Missiles, Missiles everywhere


Back in 2007, when Vladimir Putin promised to rebuild Russia’s military and resume its activities on the world stage, Westerners were complacent. Russia was an economic basket case, after all. It would take years for modernization programs to kick in. And even when they did, they would bring Russian capabilities to no more than what America already has. Right?

That may be the case for some conventional forces. But when it comes to “strategic” missiles – missiles used for the purpose of strategic intimidation – it’s 2012 now, and Russia is unquestionably ahead of the United States. Not in terms of numbers, but in terms of missile capabilities. The Russians have already fielded ICBMs that are better than anything we have. These missiles present a much tougher target for our national ballistic-missile defense network than anything has before. If they are launched against us – and certainly if they’re launched against anyone else – a lot of them are going to get through.

Read full post at Hot Air


35 thoughts on “Missiles, Missiles everywhere”

  1. What is even more frightening is the fact the solid rocket industry has been decimated. A recent report to Congress had this chilling phrase, “For the first time since the 1960’s the US Air Force does not have a large solid rocket missile in development or production,”

    Also, the nuclear enterprise has been withering on the vine since 1991 and I doubt our ability to produce a new advanced nuclear warhead if we had to.

  2. I hope you’re wrong about how quickly we could gear up to produce a new nuke, bobbymike — but I’m definitely not complacent about it. Certainly the maintenance of the existing forces leaves something to be desired.

    It would also be nice to think that we were vigorously pursuing an ever-improving national missile defense to take on the Russian missiles. But that, I know we’re not doing. Obama even took out one of the planned sectors of our NMD with his cancellation of the sites in Poland and Czech Republic. His substitute plan will defend Europe against Iranian-launched missiles. But it won’t defend the US against missiles launched from Russia.

  3. Unfortunately, you are absolutely correct on the US lagging behind in ballistic missile design, development and deployment. This also makes a major confrontation more, rather than less likely. Key industrial facilities necessary for the production of systems related to nuclear ICBM manufacture have been neglected to the point of obsolescence. We fact of the matter is we can no longer “gear up” ICBM production..

    The situation is worse in terms of anti-missile systems. We have nothing to compare with the Russian S-400/500 series weapons system. And won’t for a least a decade (if we start now). By then of course the Russians will have found a way to defeat that system as well.

    This is another manifestation of what happens when you forget who you are and alternately place “idiot sons” and “trainees” in charge of the farm. We have no one to blame but ourselves.

  4. “Russia is unquestionably ahead of the United States. Not in terms of numbers, but in terms of missile capabilities.”

    Obama has already indicated that he wishes to reduce US ICBM capacity to less than China’s. So, he undeniably knows that Russia is now ahead of the US in capabilities. He also knows that our only real advantage is in quantity and yet, he wishes to greatly reduce that…

    Well, draw your own conclusions…

    As for me, eliminating wishful thinking leaves but two possibilities; suicidal foolishness or the planned defeat and/or destruction of America. Gives a whole new meaning to “fundamental transformation” doesn’t it?

  5. yup, with war with Russia right around the corner, we may only prevent being wiped out by surrendering to Putin;s demands one by one hoping to forestall the inevitable

    1. Well, I wasn’t suggesting that it was right around the corner (as you well know) but if down the road a piece, we should find ourselves capitulating to greatly superior Russian technology, guys like you will always find a way to survive, after all, there’s always collaboration, right?

      1. greatly superior Russian technology ???????????

        you’ve GOT to be freakin, GB. the technology in Russia always was and long shall remain inferior.

        1. If the Soviets and the Russians were good at one thing it was building powerful, high throw weight missiles with advanced nuclear warheads.

          1. they were good at a great many things, but overall they faked their way through much because they lagged.

            had a friend who came over from there, brought her parents , both of whom were nuclear physicists involved in Soviet defense work.

            they had all kinds of stories about how generally shoddy everything was….before they died of the cancers that they had contracted on the job

            1. Ah, these parochial leftwingers. That was thirty years ago, when your “paranoid right.wingers” worked hard to keep computer chips and machine tools out of the Soviet Union, while being sneered at by guys like you.

              And even then the Soviets managed to develop working ICBMs in the 1960s, shoddy or not. Now they have had access to any technology money can buy, and we ought to assume that their stuff is good enough to do what it is supposed to do. I´m sure you will be happy to bet your life that it is not so, but a responsible person may beg to differ.

          2. The reason the Soviets had to develop hulking great liquid-fueled ICMB’s in the first place was because their warheads were several times heavier and bulkier than ours for the same yield.

            Having developed these big rockets to deliver their crude warheads the Soviets found they were just the thing for putting cosmonauts into space. The reason we hadn’t such big launchers (until the Atlas system became available) was because our much more advanced and compact warheads didn’t require such large launchers.

        2. That’s certainly been true in the past. But it is their rockets that are lifting our people into space now…

          That’s not definitive but it is indicative of the direction we are currently headed in.

  6. Here we go again………..

    All through the long decades of the Cold War it was an article of faith among the Colonel Blimps of the right that the US was at the wrong end of a “missile gap” vis a vis the USSR. When the truth became undeniable after the fall of the Soviet Union we found that the US had always been technologically ahead of the Ruskies, and the “missile gap” was a figment of fevered imaginations.

    Both our nuclear deterrent and that of the Russians are now beneath the waves and effectively impregnable to a pre-emptive strike which could be garranteed to eliminate even a substantial percentage of either arsenal.

    In the real world the three fundamental facts of nuclear deterrence are:
    1. Both the Russians (ditto the Chinese) and ourselves still possess sufficient submarine based warheads to destroy the other as functioning societies several times over.
    2. No technology, existing or envisaged, is capable of mathematically garranteeing that a significant percentage of missiles launched in a nuclear attack would not get through.
    3. The risk of even one missile getting through and striking a major population center – and the millions of casualties that could be sustained as a result – is an unacceptable risk in the eyes of all sane politicians.

    The rest is moonshine.

    1. give a girl a break, eh.

      some folks spent long years training for the military confrontation with the Soviets that never came and it’s entirely human to indulge in an occasional flashback to glory days.

      1. There’s nothing glorious about war and only those who’ve never experienced it, can attach that characterization. Those willing to place their life at risk, so that you might have the right to disparage their sacrifice, deserve better from you. That readiness to stand and fight if need be is all that keeps you free, though your disparagement proves your unworthiness of that sacrifice.

        1. GB, the glory days alluded to, as you should have picked up in the comment, were NOT spent in war… but in preparation.

          and were you a bit less dense you would realize that I do not disparage military service and never had…….

          I didn’t care for this comment, GB.

          1. Fuster, what you claim you’ve never done… you just did, you’re simply too obtuse to recognize it. Permit me to assist you in recognizing what you said, that clearly you’re unwilling to recognize the implications of… the military who “spent long years training for the military confrontation with the Soviets that never came” are the reason why that confrontation never came.

            Those military personnel, who you most certainly did disparage, spent their lives ensuring, to the best of their ability, that America would be prepared for confrontation and, when push came to shove in the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Soviet’s backed down.

            Those military personnel who you most certainly did insult, “walked softly but carried a mighty big stick” and were willing to use it, if forced. The Soviets recognized that and were not willing to risk Armageddon.

            News flash! It is in preparation that the seeds of either victory or defeat are sown.

            And I don’t respect your ‘fair weather support’ for the military, which invariably hinges upon whether you think your a** is on the line.

    2. Yup, here you go again with revisionist history. It was not an “article of faith’ with the right that the Soviets were ahead of us. The left falsely characterized the rights concerns in that manner, solely for political advantage.

      There was great concern on the right that the Soviets might seize the technological lead, especially after sputnik. Given what was at risk, i.e. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, assuming that we had the lead, only supported by wishful thinking, wasn’t judged prudent.

      Incidentally, those of your ilk pilloried Reagan’s armaments build-up, just as you’re doing now in response to opticon’s concerns and not yet have you had the intellectual honesty to admit that Reagan drawing the Soviets into an arms war led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

      Your ilk also ridiculed Reagan’s Star Wars proposal, the precursor to the Patriot missile defense systems. A variation of which, the Israeli Iron Dome system just proved its worth, yet now the left touts it without ever acknowledging its history, much less giving credit to Reagan. And more importantly, completely failing to acknowledge the validity of the logic that led to both those accomplishments.

      1. Yes, which is why Obama’s desire to greatly reduce our nuclear capabilities to parity with just China is of such notable concern.
      2. Your gullibility in assuming that either the Chinese or Putin care about mass casualties, even in the millions, once they judge that they can triumph over the US is contemptible in an adult. Clearly, your world-view prevents you from understanding or at least responding to megalomania. Invariably the position of the moral coward.
      3. To call you asinine would be to insult the moronic. They’re not ‘sane’ politicians, they’re totalitarian ideologues, thugs at the top of the ideological totem pole, who view the deaths of innocents as ‘great sport’ “The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic.” Joseph Stalin

      Put the moonshine down and drink some coffee, grow a backbone and see the world as it is, not as your juvenile denial of reality paints it.

      1. Reagan’s… Obama’s… Putin… totalitarian ideologues, thugs…Joseph Stalin

        Ergo the actuality is that modern nation states of whatever description (you don’t give any names of Chinese warmongers but there must be some) are the tools of personalities rather than assemblages of humans with similar desires, unless you’re willing to regard the overwhelming majority of Chinese, Iranians, Russians, etc. as sworn enemies of the US version of political organization and economic behavior. Since we’re surrounded by enemies interested only in our demise, in spite of the fact that we’ve provided such an effective model of democratic freedom for over 200 years, why should we arm and wait for their inevitable attack? Why not destroy them before they’re able to interfere with our cell phone communications, cable TV service and central air conditioning? The ideas of Herman Kahn (whose portrait should hang in the lobby of every post office, like that of Marx or Lenin in the Soviet Union) embracing Mutual Assured Destruction may be approaching obsolescence. It probably wouldn’t be that difficult a task for special military units to introduce fatal diseases that could eliminate entire populations of unfriendly barbarians before they’d be able to confiscate our forks and issue chopsticks. And don’t object to biological warfare, it’s no worse than splitting atoms over the heads of children on their way to school.

        1. You continue with a warped and incomplete understanding of power at the top of the political infrastructure, which is defined by the political philosophy of the particular nation state.

          The Chinese, Iranian and Russian people have no say in their leaderships decisions and actions, so they are in fact tools, but of the governmental organization that rules their country. China is ruled by a totalitarian communist oligarchy. Russia by thuggish but modern warlords of whom Putin is the ‘overlord’. Iran by a fanatical theology.

          But we’re NOT “surrounded by enemies interested only in our demise” that’s your false characterization. We are threatened by four enemies; the western left, China and Russia working in a partial alliance and Islam.

          The reason not to destroy them before they do us is because we are not they and because, as long as we maintain a strong technological and geo-political superiority to them, there’s no need. Neither China nor Russia can surpass us, if we do not yield the technological and political field to them, which of course we are doing under Obama. His goal is to weaken America until we are just another ‘equal partner’ in the UN. The possible naivete or probable mendacious of his premise is, in a President, at best incompetence and at worse, treasonous.

          If we do end up “splitting atoms over the heads of children” it will be because we were forced to, as a matter of survival. Our enemies will enthusiastically do it, if ever the opportunity to rule presents itself and they will feel no remorse or regret. That is the difference between us.

    3. “effectively impregnable to a pre-emptive strike…”

      And it has always been so and therefore it will always be so! You speak of the “Colonel Blimps” of the right but have you actually seen the movie of that name? I don´t think so, and if you did you failed to understand its message. You sound almost like the Colonel. The irony is delightful.

  7. Incidentally, our nuclear deterrent consists of submarine launched, megaton yield, MIRV’d thermonuclear warheads, which have been hardened against EMP, and which are accurate to within several meters at the other side of the world.
    We already spend billions of dollars to secure and maintain these devices. We test, replace, and replenish components and materials (such as the tritium boosters) which may deteriorate or degrade, and have developed immensely powerful computer programmes to simulate the effects of modifications and ageing. There is no corner of the planet that is beyond the range of the missiles that deliver these devices.
    To suggest that we now need to “improve” such a weapons system begs the questions “What actually requires improving; why, and to what purpose”?

    1. Actually the D5 carries the W88 warhead with a yield of 455kt or the W76 with a yield of 100kt not Mt. Secondly we have not tested a warhead for 21 years and have NO IDEA whether the computer simulations under the Stockpile Stewardship program reflects the reality of what is actually happening inside an aging warhead. Laboratory directors have stated this in congressional testimony.

      I don’t disagree that ‘today’ our deterrent is effective but you have to plan for 20 to 50 years from now when the US faces a possibly belligerent Russia and or China and a nuclear Iran.

      The Defense Science Board wrote a report concerning the deterioration of nuclear skills and they paint a sobering picture of a weapons infrastructure that has an aging employee knowledge base who will mostly be dead and retired in 20 years with no one to take their place. Guess what to build nukes you have to have a pretty good education. There is no other degree that you can substitute in the civilian workforce that can suddenly start to build weapons if you need them. Ever heard of ‘Fogbank’? When we went to refurbish SLBM warheads we suddenly realized we forgot how to produce a key component and it took a lot longer than we first anticipated. We may not have the chance or the time to ‘relearn’ how to make warheads in a future crisis.

      So you asked my proposal, an immediate ‘Manhattan Project’ style program to replace the MMIII, the D5 and immediate recapitalize the nuclear weapons infrastructure to produce new warheads (and test them) along with advanced concept development so the US is always in the lead ‘in all things nuclear’

      I do not fear the US having the best most advanced weapons in the world, but I do fear when we don’t

    2. Just to add to boobymike’s excellent reply; your position is, in principle, exactly the one that the French touted in 1938. France’s ‘Maginot line’ was deemed by arrogant French generals to be impregnable and thus any worry about the German arms build-up was invalid. Hitler’s generals of course merely did an ‘end run’ around the line and neatly solved that problem.

      The hubris that leads you to presume, that neither the Chinese nor Putin (or his successor) are capable of similar out-of-the-box thinking is the kind of attitude that gets millions killed. Should the Chinese (the more likely) develop breakthrough technology that allows them to reliably identify and target American nuclear submarines at sea with a high degree of success… our ‘Maginot line’ disappears overnight.

      1. Out of the box thinking? Maintaining a continuum of ever more sophisticated and expensive weapons systems is pretty revolutionary, especially from a country that can’t seem to subdue Pashtun tribes tooling around on horseback and in Toyota pick-up trucks.

        As for the Russians, even though our economic superiority demolished their command economy, there’s just something nasty about those guys. Sure, they have elections that resemble those of Chicago, which means that bad guys, guys that want our stuff, get positions of power, so they’re still a threat! They’re not really a democracy, because if they were, we’d have nothing to fear, because democracies don’t go to war with each other! So all the democratic energy we expended to collapse their tyranny was wasted, they’re still evil. So we have to build ever more modern and expensive intercontinental ballistic firearms that will never be used to hold them at bay, the military equivalent of digging holes and filling them up again.

        1. The point, which clearly you’ve missed is that Obama threatens the continuance of “ever more sophisticated and expensive weapons systems” while Russia and China continue to modernize, develop and deploy new weapons systems. That point is compounded by the fact that our weapons systems are increasingly on the precipice of, if not obsolescence, at least substantively diminished capability vis a vis our enemies more modern systems..

          The Chinese are working on weaponizing space and that is a game changer. The Chinese have developed and deployed new surface to surface missile systems specifically developed to take out our aircraft carriers. A capability that never existed heretofore.

          You mistake an ‘inability’ “to subdue Pashtun tribes tooling around on horseback and in Toyota pick-up trucks” with the conditions which lead to our ineffectiveness; the strategic and tactical limitations that our inability to pursue the Taliban and al Qaeda into their lairs in Pakistan pose and the ludicrous ROE our forces labor under, due to the futility of nation building in that part of the world.

          Thuggish Russians do not inherently pose nearly the national security threat that the ideological Soviets posed. Our difficulties with Putin and his Russian cabal center upon our unwillingness to face up to his covert war of aggression against the US, the tactics of which are; facilitating the capabilities of Islamic jihadist terrorist groups and facilitating Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and encouraging the spread of nuclear proliferation into unstable third-world societies.

          Once faced, a comprehensive strategy could be developed to neutralize Putin’s efforts and then the current Russian threat would start to diminish, thus the blood and treasure we expended to collapse the Soviet’s tyranny was NOT wasted.

          In a world in which, the ONLY reason that you, I and all Americans “sleep peaceably in their beds at night, [is] only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf”…
          the entire point of creating and deploying “ever more modern and expensive intercontinental ballistic firearms” is to ensure that they will never need to be used!

          Don’t build them and our enemies will use the ones they develop against us, to deny that reality is a form of insanity. Weapons are not needed in heaven because there are no devils in heaven, we have here on earth a plenitude of ‘devils’. Our choice is simple; create and carry bigger, ‘badder’ weapons than our human devils…or become their sheep, harvested at their pleasure.

