What's new

War in Ukraine - Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

airmarshal

ELITE MEMBER
Jul 28, 2010
9,048
11
12,051
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada

Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb​

The longer the proxy war in Ukraine continues, the closer we come to a direct confrontation with Russia. Once that happens, the Dr. Strangeloves running the show will reach for the nukes.​


Chris Hedges
4 hr ago





Bombs Away - by Mr. Fish







I have covered enough wars to know that once you open that Pandora’s box, the many evils that pour out are beyond anyone’s control. War accelerates the whirlwind of industrial killing. The longer any war continues, the closer and closer each side comes to self-annihilation. Unless it is stopped, the proxy war between Russia and the U.S. in Ukraine all but guarantees direct confrontation with Russia and, with it, the very real possibility of nuclear war.

Joe Biden, who doesn’t always seem to be quite sure where he is or what he is supposed to be saying, is being propped up in the I-am-a-bigger-man-than-you contest with Vladimir Putin by a coterie of rabid warmongers who have orchestrated over 20 years of military fiascos. They are salivating at the prospect of taking on Russia, and then, if there is any habitation left on the globe, China. Trapped in the polarizing mindset of the Cold War — where any effort to de-escalate conflicts through diplomacy is considered appeasement, a perfidious Munich moment — they smugly push the human species closer and closer toward obliteration. Unfortunately for us, one of these true believers is Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

“Putin is saying he is not bluffing. Well, he cannot afford bluffing, and it has to be clear that the people supporting Ukraine and the European Union and the Member States, and the United States and NATO are not bluffing neither,” EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell warned. “Any nuclear attack against Ukraine will create an answer, not a nuclear answer but such a powerful answer from the military side that the Russian Army will be annihilated.”

Annihilated. Are these people insane?

You know we are in trouble when Donald Trump is the voice of reason.

“We must demand the immediate negotiation of a peaceful end to the war in Ukraine, or we will end up in world war three” the former president said. “And there will be nothing left of our planet — all because stupid people didn't have a clue ... They don't understand what they’re dealing with, the power of nuclear.”

I dealt with many of these ideologues — David Petraeus, Elliot Abrams, Robert Kagan, Victoria Nuland — as a foreign correspondent for The New York Times. Once you strip away their chest full of medals or fancy degrees, you find shallow men and women, craven careerists who obsequiously serve the war industry that ensures their promotions, pays the budgets of their think tanks and showers them with money as board members of military contractors. They are the pimps of war. If you reported on them, as I did, you would not sleep well at night. They are vain enough and stupid enough to blow up the world long before we go extinct because of the climate crisis, which they have also dutifully accelerated.

If, as Joe Biden says, Putin is “not joking” about using nuclear weapons and we risk nuclear “Armageddon,” why isn’t Biden on the phone to Putin? Why doesn’t he follow the example of John F. Kennedy, who repeatedly communicated with Nikita Khrushchev to negotiate an end to the Cuban missile crisis? Kennedy, who unlike Biden served in the military, knew the obtuseness of generals. He had the good sense to ignore Curtis LeMay, the Air Force Chief of Staff and head of the Strategic Air Command, as well as the model for General Jack D. Ripper in “Dr. Strangelove,” who urged Kennedy to bomb the Cuban missile bases, an act that would have probably ignited a nuclear war. Biden is not made of the same stuff.

Why is Washington sending $50 billion in arms and assistance to sustain the conflict in Ukraine and promising billions more for “as long as it takes”? Why did Washington and Whitehall dissuade Vladimir Zelensky, a former stand-up comic who has been magically transformed by these war lovers into the new Winston Churchill, from pursuing negotiations with Moscow, set up by Turkey? Why do they believe that militarily humiliating Putin, whom they are also determined to remove from power, won’t lead him to do the unthinkable in a final act of desperation?

Moscow strongly implied it would use nuclear weapons in response to a “threat” to its “territorial integrity,” and the pimps of war shouted down anyone who expressed concern that we all might go up in mushroom clouds, labeling them traitors who are weakening Ukrainian and Western resolve. Giddy at the battlefield losses suffered by Russia, they poke the Russian bear with ever greater ferocity. The Pentagon helped plan Ukraine’s latest counteroffensive, and the CIA passes on battlefield intelligence. We are slipping, as we did in Vietnam, from advising, arming, funding and supporting, into fighting.

None of this is helped by Zelensky’s suggestion that, to deter the use of nuclear weapons by Russia, NATO should launch “preventive strikes.”

“Waiting for the nuclear strikes first and then to say ‘what’s going to happen to them.’ No! There is a need to review the way the pressure is being exerted. So there is a need to review this procedure,” he said.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the remarks, which Zelensky tried to roll back, were “nothing else than a call to start a world war.”

The West has been baiting Moscow for decades. I reported from Eastern Europe at the end of the Cold War. I watched these militarists set out to build what they called a unipolar world — a world where they alone ruled. First, they broke promises not to expand NATO beyond the borders of a unified Germany. Then they broke promises not to “permanently station substantial combat forces” in the new NATO member countries in Eastern and Central Europe. Then they broke promises not to station missile systems along Russia’s border. Then they broke promises not to interfere in the internal affairs of border states such as Ukraine, orchestrating the 2014 coup that ousted the elected government of Victor Yanukovich, replacing it with an anti-Russian — fascist aligned — government, which, in turn, led to an 8-year-long civil war, as the Russian populated regions in the east sought independence from Kiev. They armed Ukraine with NATO weapons and trained 100,000 Ukrainian soldiers after the coup. Then they recruited neutral Finland and Sweden into NATO. Now the U.S. is being asked to send advanced long-range missile systems to Ukraine, which Russia says would make the U.S. “a direct party to the conflict.” But blinded by hubris and lacking any understanding of geopolitics, they push us, like the hapless generals in the Austro-Hungarian empire, towards catastrophe.

We call for total victory. Russia annexes four Ukrainian provinces. We help Ukraine bomb the Kerch Bridge. Russia rains missiles down on Ukrainian cities. We give Ukraine sophisticated air defense systems. We gloat over Russian losses. Russia introduces conscription. Now Russia carries out drone and cruise missile attacks on power, sewage and water treatment plants. Where does it end?

“Is the United States, for example, trying to help bring an end to this conflict, through a settlement that would allow for a sovereign Ukraine and some kind of relationship between the United States and Russia?” a New York Times editorial asks. “Or is the United States now trying to weaken Russia permanently? Has the administration’s goal shifted to destabilizing Putin or having him removed? Does the United States intend to hold Putin accountable as a war criminal? Or is the goal to try to avoid a wider war — and if so, how does crowing about providing U.S. intelligence to kill Russians and sink one of their ships achieve this?”

No one has any answers.

The Times editorial ridicules the folly of attempting to recapture all of Ukrainian territory, especially those territories populated by ethnic Russians.

“A decisive military victory for Ukraine over Russia, in which Ukraine regains all the territory Russia has seized since 2014, is not a realistic goal,” it reads. “Though Russia’s planning and fighting have been surprisingly sloppy, Russia remains too strong, and Mr. Putin has invested too much personal prestige in the invasion to back down.”

But common sense, along with realistic military objectives and an equitable peace, is overpowered by the intoxication of war.

On October 17, NATO countries began a two-week-long exercise in Europe, called Steadfast Noon, in which 60 aircraft, including fighter jets and long-range bombers flown in from Minot Air Base in North Dakota are simulating dropping thermonuclear bombs on European targets. This exercise happens annually. But the timing is nevertheless ominous. The U.S. has some 150 “tactical” nuclear warheads stationed in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.

Ukraine will be a long and costly war of attrition, one that will leave much of Ukraine in ruins and hundreds of thousands of families convulsed by lifelong grief. If NATO prevails and Putin feels his hold on power is in jeopardy, what will stop him from lashing out in desperation? Russia has the world's largest arsenal of tactical nukes, weapons that can kill tens of thousands if used on a city. It also possesses nearly 6,000 nuclear warheads. Putin does not want to end up, like his Serbian allies Slobodan Milošević and Ratko Mladić, as a convicted war criminal in the Hague. Nor does he want to go the way of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi. What will stop him from upping the ante if he feels cornered?







There is something grimly cavalier about how political, military and intelligence chiefs, including CIA Director William Burns, a former U.S. Ambassador to Moscow, agree about the danger of humiliating and defeating Putin and the specter of nuclear war.

“Given the potential desperation of President Putin and the Russian leadership, given the setbacks that they've faced so far, militarily, none of us can take lightly the threat posed by a potential resort to tactical nuclear weapons or low-yield nuclear weapons,” Burns said in remarks at Georgia Tech in Atlanta.

Former CIA Director Leon Panetta, who also served as Defense Secretary under President Barack Obama, wrote this month that U.S. intelligence agencies believe the odds of the war in Ukraine spiraling into a nuclear war are as high as one in four.

The Director of National Intelligence, Avril Haines, echoed this warning, telling the Senate Armed Services Committee in May that if Putin believed there was an existential threat to Russia, he could resort to nuclear weapons.

“We do think that [Putin’s perception of an existential threat] could be the case in the event that he perceives that he is losing the war in Ukraine, and that NATO in effect is either intervening or about to intervene in that context, which would obviously contribute to a perception that he is about to lose the war in Ukraine,” Haines said.

“As this war and its consequences slowly weaken Russian conventional strength…Russia likely will increasingly rely on its nuclear deterrent to signal the West and project strength to its internal and external audiences,” Lt. Gen. Scott Berrier wrote in the Defense Intelligence Agency’s threat assessment submitted to the same Armed Services Committee at the end of April.

Given these assessments, why don’t Burns, Panetta, Haines and Berrier, urgently advocate diplomacy with Russia to de-escalate the nuclear threat?

This war should never have happened. The U.S. was well aware it was provoking Russia. But it was drunk on its own power, especially as it emerged as the world’s sole superpower at the end of the Cold War, and besides, there were billions in profits to be made in arms sales to new NATO members.

In 2008, when Burns was serving as the Ambassador to Moscow, he wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”

Sixty-six U.N. members, most from the global south, have called for diplomacy to end the war in Ukraine, as required by the U.N. Charter. But few of the big power players are listening.

If you think nuclear war can’t happen, pay a visit to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These Japanese cities had no military value. They were wiped out because most of the rest of Japan’s urban centers had already been destroyed by saturation bombing campaigns directed by LeMay. The U.S. knew Japan was crippled and ready to surrender, but it wanted to send a message to the Soviet Union that with its new atomic weapons it was going to dominate the world.

We saw how that turned out.
 

khansaheeb

ELITE MEMBER
Dec 14, 2008
14,686
-7
16,511
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
From multipolar Super powers we could end up having bipolar Super Powers : US and China. The question is who will pay the price and what will the cost be. I asked my fellow Americans where does their tax dollars go and they didn't have a clue. There is no accountability or transparency as the paws take out as much honey money as they need for their grandiose world domination schemes while houses are foreclosed and many people thrown out of their dwellings to live on the streets , in cars and RVs.

The US strategy makes no sense since if there is direct conflict between the US and Russia then China will be the clear winner and will climb to the number one spot to a new defined Unipolar position with India at the heels.

Whether it is a limited or unlimited, nuclear war is a real prospect and the initial Russians targets will be the Ukraines/ Europoodles which the Russians would want to make an example of as a warning to the US. NATO countries should start preparing their people for Nuclear war as the Russians raise the stakes. The Neocons have raised the stakes even higher to all or nothing and recklessly ignoring the signs , it is the Neocon's last stand before they get relegated to the trash can of history and inadvertently sacrifice Israel to their end.
 

BHAN85

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 5, 2015
2,421
-3
1,476
Country
Spain
Location
Spain
From multipolar Super powers we could end up having bipolar Super Powers : US and China. The question is who will pay the price and what will the cost be. I asked my fellow Americans where does their tax dollars go and they didn't have a clue. There is no accountability or transparency as the paws take out as much honey money as they need for their grandiose world domination schemes while houses are foreclosed and many people thrown out of their dwellings to live on the streets , in cars and RVs.

The US strategy makes no sense since if there is direct conflict between the US and Russia then China will be the clear winner and will climb to the number one spot to a new defined Unipolar position with India at the heels.

Whether it is a limited or unlimited, nuclear war is a real prospect and the initial Russians targets will be the Ukraines/ Europoodles which the Russians would want to make an example of as a warning to the US. NATO countries should start preparing their people for Nuclear war as the Russians raise the stakes. The Neocons have raised the stakes even higher to all or nothing and recklessly ignoring the signs , it is the Neocon's last stand before they get relegated to the trash can of history and inadvertently sacrifice Israel to their end.

We know nothing about USA real caps in Nuclear World War.

We know nothing about what the hell Boeing X-37B is doing circling around the world.

We know nothing about how good are the several American anti ballistic shields.

We know nothing about if USA can handle world weather through ionospheric heaters.

And so on.

But we know that USA today is incredibly much more aggresive against Russia than USA 20 years ago.

So it must be due to something.

European EU countries are another thing, they are vassals dumb states and they can go to the suicide happily.

But USA is for sure that not.

My suspicion is the next: USA mainland can't be bombed, ABM shields are good enough to stop any foreign attack automatically, it can works even in dead hand mode. It can't happen human errors, any amount of missiles launched against USA will be stopped automatically, even weather mayhem from a Eurasia nuclear war can be fixed by USA using HAARP.

So USA rulers are very calm down making threats to Russia, they know that it doesnt matter what will happen, they wont be affected.

By the other side EU is plenty of dumbshit corrupt rulers.
 
Last edited:

khansaheeb

ELITE MEMBER
Dec 14, 2008
14,686
-7
16,511
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
We know nothing about USA real caps in Nuclear World War.

We know nothing about what the hell Boeing X-37B is doing circling around the world.

We know nothing about how good are the several American anti ballistic shields.

We know nothing about if USA can handle world weather through ionospheric heaters.

And so on.

But we know that USA today is incredibly much more aggresive against Russia than USA 20 years ago.

So it must be due to something.

European EU countries are another thing, they are vassals dumb states and they can go to the suicide happily.

But USA is for sure that not.

My suspicion is the next: USA mainland can't be bombed, ABM shields are good enough to stop any foreign attack automatically, it can works even in dead hand mode. It can't happen human errors, any amount of missiles launched against USA will be stopped automatically, even weather mayhem from a Eurasia nuclear war can be fixed by USA using HAARP.

So USA rulers are very calm down making threats to Russia, they know that it doesnt matter what will happen, they wont be affected.

By the other side EU is plenty of dumbshit corrupt rulers.
X--37B will no doubt be used to disrupt /Destroy Russian and Chinese satellites.


Air Force X-37B Robotic Space Plane: Nearing Record Flight

PostAuthorIcon
By Leonard David
PostDateIcon
June 25th, 2022

Credit: Boeing/Inside Outer Space Screengrab

That Earth-circling U.S. military X-37B robotic space drone is closing in on a new long-duration record.
The Orbital Test Vehicle (OTV-6) is also called USSF-7 for the U.S. Space Force, and was launched on May 17, 2020 by an Atlas-V 501 booster and is winging past 770 days.
Flight of a previous record-holder was OTV-5 that spent nearly 780 days on-orbit.

Encapsulated X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle for U.S. Space Force-7 mission, now in Earth orbit.
Credit: Boeing
Onboard experiments
While the Boeing-built robotic space plane’s on-orbit primary agenda is classified, some of its onboard experiments were discussed pre-launch.
One experiment onboard the space plane is from the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), an investigation into transforming solar power into radio frequency microwave energy. The experiment itself is called the Photovoltaic Radio-frequency Antenna Module, PRAM for short.

X-37B handout.
Credit: Boeing
Along with toting NRL’s PRAM into Earth orbit, the X-37B also deployed the FalconSat-8, a small satellite developed by the U.S. Air Force Academy and sponsored by the Air Force Research Laboratory to conduct several experiments on orbit.
In addition, two NASA experiments are tucked onboard the space plane to study the effects of the space environment on a materials sample plate and seeds used to grow food.



OTV-6 is the first to use a service module to host experiments. The service module is an attachment to the aft of the vehicle that allows additional experimental payload capability to be carried to orbit.

The U.S. Air Force’s X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle 4 is seen after landing at NASA ‘s Kennedy Space Center Shuttle Landing Facility in Florida on May 7, 2017.
Credit: U.S. Air Force courtesy photo
Earlier flights
Here’s a roster of X-37B missions showing the increasing duration of flight time.
OTV-1: launched on April 22, 2010 and landed on December 3, 2010, spending over 224 days on orbit.
OTV-2: launched on March 5, 2011 and landed on June 16, 2012, spending over 468 days on orbit.
OTV-3: launched on December 11, 2012 and landed on October 17, 2014, spending over 674 days on-orbit.
OTV-4: launched on May 20, 2015 and landed on May 7, 2015, spending nearly 718 days on-orbit.
OTV-5: launched on September 7, 2017 and landed on October 27, 2019, spending nearly 780 days on-orbit.
As to when and where OTV-6 will return to a wheels-stopped landing is anybody’s guess.
OTV-1, OTV-2, and OTV-3 missions landed at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, while the OTV-4 and OTV-5 missions landed at Kennedy Space Center, Florida.

Post-landing of OTV-5 at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center Shuttle Landing Facility.
Courtesy Photo 45th Space Wing Public Affairs
Overseeing operations
The X-37B program is flown under the auspices of a U.S. Space Force unit called Delta 9, established and activated July 24, 2020.
In a description of Delta 9, current as of September 2020:
“Delta 9 Detachment 1 oversees operations of the X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle, an experimental program designed to demonstrate technologies for a reliable, reusable, unmanned space test platform for the U.S. Space Force,” according to a fact sheet issued by Schriever Air Force Base in Colorado.

Delta 9 unit emblem.
Credit: U.S. Space Force
“The mission of Delta 9 is to prepare, present, and project assigned and attached forces for the purpose of conducting protect and defend operations and providing national decision authorities with response options to deter and, when necessary, defeat orbital threats,” the fact sheet explains. “Additionally, Delta 9 supports Space Domain Awareness by conducting space-based battlespace characterization operations and also conducts on-orbit experimentation and technology demonstrations for the U.S. Space Force.”
Vehicle features
Boeing, as the space plane maker, notes that the vehicle features many elements that mark a first use in space, including:
  • Avionics designed to automate all de-orbit and landing functions.
  • Flight controls and brakes using all electro-mechanical actuation; no hydraulics on board.
  • Built using a lighter composite structure, rather than traditional aluminum.
  • New generation of high-temperature wing leading-edge tiles and toughened uni-piece fibrous refractory oxidation-resistant ceramic (TUFROC) tiles.
  • Advanced conformal reusable insulation (CRI) blankets.
  • Toughened uni-piece fibrous insulation (TUFI) impregnated silica tiles.

Air Force X-37B space plane.
Credit: Boeing
According to a Boeing fact sheet, “the X-37B is one of the world’s newest and most advanced re-entry spacecraft, designed to operate in low-earth orbit, 150 to 500 miles above the Earth. The vehicle is the first since the Space Shuttle with the ability to return experiments to Earth for further inspection and analysis. This United States Air Force unmanned space vehicle explores reusable vehicle technologies that support long-term space objectives.”
At first designed to fly 270 days per mission, Boeing adds that “the X-37B has set progressive records for time on orbit during each of its five previous missions.”

Credit: Kevin Fetter



Go to this June 25, 2022 video of OTV-6 flying overhead, taken by Canadian skywatcher Kevin Fetter. “Nice to have a clear sky again, after a few cloudy one’s,” he says.
Video at:
 

ziaulislam

ELITE MEMBER
Apr 22, 2010
20,150
9
21,304
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States

Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb​

The longer the proxy war in Ukraine continues, the closer we come to a direct confrontation with Russia. Once that happens, the Dr. Strangeloves running the show will reach for the nukes.​


Chris Hedges
4 hr ago




Bombs Away - by Mr. Fish







I have covered enough wars to know that once you open that Pandora’s box, the many evils that pour out are beyond anyone’s control. War accelerates the whirlwind of industrial killing. The longer any war continues, the closer and closer each side comes to self-annihilation. Unless it is stopped, the proxy war between Russia and the U.S. in Ukraine all but guarantees direct confrontation with Russia and, with it, the very real possibility of nuclear war.

Joe Biden, who doesn’t always seem to be quite sure where he is or what he is supposed to be saying, is being propped up in the I-am-a-bigger-man-than-you contest with Vladimir Putin by a coterie of rabid warmongers who have orchestrated over 20 years of military fiascos. They are salivating at the prospect of taking on Russia, and then, if there is any habitation left on the globe, China. Trapped in the polarizing mindset of the Cold War — where any effort to de-escalate conflicts through diplomacy is considered appeasement, a perfidious Munich moment — they smugly push the human species closer and closer toward obliteration. Unfortunately for us, one of these true believers is Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

“Putin is saying he is not bluffing. Well, he cannot afford bluffing, and it has to be clear that the people supporting Ukraine and the European Union and the Member States, and the United States and NATO are not bluffing neither,” EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell warned. “Any nuclear attack against Ukraine will create an answer, not a nuclear answer but such a powerful answer from the military side that the Russian Army will be annihilated.”

Annihilated. Are these people insane?

You know we are in trouble when Donald Trump is the voice of reason.

“We must demand the immediate negotiation of a peaceful end to the war in Ukraine, or we will end up in world war three” the former president said. “And there will be nothing left of our planet — all because stupid people didn't have a clue ... They don't understand what they’re dealing with, the power of nuclear.”

I dealt with many of these ideologues — David Petraeus, Elliot Abrams, Robert Kagan, Victoria Nuland — as a foreign correspondent for The New York Times. Once you strip away their chest full of medals or fancy degrees, you find shallow men and women, craven careerists who obsequiously serve the war industry that ensures their promotions, pays the budgets of their think tanks and showers them with money as board members of military contractors. They are the pimps of war. If you reported on them, as I did, you would not sleep well at night. They are vain enough and stupid enough to blow up the world long before we go extinct because of the climate crisis, which they have also dutifully accelerated.

If, as Joe Biden says, Putin is “not joking” about using nuclear weapons and we risk nuclear “Armageddon,” why isn’t Biden on the phone to Putin? Why doesn’t he follow the example of John F. Kennedy, who repeatedly communicated with Nikita Khrushchev to negotiate an end to the Cuban missile crisis? Kennedy, who unlike Biden served in the military, knew the obtuseness of generals. He had the good sense to ignore Curtis LeMay, the Air Force Chief of Staff and head of the Strategic Air Command, as well as the model for General Jack D. Ripper in “Dr. Strangelove,” who urged Kennedy to bomb the Cuban missile bases, an act that would have probably ignited a nuclear war. Biden is not made of the same stuff.

Why is Washington sending $50 billion in arms and assistance to sustain the conflict in Ukraine and promising billions more for “as long as it takes”? Why did Washington and Whitehall dissuade Vladimir Zelensky, a former stand-up comic who has been magically transformed by these war lovers into the new Winston Churchill, from pursuing negotiations with Moscow, set up by Turkey? Why do they believe that militarily humiliating Putin, whom they are also determined to remove from power, won’t lead him to do the unthinkable in a final act of desperation?

Moscow strongly implied it would use nuclear weapons in response to a “threat” to its “territorial integrity,” and the pimps of war shouted down anyone who expressed concern that we all might go up in mushroom clouds, labeling them traitors who are weakening Ukrainian and Western resolve. Giddy at the battlefield losses suffered by Russia, they poke the Russian bear with ever greater ferocity. The Pentagon helped plan Ukraine’s latest counteroffensive, and the CIA passes on battlefield intelligence. We are slipping, as we did in Vietnam, from advising, arming, funding and supporting, into fighting.

None of this is helped by Zelensky’s suggestion that, to deter the use of nuclear weapons by Russia, NATO should launch “preventive strikes.”

“Waiting for the nuclear strikes first and then to say ‘what’s going to happen to them.’ No! There is a need to review the way the pressure is being exerted. So there is a need to review this procedure,” he said.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the remarks, which Zelensky tried to roll back, were “nothing else than a call to start a world war.”

The West has been baiting Moscow for decades. I reported from Eastern Europe at the end of the Cold War. I watched these militarists set out to build what they called a unipolar world — a world where they alone ruled. First, they broke promises not to expand NATO beyond the borders of a unified Germany. Then they broke promises not to “permanently station substantial combat forces” in the new NATO member countries in Eastern and Central Europe. Then they broke promises not to station missile systems along Russia’s border. Then they broke promises not to interfere in the internal affairs of border states such as Ukraine, orchestrating the 2014 coup that ousted the elected government of Victor Yanukovich, replacing it with an anti-Russian — fascist aligned — government, which, in turn, led to an 8-year-long civil war, as the Russian populated regions in the east sought independence from Kiev. They armed Ukraine with NATO weapons and trained 100,000 Ukrainian soldiers after the coup. Then they recruited neutral Finland and Sweden into NATO. Now the U.S. is being asked to send advanced long-range missile systems to Ukraine, which Russia says would make the U.S. “a direct party to the conflict.” But blinded by hubris and lacking any understanding of geopolitics, they push us, like the hapless generals in the Austro-Hungarian empire, towards catastrophe.

We call for total victory. Russia annexes four Ukrainian provinces. We help Ukraine bomb the Kerch Bridge. Russia rains missiles down on Ukrainian cities. We give Ukraine sophisticated air defense systems. We gloat over Russian losses. Russia introduces conscription. Now Russia carries out drone and cruise missile attacks on power, sewage and water treatment plants. Where does it end?

“Is the United States, for example, trying to help bring an end to this conflict, through a settlement that would allow for a sovereign Ukraine and some kind of relationship between the United States and Russia?” a New York Times editorial asks. “Or is the United States now trying to weaken Russia permanently? Has the administration’s goal shifted to destabilizing Putin or having him removed? Does the United States intend to hold Putin accountable as a war criminal? Or is the goal to try to avoid a wider war — and if so, how does crowing about providing U.S. intelligence to kill Russians and sink one of their ships achieve this?”

No one has any answers.

The Times editorial ridicules the folly of attempting to recapture all of Ukrainian territory, especially those territories populated by ethnic Russians.

“A decisive military victory for Ukraine over Russia, in which Ukraine regains all the territory Russia has seized since 2014, is not a realistic goal,” it reads. “Though Russia’s planning and fighting have been surprisingly sloppy, Russia remains too strong, and Mr. Putin has invested too much personal prestige in the invasion to back down.”

But common sense, along with realistic military objectives and an equitable peace, is overpowered by the intoxication of war.

On October 17, NATO countries began a two-week-long exercise in Europe, called Steadfast Noon, in which 60 aircraft, including fighter jets and long-range bombers flown in from Minot Air Base in North Dakota are simulating dropping thermonuclear bombs on European targets. This exercise happens annually. But the timing is nevertheless ominous. The U.S. has some 150 “tactical” nuclear warheads stationed in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.

Ukraine will be a long and costly war of attrition, one that will leave much of Ukraine in ruins and hundreds of thousands of families convulsed by lifelong grief. If NATO prevails and Putin feels his hold on power is in jeopardy, what will stop him from lashing out in desperation? Russia has the world's largest arsenal of tactical nukes, weapons that can kill tens of thousands if used on a city. It also possesses nearly 6,000 nuclear warheads. Putin does not want to end up, like his Serbian allies Slobodan Milošević and Ratko Mladić, as a convicted war criminal in the Hague. Nor does he want to go the way of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi. What will stop him from upping the ante if he feels cornered?







There is something grimly cavalier about how political, military and intelligence chiefs, including CIA Director William Burns, a former U.S. Ambassador to Moscow, agree about the danger of humiliating and defeating Putin and the specter of nuclear war.

“Given the potential desperation of President Putin and the Russian leadership, given the setbacks that they've faced so far, militarily, none of us can take lightly the threat posed by a potential resort to tactical nuclear weapons or low-yield nuclear weapons,” Burns said in remarks at Georgia Tech in Atlanta.

Former CIA Director Leon Panetta, who also served as Defense Secretary under President Barack Obama, wrote this month that U.S. intelligence agencies believe the odds of the war in Ukraine spiraling into a nuclear war are as high as one in four.

The Director of National Intelligence, Avril Haines, echoed this warning, telling the Senate Armed Services Committee in May that if Putin believed there was an existential threat to Russia, he could resort to nuclear weapons.

“We do think that [Putin’s perception of an existential threat] could be the case in the event that he perceives that he is losing the war in Ukraine, and that NATO in effect is either intervening or about to intervene in that context, which would obviously contribute to a perception that he is about to lose the war in Ukraine,” Haines said.

“As this war and its consequences slowly weaken Russian conventional strength…Russia likely will increasingly rely on its nuclear deterrent to signal the West and project strength to its internal and external audiences,” Lt. Gen. Scott Berrier wrote in the Defense Intelligence Agency’s threat assessment submitted to the same Armed Services Committee at the end of April.

Given these assessments, why don’t Burns, Panetta, Haines and Berrier, urgently advocate diplomacy with Russia to de-escalate the nuclear threat?

This war should never have happened. The U.S. was well aware it was provoking Russia. But it was drunk on its own power, especially as it emerged as the world’s sole superpower at the end of the Cold War, and besides, there were billions in profits to be made in arms sales to new NATO members.

In 2008, when Burns was serving as the Ambassador to Moscow, he wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”

Sixty-six U.N. members, most from the global south, have called for diplomacy to end the war in Ukraine, as required by the U.N. Charter. But few of the big power players are listening.

If you think nuclear war can’t happen, pay a visit to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These Japanese cities had no military value. They were wiped out because most of the rest of Japan’s urban centers had already been destroyed by saturation bombing campaigns directed by LeMay. The U.S. knew Japan was crippled and ready to surrender, but it wanted to send a message to the Soviet Union that with its new atomic weapons it was going to dominate the world.

We saw how that turned out.
Exactly...
Russia may use nukes and west won't do anything.. what can they do
 

BHAN85

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 5, 2015
2,421
-3
1,476
Country
Spain
Location
Spain
X--37B will no doubt be used to disrupt /Destroy Russian and Chinese satellites.


Air Force X-37B Robotic Space Plane: Nearing Record Flight

PostAuthorIcon
By Leonard David
PostDateIcon
June 25th, 2022

Credit: Boeing/Inside Outer Space Screengrab

That Earth-circling U.S. military X-37B robotic space drone is closing in on a new long-duration record.
The Orbital Test Vehicle (OTV-6) is also called USSF-7 for the U.S. Space Force, and was launched on May 17, 2020 by an Atlas-V 501 booster and is winging past 770 days.
Flight of a previous record-holder was OTV-5 that spent nearly 780 days on-orbit.

Encapsulated X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle for U.S. Space Force-7 mission, now in Earth orbit.
Credit: Boeing
Onboard experiments
While the Boeing-built robotic space plane’s on-orbit primary agenda is classified, some of its onboard experiments were discussed pre-launch.
One experiment onboard the space plane is from the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), an investigation into transforming solar power into radio frequency microwave energy. The experiment itself is called the Photovoltaic Radio-frequency Antenna Module, PRAM for short.

X-37B handout.
Credit: Boeing
Along with toting NRL’s PRAM into Earth orbit, the X-37B also deployed the FalconSat-8, a small satellite developed by the U.S. Air Force Academy and sponsored by the Air Force Research Laboratory to conduct several experiments on orbit.
In addition, two NASA experiments are tucked onboard the space plane to study the effects of the space environment on a materials sample plate and seeds used to grow food.



OTV-6 is the first to use a service module to host experiments. The service module is an attachment to the aft of the vehicle that allows additional experimental payload capability to be carried to orbit.

The U.S. Air Force’s X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle 4 is seen after landing at NASA ‘s Kennedy Space Center Shuttle Landing Facility in Florida on May 7, 2017.
Credit: U.S. Air Force courtesy photo
Earlier flights
Here’s a roster of X-37B missions showing the increasing duration of flight time.
OTV-1: launched on April 22, 2010 and landed on December 3, 2010, spending over 224 days on orbit.
OTV-2: launched on March 5, 2011 and landed on June 16, 2012, spending over 468 days on orbit.
OTV-3: launched on December 11, 2012 and landed on October 17, 2014, spending over 674 days on-orbit.
OTV-4: launched on May 20, 2015 and landed on May 7, 2015, spending nearly 718 days on-orbit.
OTV-5: launched on September 7, 2017 and landed on October 27, 2019, spending nearly 780 days on-orbit.
As to when and where OTV-6 will return to a wheels-stopped landing is anybody’s guess.
OTV-1, OTV-2, and OTV-3 missions landed at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, while the OTV-4 and OTV-5 missions landed at Kennedy Space Center, Florida.

Post-landing of OTV-5 at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center Shuttle Landing Facility.
Courtesy Photo 45th Space Wing Public Affairs
Overseeing operations
The X-37B program is flown under the auspices of a U.S. Space Force unit called Delta 9, established and activated July 24, 2020.
In a description of Delta 9, current as of September 2020:
“Delta 9 Detachment 1 oversees operations of the X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle, an experimental program designed to demonstrate technologies for a reliable, reusable, unmanned space test platform for the U.S. Space Force,” according to a fact sheet issued by Schriever Air Force Base in Colorado.

Delta 9 unit emblem.
Credit: U.S. Space Force
“The mission of Delta 9 is to prepare, present, and project assigned and attached forces for the purpose of conducting protect and defend operations and providing national decision authorities with response options to deter and, when necessary, defeat orbital threats,” the fact sheet explains. “Additionally, Delta 9 supports Space Domain Awareness by conducting space-based battlespace characterization operations and also conducts on-orbit experimentation and technology demonstrations for the U.S. Space Force.”
Vehicle features
Boeing, as the space plane maker, notes that the vehicle features many elements that mark a first use in space, including:
  • Avionics designed to automate all de-orbit and landing functions.
  • Flight controls and brakes using all electro-mechanical actuation; no hydraulics on board.
  • Built using a lighter composite structure, rather than traditional aluminum.
  • New generation of high-temperature wing leading-edge tiles and toughened uni-piece fibrous refractory oxidation-resistant ceramic (TUFROC) tiles.
  • Advanced conformal reusable insulation (CRI) blankets.
  • Toughened uni-piece fibrous insulation (TUFI) impregnated silica tiles.

Air Force X-37B space plane.
Credit: Boeing
According to a Boeing fact sheet, “the X-37B is one of the world’s newest and most advanced re-entry spacecraft, designed to operate in low-earth orbit, 150 to 500 miles above the Earth. The vehicle is the first since the Space Shuttle with the ability to return experiments to Earth for further inspection and analysis. This United States Air Force unmanned space vehicle explores reusable vehicle technologies that support long-term space objectives.”
At first designed to fly 270 days per mission, Boeing adds that “the X-37B has set progressive records for time on orbit during each of its five previous missions.”

Credit: Kevin Fetter



Go to this June 25, 2022 video of OTV-6 flying overhead, taken by Canadian skywatcher Kevin Fetter. “Nice to have a clear sky again, after a few cloudy one’s,” he says.
Video at:

My bet (just guessing) is that Boeing X-37B is a space railgun, "rods from God", to shoot down satellites.

A space railgun will be smaller than a ground railgun, because there is no atmosphere in space.

And/or only God knows what more.

But keep in mind something: timing.

Boeing X-37B is a toy from 2010 decade.

Just like the finish of American ABM shields.

And when all that is becoming working and very well tested, then is when USA start to be aggressive against Russia (2014).
 

jhungary

MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
Oct 24, 2012
16,078
377
15,589
Country
China
Location
Australia
Exactly...
Russia may use nukes and west won't do anything.. what can they do
It will be REALLY naive and stupid to think the West will not do anything if Russia uses nuke, because that simply give them a blanch carte for anyone, not just Russia, to use tactical nuke as long as it was kept in the downlow.

As for what the West can do? They can do A WHOLE LOT OF THINGS, from targeting all Russian target in Ukraine to directly sent troop to Ukraine. All NATO air traffic are already flying in dark mode, that mean the strategic stance and preparation has gone up, if Russia did use nuke, then you are expecting some 300 sorties normally happened in Europe to converge in Ukraine or even Russia in a moment of notice, Russian wouldn't know because those planes had already turned off their transponder.

And if Russia really do think they can use Nuke and the West will not intervene, they would have used them already, it's a month since Russia declaring annexation on 4 Ukrainian Oblast, war continue, and they are about to lose Kherson. They would have used nuke already,
 

ziaulislam

ELITE MEMBER
Apr 22, 2010
20,150
9
21,304
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
It will be REALLY naive and stupid to think the West will not do anything if Russia uses nuke, because that simply give them a blanch carte for anyone, not just Russia, to use tactical nuke as long as it was kept in the downlow.

As for what the West can do? They can do A WHOLE LOT OF THINGS, from targeting all Russian target in Ukraine to directly sent troop to Ukraine. All NATO air traffic are already flying in dark mode, that mean the strategic stance and preparation has gone up, if Russia did use nuke, then you are expecting some 300 sorties normally happened in Europe to converge in Ukraine or even Russia in a moment of notice, Russian wouldn't know because those planes had already turned off their transponder.

And if Russia really do think they can use Nuke and the West will not intervene, they would have used them already, it's a month since Russia declaring annexation on 4 Ukrainian Oblast, war continue, and they are about to lose Kherson. They would have used nuke already,
It's naive to think west will do anything major.

West knew about the war and did nothing and since 1950s we have numerous examples

Anyone who thinks other wise don't know the history


The only utility of ukriane is to weak Russia once that's done west will be packing like it has done every where else ..every time...

Similar to what Russians did with Vietname and Americans did with Afghanistan
 

jhungary

MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
Oct 24, 2012
16,078
377
15,589
Country
China
Location
Australia
It's naive to think west will do anything major.

West knew about the war and did nothing and since 1950s we have numerous examples

Anyone who thinks other wise don't know the history


The only utility of ukriane is to weak Russia once that's done west will be packing like it has done every where else ..every time...

Similar to what Russians did with Vietname and Americans did with Afghanistan
lol, what make you think the West will pack it in when Russia already had repeatedly threaten to use Nuclear Weapon since April.

This isn't Vietnam or Afghanistan, this time Ukraine is gaining ground, Russia is losing ground. If you look at the Strategic Position Russia is facing, it would not be any different if they had use nuke now or 1 month ago or 10 months afterward. You are rally naive to think Russia is going to come out ahead on this one. Because there aren't any viable option for Russia to turn it around except Nuke, and it has been so since September. So if they think they can use it and get away with that, they would have done so already.

And all these is increasingly become loser talk.
 

ziaulislam

ELITE MEMBER
Apr 22, 2010
20,150
9
21,304
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
lol, what make you think the West will pack it in when Russia already had repeatedly threaten to use Nuclear Weapon since April.

This isn't Vietnam or Afghanistan, this time Ukraine is gaining ground, Russia is losing ground. If you look at the Strategic Position Russia is facing, it would not be any different if they had use nuke now or 1 month ago or 10 months afterward. You are rally naive to think Russia is going to come out ahead on this one.

And all these is increasingly become loser talk.
Yeah sure this isn't Afghanistan it's eastern European non NATO country who nobody cares about..

You may even see a shift once republican wins this election (I hope so can't wait for this drama to end so we can have some relief at the gas station)
Me and everyone I know are voting them out this November and 2024. The polls suggest the same..
 

topsail

MEMBER

New Recruit

Oct 9, 2018
17
0
7
Country
Australia
Location
United States
My belief is if nuclear war occurs, I will die. Not by a direct hit as I am several miles away from a big city but by radiation. I am not going to bother trying to stock up and live in a hole in the ground for a month.

What people do not understand is that the American Democrats do not fight wars like republicans. Trump, Putin and American republicans don't understand this. Xi is starting to.
The Republicans will not risk their bank accounts and country clubs so they won't get into a nuclear war. The Democrats got America into WW1 and WW2. Democrats take American into huge wars based on vague humanitarian goals. Republicans go to war to steal oil. If there is a nuclear war it will occur under a Democratic president.
 
Oct 15, 2017
26,197
-71
13,071
Country
Canada
Location
Canada
My belief is if nuclear war occurs, I will die. Not by a direct hit as I am several miles away from a big city but by radiation. I am not going to bother trying to stock up and live in a hole in the ground for a month.

What people do not understand is that the American Democrats do not fight wars like republicans. Trump, Putin and American republicans don't understand this. Xi is starting to.
The Republicans will not risk their bank accounts and country clubs so they won't get into a nuclear war. The Democrats got America into WW1 and WW2. If there is a nuclear war it will occur under a Democratic president.

Republicans don't want to spend money on war. Reagan ended Cold War. Nixon ended Vietnam war. Trump ended Afghanistan war. Democrats love to spend money on war. Clinton started Kosovo war. Obama started Syria war. Biden started Ukraine war.
 

jhungary

MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
Oct 24, 2012
16,078
377
15,589
Country
China
Location
Australia
Yeah sure this isn't Afghanistan it's eastern European non NATO country who nobody cares about..

You may even see a shift once republican wins this election (I hope so can't wait for this drama to end so we can have some relief at the gas station)
Me and everyone I know are voting them out this November and 2024. The polls suggest the same..
First of all, it won't shift even if Republican take the house. Because majority of Republican are for supporting Ukraine, you are talking about AOC style Republican (Greene, Hawley and Boebert) and co, those people don't have enough in the house, because you have 441 House of Rep instead of 100 Senator, Far right Republican don't have traction to take the house to denied those bill, they will need at least 140 House Rep to cut the bill, they just don't have that in Far Right. Not to mention Dem are projected to keep Senate majority.

On the other hand, one would argue the current bill (the 40 billion bill still have around 23 billion option) is enough for the Ukrainian to fight off Russia. Russia is culminated, which mean whatever they do is going to be limited by the effort of their war, there are no turns left for Russia to turn the scene around, which mean unless they want to lose it all, they would have already used nuke if Russia think they can get away with it already.

Nuke is a line BOTH PARTY will not be willing to cross, I don't even think Boebert or Greene and co will support Russia if and when they used Nuke, that's like handing their own seat to either another Republican challenger or to the Dem. They are crazy, not stupid.
 

topsail

MEMBER

New Recruit

Oct 9, 2018
17
0
7
Country
Australia
Location
United States
Republicans don't want to spend money on war. Reagan ended Cold War. Nixon ended Vietnam war. Trump ended Afghanistan war. Democrats love to spend money on war. Clinton started Kosovo war. Obama started Syria war. Biden started Ukraine war.

Not really. Reagan increased defense spending to record levels. Decreased under Clinton. Huge increase under GW Bush. Defense spending was decreasing under Obama. Increased massively under Trump.
Trump did not end Afghanistan war. Biden did. Remember too Republicans started Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
Clinton did not start Kosovo war. That war had started before Clinton sent in American soldiers. Same with Syria it had already started before Obama went in. GW Bush, a republican destabilized the middle east when he invaded Iraq. Remember GW Bush called the war in Afghanistan a "crusade."
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom