of a successful missile
strike, in this case four hits and five misses.
%20U.S.%20Nuclear%20Strategy%20How's%20it%20Changing%20w_MIT%20Prof.%20Ted%20Postol%20-%20YouTube.jpg)
HERE, he is talking about the use of “heavy lift” ballistic missiles,
and primarily those making up the land-based strategic nuclear arsenal
of the United States, those 400 or so siloed missiles that are the first “leg”
of America’s nuclear triad, located in the
central states of Wyoming, North Dakota and Montana. They are a legacy system
from the Cold War when ICBMs where stationed far inland to protect them from
attack and to give Washington time to respond with an equally lethal counterstrike. Today, there are submarine-launched ballistic missiles and nuclear capable cruise
missiles, tactical nukes, as well as mobile launch platforms and new hyper-sonic missile
and anti-ballistic missile (ABM) developments that make
siloed missiles increasingly redundant, if not any less deadly. Additionally, because of the speed of today's (and tomorrow's) hyper-sonic missiles, those siloed ICBM missiles have the potential of launching first in any threat of attack, real or 'false-positive' (due to technical failure), because if they delay, they may lose the launch window and be destroyed by incoming missiles. (It's the old 'use them or lose them dilemma') Incidentally,
the U.S. does not yet have a reliable hyper-sonic missile array like the
Russians. My concern is there will be a new arms race when the Americans finally perfect hyper-sonic missile technology, especially since all previous nuclear arms treaties between the U.S. and Russia have been cancelled save for the "New Start" treaty, which is set to expire in 2026 unless the two begin talks now to renew it. ("New Start" capped the number of nuclear warheads each side may possess.) IT IS WORTH REPEATING that the U.S. announced in July of this year that it would deploy a ground-based Tomahawk missile array in Germany beginning in 2026, along with "a hypersonic missile that is still in development."(Arms Control) These missiles are capable of delivering nuclear payloads. So, the fucktards in Washington, instead of renewing "New Start", are looking past the treaty to 2026 when they can expand their nuclear arsenal and re-introduce intermediate-range missiles into Europe. This type of missile was effectively banned in Europe since 1987 when the INF (Intermediate Nuclear Forces) treaty was signed between Regan and Gorbachev. It remained in effect until 2019 when chump Trump walked away from it.😟
IN TERMS OF TED’S DISCUSSION, the vagaries of targeting are such that
only a certain number will predictably hit inside the target zone in a
ground-blast strike. But, Professor Postol informs us that the United States
is developing a very clever work-around to ‘fine tune’ targeting protocols for its ballistic
missiles. (And recall, there may be several warheads
per missile, each with their own pre-planned target.) The trick is to aim slightly
long of the target and to have, instead of exclusively ground-detonations
configured into the warheads’ various trajectories, adjust each warhead’s fuse
(the “super fuse” as Ted calls it) to detonate at various elevations, but
still within the “lethal volume”, as we see in the right-hand illustration.
This means fewer warheads are needed per target (perhaps just one), allowing each
missile to acquire more targets, and thus quickening a hell-scape on earth, where
the only sounds are the breaking of bells and the thunder of hoof beats as the
Four Horsemen ride forth to claim their new world. (Just sayin’.)
ARMAGEDDON ASIDE, Ted indicates that the development of a “super fuse”
has been a hush-hush research project for several years. And I assume America’s
advanced satellite observation and space-based monitoring technology enables them to
calibrate such intricate “air burst” detonations as depicted in the diagram,
especially given the incredible speed of incoming ICBMs. (Thousands of miles
per hour.)
👉I PICKED TED POSTOL'S OVERVIEW3
of “super fuses” to cite one example of
how technological improvements to nuclear weapon designs, or to their delivery systems and
protocols, no matter how clever they may be, if they are introduced at the wrong time and
in the wrong manner, could result in the strategic deterrence system becoming unbalanced. This system was a series of treaties and protocols, along with a 'learning through experience' knowledge base since WWII, and was meant to keep a rough parity among the nuclear powers, with each power assured no other would attack them with nuclear weapons
without the attacker suffering equally devastating consequences. During the Cold War, it was
called the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)
doctrine. It was there to remind politicians and other madmen that no one wins
a nuclear war. That no one can launch a first strike without the clear understanding
their own society will be destroyed by a counterstrike, and that, no matter how hard
you hit your opponent, or how much destruction you unleash upon their society, or
how many bombs and missiles you use, if their goose is cooked, then so is yours.
 |
"Must. Not. Sneeze."
|
BUT IT SEEMS the times they are a’ changing
with the introduction of a variety of “tactical” and “strategic” nuclear bomb
and missile warhead types4 that could become part of a nuclear power’s conventional war
plan’s arsenal, and be brought more readily onto battlefields to shore up a
losing side or break a dead lock. The cute name for these smaller, tactical, piddly (1 kiloton of TNT give or take) type of nuclear weapon is “baby nuke”, which we may yet see used on tomorrow's battlefields. 👉Hyper-sonics may be a game changer in the deadliest game on the
planet, especially if more countries acquire them to deliver conventional or nuclear payloads. Such missiles could evade ABM (anti-ballistic missile) defenses and be so swift as to destroy the target's ICBMs before they can retaliate. Such capability might make a successful first-launch attack a terrifying possibility. [Of course, there is the problem of nuclear-armed submarines, safe in the deep ocean, that could respond unless they find a clever work-around to dispose of them, too. So far: none yet. Ed.]
👉Finally, changes to nuclear doctrines by the Russians and Americans which lower the threshold to use nuclear weapons in a conflict zone could end in catastrophe. 💀
Cheers, Jake____________________________________
* Of course, Sweden doesn’t have a land border with Russia, but it may
be required in the future to stare angrily across the Baltic Sea at Russian
ships sailing by.
1. Tonnage of TNT: One kt=1000 tons of TNT. One mt=1,000,000 tonnes of TNT.
2. There are over 400 "Minute Man" nuclear missiles siloed in three central states of the U.S.
👌This is the land-based pillar of America's "nuclear tripod". Most carry 1.5 mt of TNT and up in their nuclear payloads.
👌Fourteen Nuclear submarines, the “Sea leg” of the nuclear triad, also
fire heavy lift (i.e., larger warheads) strategic missiles, along with
nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and torpedoes. Surface ships are also armed with cruise missiles that could carry nuclear payloads.
👌Nuclear bombers fire nuclear-armed
cruise missiles and have “gravity bomb” capabilities, which used to mean the
aircraft needed to be over the target to deliver its payload. Recently, the U.S. has begun to 'modernize' the one-hundred nuclear gravity bombs it has stationed in several
European countries, equipping each with new “glide bomb”
capabilities. (Couldn’t they just spruce them up with a new coat of paint? Why
not?)
👉Land-Sea-Air: The nuclear “triad” of the strategic arsenal of the United States.
3. Ted Postol proposed supplying the Russians (and perhaps all nuclear weapons states) with the satellite imaging technology the U.S. uses to monitor missile launch-blasts globally. His rationale is if the Russians could have the same system, which is superior to their ground-based "early warning" radars, then the Russians would feel more secure; they would have 'equal' security with both now using the same technology, thereby deescalating tensions between them. SIMILARLY, I suggest, making the American's new "super fuse" technology open-sourced so that each (and every?) side would need fewer weapons to provide the same target coverage from their respective nuclear arsenals. Of course, a nuclear weapons reduction treaty involving ALL nuclear weapons states, including Israel, would be the necessary precondition to receive the technology. 👍
 |
Seriously? Would you trust that handle?
|
My personal nuke reduction treaty would have each state left with a single 1 kt (of TNT) bomb, using a mule for a delivery system. The delivery of the nuke to the target might take weeks, months, years even, depending on the mule's sense of direction, or perhaps not arrive at all, which gives the opponents time to forget what it was they were fighting about and to return to their respective corners.[Jake is onto something here, with one caveat: to avoid catching holy hell from the mule lobby, not to mention the S.P.C.A., I suggest an alternative to the mule delivery system: instead, use the first-born son of each state's ruler, strap a nuke on their back and send them on their way. They'd still have to hoof it by foot to get to their target, which gives the warring heads of state plenty of time to sit down with a bottle or two of Jack Daniels, get roaring pissed, realize they really, really love each other, and ink a peace deal on the tablecloth. Ed.]😂
4. With explosive power varying from a tiny 1 kt up to 2.3 mt (2.3 million tons of TNT for the metrically-challenged.) The latter are known as "city killers." A popular payload size for nuclear-tipped cruise missiles is 150 kt. to 300kt. Why use more fissile material than you need to accomplish the same death-dealing from the skies task, but with a smaller payload?
"A nuclear war cannot be won, and must never be fought." --President Ronald Regan, 1984.
%20YouTube.jpg)
%20U.S.%20Nuclear%20Strategy%20How's%20it%20Changing%20w_MIT%20Prof.%20Ted%20Postol%20-%20YouTube.jpg){kind=spacer}