          1. How much “bigger and badder” is necessary? Doesn’t the US already have enough nuclear capability to reduce the entire planet to galactic dust? As everyone now realizes, the competition in weapons systems between the US and the Soviets resulted in proof positive that even the imitation of a free market system was vastly superior to a command economy, at least in the short run. But we don’t live in a static world. Unless there is some basis in fact to Keynesian economics, the US is on a treadmill of military spending that will result in a similar denouement as that of the Soviets, especially when coupled with massive and growing domestic

            Eisenhower warned us of the dangers presented by the military-industrial complex, which, of course is only one group of pigs pushing into the trough of public funding. There’s lots of others but we’re not talking of them presently. The military, whose highest echelons are an hereditary oligarchy, is perfectly willing to align with the defense industry in propagating the belief that “more” is the answer to whatever the question might be. Morality cast aside, what has been the cost in dollars for each enemy casualty in the Middle East since 1991? How much would be too much? If our present pseudo-conflict with the Russians and Chinese (who respectively send hockey players and physics students to the US) should end in nuclear explosions, then MAD will have been, after all these years, a failure. Just as the previously mentioned Maginot Line proved to be a horrible mistake on the part of a French military living in the past, in fact an invitation to invasion, eleven aircraft carriers and the swarms of attendant vessels needed to supply and protect them are a vestige of another age, no matter how technologically impressive and fun they are.

            The best defense policy for the US isn’t military domination or diplomatic fondling. It’s ever increasing international trade and business relationships.

            1. History proves that weapons technology is disruptive and paradigm destroying. What once was sufficient deterrent becomes in time, insufficient. If you wait until your enemy announces disruptive technology, it is far too late, a case of closing the barn door after the horse has already escaped.

              Until human nature changes, one must always act as if ‘the barbarians are at the gate’ because once they sense the weakness of unpreparedness and irresoluteness, they will shortly be at the gate. History proves this beyond dispute. The price of liberty is the blood of patriots holding the wolves at bay. You either pay that price or sooner or later, you, your children or your children’s children will live in slavery.

              Welcome to the real world, neo.

          2. Our difficulties with Putin and his Russian cabal center upon our unwillingness to face up to his covert war of aggression against the US, the tactics of which are; facilitating the capabilities of Islamic jihadist terrorist groups and facilitating Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and encouraging the spread of nuclear proliferation into unstable third-world societies.

            Why would Putin and his Russian cabal, who’ve had plenty of their own problems with jihadis, want to empower them? They actually have organized Islamic nut case populations living among and next to them. Just because the hyper-Muslims dislike the US, doesn’t mean that they’re fans of Ivan.

            “The spread of proliferation”? Anyway, all that is just as much or more of a negative for the Russians (and the Chinese) as it is for the US.

            1. It’s not that difficult to understand Chuck. Putin and his Russian cabal, want to empower jihadists because it is a means of covertly attacking the US. They are proxies and the Russians employ your very argument to give themselves plausible deniability. Since actions continue to speak louder than words, the Russian’s irreplaceable and critical facilitation of Iran’s drive to produce nuclear weapons, along with their consistent blockage in the UN of really tough economic and political sanctions, tells us their real motivations. No other explanation fits the observed facts.

              Russia and China are not worried about increased jihadist capabilities. Not only are they not the ‘Great Satan’ but when the Great Satan has been neutered, the Islamic threat will be eliminated. When the time comes, Putin and China will have no moral considerations to hesitate over in turning the ME into a glass parking lot.

              The end goal is jihadist nuclear terrorist attacks upon US cities. Most probably our port cities, which are incredibly easy to attack. 16 of the 20 largest American cities are port cities and disrupting the international commerce that flows into and out of those ports would have, along with nuclear attacks, a near permanent devastation of the American economy.

              That circumstance would result in the near-permanent imposition of martial law and the natural reaction of isolationism with America falling into a ‘fortress America’ psychology. That would result in a severe contraction of America’s presence overseas, leaving open much of the world to greatly increased Russian and Chinese influence.

              Nuclear proliferation is central to Russia’s strategy because once enough unstable third world countries have attained nuclear capability, nukes ‘falling into the hands’ of jihadists through rogue elements will greatly reduce any retaliatory response the US might employ. As, how do you retaliate with nukes against al Qaeda?

              The economic backlash for Russia and China to this strategy is only of major concern if you believe that Putin and the Chinese leadership place more value upon the financial considerations of ‘business relationships’ than ideology. A fatal mistake in my view.

              1. it is a means of covertly attacking the US.

                It can’t be too covert or you wouldn’t know about it.

                Russia and China are not worried about increased jihadist capabilities.

                You’re making that up. You can’t possibly know what the leadership of either of those countries is thinking. If they haven’t considered the issues of Islamic rebellion in their own sphere of influence they’re too dumb to be taken seriously.

                The end goal is jihadist nuclear terrorist attacks upon US cities.

                Goal of whom? The Russians? The Chinese? Why would they want that? Wouldn’t they then be next on the list? Or is it the goal
                of the wahabis themselves to exterminate life on earth? Don’t you suppose that the Russians and Chinese leaders have given the motives and goals of the jihadis some consideration? Or is everybody but some of us nuts?

                As, how do you retaliate with nukes against al Qaeda?

                You use rockets or airplanes or drones. Or even nuclear land mines or artillery shells. What’s the big deal? Why would anyone believe that the Russians, for instance, would want a gaggle of Triton missiles with MIRVs on them detonating in the tribal areas along the Afghan-Pakistan border? Could they rule out that response? That the US would never retaliate in that manner to a nuclear attack by a non-state entity? Didn’t work for the Iraqis.

                The economic backlash for Russia and China to this strategy is only of major concern if you believe that Putin and the Chinese leadership place more value upon the financial considerations of ‘business relationships’ than ideology.

                If that were the case why would these two be involved in international economic activity at all? Why would the Russians be selling natural gas to the rest of Europe? Why has the Satanic Putin become a billionaire? How come the Chinese send the US shiploads of stuff and accept US money in exchange? If they care more about fairy tale Marxism than they do about money, they’re not doing a very good job of showing it. It’s possible, perhaps, that Putin has a copy of Das Kapital on his nightstand but I doubt it. It’s more likely that he nods off perusing his translation of The Wealth of Nations or maybe The Prince,

                1. I’m reminded of Benjamin Franklin who pointed out that, when one person’s premises differ from another’s and the other person reached their position through emotion, reason advanced from the different premise is entirely insufficient to persuade the other person.

                  That said, I’ll respond without much hope that it will penetrate your willful obtuseness in hopes that it will provide food for thought for those less enamored with their own presuppositions.

                  I don’t claim to know it, I do claim to surmise it, based upon it being the only theory thus far advanced, that explains the Russian’s insistence that Iran have the bomb.

                  ” You can’t possibly know what the leadership of either of those countries is thinking.”

                  I don’t claim to know what they’re thinking, only what they do. Clearly, Iran having the bomb and the nuclear proliferation that will follow does not concern Putin nor China or they would not be acting so consistently to prevent the US from stopping Iran. They are not neutral, they are in Iran’s corner. Actively facilitating Iran’s pursuit of nukes. Nothing you’ve offered changes that fact or explains it.

                  The end goal of Russia and, less actively China… is jihadist nuclear terrorist attacks upon US cities. And I explained why; to greatly reduce America’s presence and influence on the world stage. And I’ve already explained why the Russians and Chinese are not worried about jihadist attacks; America and Israel are the targets of jihadists. When Islamists start to think about Russia and China, they will eliminate the threat. That will be easily done with a first strike, as Islamist nation states lack the industrial infrastructure and technological know how to build nuclear submarines, etc. necessary to fielding a second strike capability.

                  Unfortunately, US retaliation against a nuclear terrorist attack with “rockets or airplanes or drones or even nuclear land mines or artillery shells” won’t begin to stop further nuclear terrorist attacks. Al Qaeda is not territorially based, conventional retaliatory strategies won’t work against a dispersed, cell structure configured organization like Al Qaeda.

                  Russia and China are involved in international economic activity and “the Chinese send the US shiploads of stuff and accept US money in exchange” because they learned through the demise of the Soviet Union that economic strength is the prime determinant in winning an arms race. The south in the American civil war learned the same lesson. Russia’s growing superiority in strategic missile capability is due to her economic strength. China’s growing modern Navy and technological capacity is due to her economic strength.

                  “All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident.” — Arthur Schopenhauer

                  I see you’re in the ridicule phase of denial.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: