The polarization of America, the encroachment on our constitution, and now our rights to Privacy thrown away. With all these issues, it is my duty to speak up and inform, reflect on the loss of those rights and not to shrink away from controversy. However small my effort, are my letters criticizing the wrongs of this Government, with my expressions to wake up America in defending the constitution, made by the founding fathers... ....Amor Patriae
CURRENT GEO POLITICAL SCENE
Thursday, February 28, 2019
China to sell aircraft carrier to Pakistan
On February 5, the online naval defense magazine Navy Recognition (part of a group of similar online publications registered in Belgium), made a vague reference to certain plans China has for its “military and foreign policies”, reporting the sensational news, which quickly became the subject of comments in international media.
And it is no wonder the news article has caused such a reaction, seeing as it reports the possible sale of what is currently China’s only existing aircraft carrier, Liaoning, to Pakistan. Liaoning is a unique combat naval platform, of which there are only around a couple of dozen in the world. Half of the largest and most effective of these ships (the ones which can actually be called real aircraft carriers) are owned by the United States Navy. This forms a significant basis that allows America to maintain its control of the world’s oceans.
Some passages in the article and comments on the news it delivers are noteworthy. For example, the part that addresses the need for China’s ally Pakistan to “compete with India” in terms of the country’s military power at sea.
Reading the comments from Navy Recognition and other publications, it becomes clear that this is not just another act of buying and selling military assets; this not the latest in a long series of numerous sales that have characterized China-Pakistan relations over the past few decades. The (hypothetical) sale of the Chinese aircraft carrier to Pakistan touches on key issues in the nature and development of the political game in the South Asia subregion (an important component of the Indo-Pacific region), and brings the strategies of its major players into focus. These include China, Pakistan, India, and of course the United States.
In the author’s opinion, the existence of this “fake news” is one of the manifestations of a renewed Chinese-American struggle for Pakistan. After all, it appears that by “leaving” Afghanistan, Washington wants to “return” to Pakistan (which Beijing will oppose).
However, before continuing on the topic of place where the deal has been made with Liaoning (once again, this is hypothetical), it is worth recalling some factual information regarding this aircraft carrier.
The ship was developed by thoroughly modernizing the (uncompleted) former Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag, which Ukraine had inherited following the collapse of the Soviet Union. At the end of the nineties it was sold to China for a symbolic amount, refitted, and at the end of 2012, the ship was incorporated into the Chinese Navy and named after one of the country’s north-eastern provinces. The primary main armament of the aircraft carrier is a group of 24 J-15 fighters, which are an upgraded copy of the Russian Su-33.
Despite the fact that the characteristics and fighting potential of Liaoning cannot compete with any of the eleven modern American Carrier Strike Group flagships (nuclear-powered with deck catapults), its arrival in the Chinese Navy indicates that China’s military industrial sector has completed an important step on its path towards rapid development.
The main objective of the modernization program and making Liaoning operational was to gain experience in developing and subsequently operating a completely new and extremely complex warfare system. This experience is being applied in the design and construction of a series of new aircraft carriers, the second of which (practically the same type as Liaoning) is now in the sea trial phase.
According to the plans that were announced ten years ago, 4-5 more “real” aircraft carriers will have been built by the end of the 2020s. Their performance characteristics will be brought into line with the latest American ships in this class.
However, Liaoning is not just being used as a place to experiment, but also participates in flag demonstrations in extremely important areas of the World Ocean for China. The most notable event was a “cruise” around Taiwan (with access to the Pacific Ocean through the Miyako Strait in the Japanese Ryukyu archipelago), completed at the end of December 2016, where a squadron of Chinese Navy surface ships was headed by the Liaoning.
The message of this demonstration was mainly directed towards the USA, Japan and Taiwan. American military planners have been sent the message that it will not be possible to confine the Chinese Navy to coastal waters, limited in the East by the so-called “First Island Line”, which includes the very same Ryukyu archipelago and Taiwan, as well as the Malay Archipelago.
The message addressed to Tokyo essentially demonstrated that China is prepared to compete with Japan precisely for the control of coastal waters, including parts of the Sea of Japan and the Yellow Sea, the Taiwan Strait, as well as both the East and South China Seas.
Ms. Tsai Ing-wen, who had been elected President of Taiwan in May of that year, was given a signal that she should not get involved in any political games for the Island to gain independence from China.
The weight of all these messages was mainly induced by having the Chinese Navy’s first aircraft carrier lead the squadron of Chinese ships that raised the flag in the Western Pacific Ocean.
As for Pakistan, the sale of this ship may not happen now or in the coming years (if there really is any deal). Again, China still only has one aircraft carrier of its own. A second carrier will hardly be ready to join the Chinese Navy before the end of 2021. As previously mentioned, China only anticipates to develop a number of modern aircraft carrier strike groups by the end of the next decade.
In the meantime, Liaoning will serve its main function, allowing China to gain experience in designing, constructing, operating and (hopefully nothing more serious than simulating) the tactical use of the extremely complex system of weapons that the aircraft carrier represents. Moreover, the ship will be in full working order, given that the Liaoning has only kept its body from Varyag, while all of its systems (including the propulsion system) are new.
This means that by some stage in 2030, the carrier really could be sold to the country which has expressed an interest in it. Meanwhile, the “fake news” is yet to be met with an official reaction from Pakistan. Moreover, it would be strange if there were to be any reaction, given the severity of the problems the country is currently faced with. Given the situation in Pakistan, it would be ridiculous for the country to release an official response to talk of a (undoubtedly expensive) project, which could not feasibly be examined or implemented within the next 10 years.
Parallels can be drawn with something similar that happened over a decade ago in India. Towards the end of the noughties, the United States decided to run with the Indian Navy’s project to purchase the Soviet aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov (the same type as the Varyag). The ship was then undergoing a difficult and lengthy upgrade in Russia, and in the end the carrier was eventually renamed INS Vikramaditya and commissioned into the Indian Navy (with characteristics similar to the Liaoning). In the midst of Pakistan’s difficulties, the United States has offered New Delhi a “real” aircraft carrier, the Kitty Hawk (at no cost).
Following some uncomplicated deliberation, the proposal was rejected. This was not even for any political reasons, which occupy an important place in India’s military and technical cooperation. A crucial role was played here by simple pragmatism. India simply does not have the necessary logistics to service warships of this size (Kitty Hawk is one and a half times larger and immeasurably more complex than INS Vikramaditya). Apart from that, India did not have a team of 6,000 sailors with the necessary qualifications at its disposal, and it turned out that the offer was not in fact free of charge. This is because the cost of the 80 different types of deck aircraft for the Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier (launched in 1960) alone was more expensive than the ship itself.
It is quite likely that the leadership of Pakistan will point out similar issues, if the project to sell the Liaoning turns out to be more than just a news sensation. On top of these considerations is the fact that one Pakistani aircraft carrier will not be enough to counterbalance the rapid growth of the Indian Navy’s potential. At the same time, the acquisition of a token ship would burn a hole in the coffers of Pakistan’s Treasury. Yet another hole would appear in the country’s pockets.
In general, the fact that the very thought of selling the Chinese aircraft carrier to Pakistan has been entertained illustrates how extremely difficult the situation in the Indo-Pacific Ocean region really is. On the one hand, this very region is already the engine that is driving the development of the world economy, and over time the role this region plays in it will only increase. On the other hand, recent years have seen the fastest pace of militarization in the Indo-Pacific, both in quantitative and qualitative terms.
Both trends are in parallel, and the question of which of them will prevail remains unanswered for now.
Moscow – The Chinese government has decided to sell its first and only aircraft carrier to Pakistan. More specifically, the Liaoning will be sold to Pakistan for a yet-undetermined price in order to upgrade the Pakistani Navy’s capabilities, reported Chinese and Russia media on Saturday.
The addition of an aircraft carrier to the Pakistani Navy’s arsenal will make it more competitive with respect to its rival India, which has an operational aircraft carrier.
The Liaoning was first commissioned for the Soviet Navy in the 1980s and was expected to enter service in the early 1990s. The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, however, frustrated these plans, and the unfinished structure was sold to Ukraine. The hull ended up in China, which rebuilt and recommissioned the ship and declared it operational only three years ago, in 2016.
The Chinese Navy plans to replace the Liaoning with up to six nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. The Chinese government announced its plans to have six carrier battlegroups by 2035. Aside from being potent machines of naval warfare, aircraft carriers serve as the ideal foreign policy tools. For example, just the appearance of an American aircraft carrier close to the shores of a country could deter actions hostile to US interests.
“China’s nuclear-powered aircraft carriers are expected to join the navy by 2035, bringing the total number of carriers to at least six—although only four will work at the front line. The country needs to keep developing until it is at the same level as the United States,” said Wang Yunfei, a former Chinese naval officer.
According to Russia’s state-owned RT.com, new nuclear aircraft carriers and state-of-the-art carrier-borne fighter jets will join China’s revamped navy by 2035, Chinese specialists familiar with the programme told the South China Morning Post.
The experts added that the carriers will also come equipped with electromagnetic catapults similar to the EMALS system used on their US counterparts. This will allow fighters to be launched faster than they were on older diesel-powered vessels.
At present, the Chinese Navy operates only one diesel-powered aircraft carrier, the ‘Liaoning.’ Commissioned in 2012. Currently serving as a training vessel for aircraft carrier crew, it’s been reported that the ‘Liaoning’ will be resold to Pakistan after a “large-scale upgrade.” It aims to help Pakistan “compete” with India’s own carrier buildup.
China’s first domestically built aircraft carrier, the Type 001A, is still undergoing sea trials, but is expected to enter service in April ahead of the Navy’s 70th anniversary in October.
The US Navy, by comparison, boasts 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, and has nine other amphibious ships that could be utilized as carrier vessels in a time of war.
However, Chinese military planners are eagerly racing to close the gap and money is seemingly no object, even as the ongoing trade war with the US is hurting both economies.
Wang Yunfei told the SCMP “Even if the economic downturn has an effect, we can adjust proportions in total military expenditure to make sure naval modernization keeps going.”
Cash is also being poured into designs for a new carrier-borne stealth fighter, the fighting capability of which Wang believes may only be “a little bit behind” that of the costly US F-35.
Song Zhongping, a Hong Kong-based military commentator, said Chinese technology would soon be on par with US fighters and carriers, but warned that superior hardware was only “part of the picture.”
He explained that crew training and damage-control readiness have been lacking in the past because Chinese troops have not “had as much real combat experience as the Americans.”
The report comes as tensions between the US and Beijing continue to simmer over influence in the South China Sea.
In January, the US Navy sent two warships through the Taiwan Strait on what it called a freedom of navigation exercise.
Chinese DF3 missile in Saudi Arabia 3300km range, missiles that can only carry nuclear weapons, no conventional warhead capability
By Gordon Duff with New Eastern Outlook, Russia
With Israel issuing direct threats against both Syria and Iran of thermonuclear devastation if either nation retaliates against Israeli bombing attacks, the world moves closer to the brink. Many factors, including and especially Israel’s internal political collapse, are pushing the world toward a wider conflict. American political instability makes things even worse.
What has been ignored is the level of threat Saudi Arabia represents, a politically primitive nation with a massive defense budget and some very dark secrets, some of which will be revealed here.
Too many in the world believe that “cooler heads will prevail,” perhaps like they did in August 1914? The point is simple, what the public knows, what the public believes, about the nature of nuclear weapons, who has them, how many are out there, and how political and military leaders almost continually advocate their secret use, is fantasy.
The truth is out there, but real whistle blowers seldom live to tell the tale. Some do, and I know them.
You see, most nations have secret organizations, usually military commands, that investigate not only nuclear proliferation but monitor the use of nuclear explosives. Old design nukes only burned a bit of their cores, leaving the rest as fallout. New ones are clean, no leftover radiation at all, cheap to build, simple in design and any nation that wants nuclear weapons can have them and, according to sources, many do.
To begin with, let’s talk about Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has a larger military budget than Russia, but Russia spends much of their budget on a huge standing army, a significant navy, dozens of nuclear submarines and a massive thermonuclear missile capability supported by an equally huge stockpile of nuclear weapons.
Saudi Arabia spends more than Russia but has a small navy, a very small standing army, mostly foreign mercenaries or troops “hired” from “allies.” Their budget makes no sense unless you examine it carefully. Saudi Arabia spends up to 40% of its military budget on nuclear weapons and delivery systems. This is why they are caught lying so often when claims are made about how many weapons they buy each year from Britain and the US. The real delivered numbers are miniscule and Saudi Arabia depends on American bombs, American refueling and even Israeli planes in their war on Yemen.
This is from CNN, October 13, 2018, and figures from Britain are skewed even more:
But his comments are missing the mark on a key fact: Saudi Arabia has so far only followed through on $14.5 billion in purchases.
The deal brokered last year between the US and Saudi Arabia was merely a memorandum of intent to fulfill nearly $110 billion in arms sales over the next 10 years. As of yet, Saudi Arabia has only signed letters of offer and acceptance — official purchase agreements that have either already been approved by Congress or in the process of being approved — for $14.5 billion in purchases, according to a Pentagon official.”
I debriefed a UN source, a weapons inspector with highest clearances, that led an official investigation into Saudi Arabia’s nuclear program. Because of corruption at every level of media and information, governmental, the internet, even intelligence reports that sometimes trickle down, this information, though known to all in power, is not public. Here is what we know:
Saudi Arabia began acquiring uranium processing equipment from Germany, high speed centrifuges to produce uranium 235 at weapons grade during the 1970s.
Saudi Arabia bought its first nuclear weapon from China in the early 1980s. Their first weapon, according to the sources was a 22-kiloton gun type uranium bomb. China then supplied the Saudi’s with an unspecified number, less than 10, smaller weapons that could be deployed on missiles. From Wikipedia:
“In 1987, Saudi Arabia purchased Chinese-made CSS-2 intermediate-range ballistic missiles designed and used by the Chinese as a nuclear-armed missile, but reportedly sold to Saudi Arabia with conventional high-explosive warheads. However their low circular error probable accuracy (1–1.5 km) makes them unsuitable for effective military use against military targets when carrying a conventional warhead. The CSS-2 has a range of 4,850 km with a payload of either 2,150 or 2,500 kg. These missiles were delivered with between 50 and 35 transporter erector launcher trucks. These missiles were the first weapons of the Royal Saudi Strategic Missile Force, a separate branch of Saudi Arabia’s armed forces. In 2013 the existence of the Royal Saudi Strategic Missile Force was officially announced.
Newsweek quoted an anonymous source in 2014 that Saudi Arabia had acquired CSS-5 intermediate-range ballistic missiles from China in 2007 with “Washington’s quiet approval on the condition that CIA technical experts could verify they were not designed to carry nuclear warheads”. The Center for Strategic and International Studies lists the CSS-5 as being capable of carrying either 250-kiloton or 500-kiloton nuclear or various types of conventional high-explosive warheads. The CSS-5, while it has a comparatively shorter range (2,800 km) and half the payload (1 ton) of the CSS-2, is solid-fueled, thus can be set up and placed on alert status more easily than the liquid-fueled CSS-2, and its accuracy is much greater (circular error probable of 30 meters).”
The next supplier was Israel. That nation had been working with South Africa and, between 1975 when those nations signed a secret nuclear accord, and September 22, 1979, when the first South African nuclear device, a 13.2 kiloton (80ms “double-flash”) was exploded on a barge adjacent to Prince Edward Island, several hundred miles south of Cape Town. That technology, developed at the Armscor at Pelandaba, has long been known publicly. That British companies backed the process and that Saudi Arabia aided in financing is not publicly known.
However, what is spoken of today, straying miles from the truth, is a disinformation campaign that tries to erase history. From Strategic Culture, a site the FBI says is financed by a foreign spy agency, we read the following:
“THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT HAS BEGUN SELLING THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA INFORMATION ON HOW TO DEVELOP NUCLEAR WEAPONS, ACCORDING TO A SENIOR OFFICIAL AT THE ISRAELI MILITARY ORGANIZATION IHLS (ISRAEL’S HOMELAND SECURITY). AMI DOR-ON, A SENIOR NUCLEAR COMMENTATOR AT THE ORGANIZATION — WHICH IS PARTIALLY FUNDED BY U.S. WEAPONS-GIANT RAYTHEON – CAME FORWARD BECAUSE OF HIS CONCERN OVER THE EMERGING NUCLEAR ARMS RACE IN THE REGION. THE COOPERATION BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES IN HELPING THE SAUDIS TO DEVELOP A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM IS JUST THE LATEST SIGN OF THEIR WARMING RELATIONSHIP, WITH ISRAEL RECENTLY CALLING THE SAUDI CROWN PRINCE ‘A PARTNER OF ISRAEL.’”
Though “packaged” as a revelation, in fact the information which seems to damn both Israel and Saudi Arabia, in fact covers for 40 years of cooperation in nuclear weapons research and production.
Saudi Arabia’s next foray into nuclear partnership touches on Pakistan. Since 1979, Pakistan has deployed troops in Saudi Arabia, ostensibly to defend that nation, remember, a nation with a military budget larger than Russia, from Iran.
By 1982, a protocol was signed and forces, number officially up to 20,000, have been deployed in Saudi Arabia. According to our sources, among them, in most recent years, have been highly trained specialists to secure a Pakistani nuclear arsenal including nuclear tipped missiles, deployed inside Saudi Arabia, “rented” as it were, as a deterrent against Iran.
Saudi Arabia has long conspired against Iran along with Israel yet, quite obviously, it is Saudi Arabia that would suffer the brunt of Iranian retaliation were a secret nuclear attack on Iran to be staged from Saudi Arabia or using Saudi airspace.
Were one to delve further into the intricacies of geopolitics, India’s political alliances, their dance between Russia and the US, and the secret military cooperation agreements between Israel and both India and Pakistan, something I discussed during an interview with then ISI Director Ahmad Shurja Pasha in 2011, weigh heavily on Saudi Arabia’s security concerns.
Suffice it to say, though there is no public discussion of Saudi Arabia’s nuclear program other than those indicating it has gone on for decades and is, perhaps, the most unsuccessful such endeavor in planetary history, a very real arsenal exists and, according to highly knowledgeable sources, the Kingdom has deployed nuclear weapons against Yemen on several occasions.
A source at the IAEA claims, backed by a 2006 secret report from Global Security, that the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, blamed on an Iranian backed Saudi faction, was, in fact, a nuclear explosion.
The report quotes the Defense Special Weapons Agency, established on 29 January 1947 by the Atomic Energy Commission under the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (Public Law 585, 79th Congress) to oversee and investigate the use of nuclear weapons and their impact on the security of the United States.
The conclusion of the report, redacted from public view, concluded that the Khobar Towers were destroyed by a tactical nuclear munition equaling 100 tons of TNT.
A similar IAEA report confirmed that finding, citing a blast crater and thermal damage only possible during a nuclear event. From that report:
“ON JUNE 25, 1996, SAUDI TERRORISTS SPONSORED BY IRAN ATTACKED THE KHOBAR TOWERS BARRACKS, A HIGH-RISE BUILDING COMPLEX IN A DENSELY POPULATED URBAN ENVIRONMENT IN SAUDI ARABIA. THE TANKER TRUCK LOADED WITH AT LEAST 5000 POUNDS OF PLASTIC EXPLOSIVES WAS DRIVEN INTO THE PARKING LOT IN FRONT OF THE KHOBAR TOWERS RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX IN DHAHRAN.
NINETEEN AMERICAN SERVICE MEMBERS WERE KILLED IN THE BLAST, AND HUNDREDS OF OTHER SERVICE MEMBERS AND SAUDIS WERE INJURED.
THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE EXTENT OF CASUALTIES IN THE KHOBAR TOWERS RESULTED, IN PART, FROM THE EXTRAORDINARY SIZE OF THE TERRORIST BOMB THAT CONTAINED THE EQUIVALENT OF 3000 TO 8000 POUNDS OF TNT, BUT A STUDY BY THE DEFENSE SPECIAL WEAPONS AGENCY CONCLUDED THAT THE POWER OF THE BOMB WAS ACTUALLY CLOSER TO 20,000 POUNDS OF TNT, (100 TONS).”
The real conclusion of the report was, in fact, that Saudi Arabia had staged the attack themselves in an attempt to push the US into a war with Iran.
A very similar report was issued by the same agency, working with the IAEA and US Department of Energy, in 2003, offering their theory as to the events of 9/11. That report remains classified.
Putting much of the background together, moving forward the public record on modern nuclear weapons and their secret deployment was the publication of The History of Nuclear Weapons Design 1945 -2016, published by Veterans Today. From that report, written by particle physicist and former IAEA inspector, Jeff Smith with Ian Greenhalgh:
“IN THE MINDS OF MOST PEOPLE, A NUCLEAR WEAPON IS A LARGE DEVICE CARRIED ON THE TIP OF AN ICBM OR CARRIED IN THE BELLY OF A HUGE BOMBER AIRCRAFT THAT WHEN DEPLOYED PRODUCES A COLOSSAL EXPLOSION AND SPECTACULAR MUSHROOM CLOUD JUST LIKE ALL THOSE TERRIFYING 1950S NEWSREELS.
HOWEVER, THIS IS NO LONGER THE CASE – NUCLEAR WEAPON DESIGN IS SEVERAL GENERATIONS IN ADVANCE OF THE BULKY DEVICES OF THE COLD WAR AND TODAY, A WIDE VARIETY OF TYPES OF NUCLEAR WEAPON EXIST AND THEY COME IN ALL SIZES FROM THE SMALLEST ‘MICRO NUKES’ WITH YIELDS MEASURING IN HUNDREDS OF TONNES OF TNT EQUIVALENT UP TO TRULY MONSTROUS TWO AND THREE STAGE BOMBS WITH YIELDS OF MANY MILLIONS OF TONNES OF TNT (MEGATONNES).
THE MEGATONNE CLASS BOMBS HAVE NEVER BEEN DEPLOYED IN ANGER; IF THEY HAD, THERE WOULD BE NO POSSIBLE WAY TO KEEP IT A SECRET – THE DEVASTATION AND FALLOUT WOULD BE ON SUCH A GRAND SCALE AS TO BE IMPOSSIBLE TO HIDE. HOWEVER, THE SUB-KILOTONNE MINI AND MICRO NUKES HAVE BEEN USED MANY TIMES, BOTH IN FALSE FLAG ‘TERRORIST’ ATTACKS LIKE 9-11 AND OK CITY AND IN MILITARY CONFLICTS IN COUNTRIES SUCH AS IRAQ, SYRIA AND YEMEN.
THE SMALL YIELD AND LIMITED DESTRUCTION OF THESE MINI AND MICRO NUKES MEANS IT IS POSSIBLE TO KEEP THEIR USE SECRET; ESPECIALLY WHEN THE MEDIA ARE COMPLIANT AND WILLFULLY IGNORE ANY AND ALL INSTANCES OF THEIR USE. THE WILLINGNESS OF SEVERAL PLAYERS TO USE THESE DIABOLICAL WEAPONS SHOULD SEND A CHILL DOWN THE SPINE OF EVERY SENSIBLE PERSON – WE ARE LIVING IN A NEW NUCLEAR AGE FAR MORE DANGEROUS AND DEADLY THAN THE PREVIOUS COLD WAR ERA WITH ITS BALANCE OF NUCLEAR POWER HELD IN CHECK BY THE TERRIFYING CONCEPT OF MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION.
NOW THAT ADVANCED NUCLEAR WEAPONS HAVE BECOME PART OF THE PLAYBOOK OF MODERN CONFLICT IT BECOMES IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND SOMETHING ABOUT THESE WEAPONS; TO LEARN ABOUT THEIR CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECTS SO THAT IT BECOMES EVER HARDER TO KEEP THEIR USE SECRET.”
The report goes further, not only into specifics of design, miniaturization and the history of weapons development but into a policy of “use and denial.”
“IN THE NEWEST 5TH GENERATION DEVICES THE URANIUM OR PLUTONIUM FISSILE CONTENT HAS BEEN DRASTICALLY REDUCED BY AS MUCH AS 90% ONLY LEAVING ENOUGH FISSILE MATERIAL NEEDED TO IGNITE AND TRIGGER THE INTERNAL FISSION-FUSION-FISSION REACTION OF THE DEUTERIUM BOOST GAS. IN THIS PROCESS, ALMOST ALL OF THE FISSILE MATERIAL IS TOTALLY CONSUMED, PRODUCING ALMOST NO DETECTABLE TRACES OF FALLOUT, AS COMPARED TO THE OLDER DESIGNS FROM THE WW2 ERA.
THESE NEWER 5TH GENERATION WEAPON DESIGNS ARE THE ANARCHIST “21ST CENTURY” FAVORITE TOYS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. BY COVERTLY HIDING THEIR EXISTENCE AWAY FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND SECRETLY USING THEM IN STEALTHY NUCLEAR-BASED GUERRILLA WARFARE ATTACKS ON UNDESIRABLE PERSONS, GOVERNMENTS OR COUNTRIES — SUCH AS THE SAUDI’S USE OF A SMALL TACTICAL NUKE ON YEMEN — WITH THESE NEW WEAPONS OF “VERY SMALL” MASS DESTRUCTION, NO NON-NUCLEAR POSSESSING GOVERNMENT CAN PROPERLY DEFEND ITSELF FROM THIS FORM OF COVERT STATE-SPONSORED NUCLEAR WARFARE.”
As we see, the “nuclear genii” has long been out of the bottle, known to all but those dependent on the fake public narrative, the “facts” allowed, fed to a public long deemed to have no “right to the truth.”
By and large, when the public evaluates, using such tools as it is allowed, the actions of leader, of policies followed, all soaked in spin and rhetoric, it does so with both hands tied behind its back.
Saudi Arabia’s nuclear story, one only touched on here, is one story. There are many, Brazil, Japan, Canada, South Korea, Taiwan, so many more stories, so much fakery hidden behind the classified reports of agencies no one has heard of.
Thus, when the princelings of the Saudi kingdom order killings, fund terrorism and threaten their neighbors, they do so with a nuclear capability, enabled by those who lie for them, those who armed them, those who keep their secrets.
Tuesday, February 12, 2019
Beijing insists on 'indisputable sovereignty' over South China Sea islands after Washington sends two US warships to disputed waters
China expressed anger at a US Navy mission in the disputed South China Sea
The foreign ministry demanded the US 'immediately stop its provocative actions'
Washington says warships were conducteding 'freedom of navigation' exercises
Beijing has voiced its 'strong dissatisfaction' with the United States on Monday after two US warships sailed near islands claimed by China in the South China Sea.
Guided-missile destroyers USS Spruance and USS Preble entered the waters without permission from China, foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying told a daily news briefing in Beijing.
She demanded the US 'immediately stop its provocative actions' after the two destroyers conducted what Washington called 'freedom of navigation' exercises in the area.
+4
The guided-missile destroyer USS Preble departs Naval Base San Diego for a scheduled underway in February 6, 2013. Beijing has voiced its 'strong dissatisfaction' with the US on Monday after two US warships sailed near islands claimed by China in the South China Sea
Beijing and Washington are locked in a trade war and the two sides are trying to hammer out a deal ahead of a March 1 deadline when US tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports are scheduled to increase to 25 per cent from 10 per cent.
Escalating tensions between the United States and China have cost both countries billions of dollars and roiled global financial markets.
'Spruance and Preble sailed within 12 nautical miles of the Spratly Islands in order to challenge excessive maritime claims and preserve access to the waterways as governed by international law,' said Commander Clay Doss, a spokesman for the US Navy's Seventh Fleet cited by CNN.
'The relevant actions of the US warships violated Chinese sovereignty, and undermined peace, security, and order in the relevant sea areas,' Hua said. 'The Chinese side expresses strong dissatisfaction and resolute opposition.'
+4
Guided-missile destroyers USS Spruance (pictured) and USS Preble entered the waters without permission from China, foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said
Aerial view on the The Spratly Islands, one of the major archipelagos in the South China Sea. China has been rapidly expanding its naval capabilities to increase its influence abroad, especially in the disputed waters of the South China Sea
'China has indisputable sovereignty over islands in the South China Sea, including the Second Thomas Shoal, Mischief Reef, and the adjacent waters,' Hua said.
The operation was the latest attempt to counter what Washington sees as Beijing’s efforts to limit freedom of navigation in the strategic waters, where Chinese, Japanese and some Southeast Asian navies operate.
In January, the destroyer USS McCampbell sailed within 12 nautical miles of the Paracel Islands.
China claims almost all of the strategic South China Sea and frequently lambastes the United States and its allies over naval operations near Chinese-occupied islands.
China and the United States have repeatedly traded barbs in the past over what Washington says is Beijing's militarization of the South China Sea by building military installations on artificial islands and reefs.
Moral cowardice that keeps us from speaking our minds is as dangerous to this country as irresponsible talk. The right way is not always the popular and easy way. Standing for right when it is unpopular is a true test of moral character.....Margaret Chase Smith
