United States To Modernize Nuclear Weapons — Bombers, Missiles, Submarines — The U.S. Nuclear Triad — Better Late Than Never — A New Nuclear Arms Race To Modernize Weapon Systems — Trump Is Right — The Nuclear Weapons Are 40-60 Years Old! — The Lying Lunatic Left and Big Lie Media Goes Hysterical — Do Your Homework! — Videos

Posted on December 22, 2016. Filed under: American History, Articles, Blogroll, Book, Books, College, Communications, Crisis, Dirty Bomb, Documentary, Education, Elections, Energy, Fiction, Films, Freedom, Friends, government spending, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Missiles, Movies, Nuclear, Nuclear Power, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Psychology, Radio, Rants, Raves, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Talk Radio, Television, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Image result for us nuclear triadImage result for us nuclear triad

Image result for us nuclear triad

Image result for us nuclear triad

Image result for us nuclear triadImage result for us nuclear triad

Image result for Minuteman 3 Nuclear MissileImage result for Minuteman 3 Nuclear MissileImage result for land based icbm us Image result for Minuteman 3 Nuclear MissileImage result for Minuteman 3 Nuclear MissileImage result for us nuclear triadImage result for us nuclear triadImage result for us nuclear triadImage result for submarine launch of nuclear missileImage result for usn submarine launch of nuclear missileImage result for Ohio class replacement submarineImage result for Ohio class replacement submarineImage result for US Navy Nuclear Submarines Ohio replacementImage result for Ohio class replacement submarineImage result for us nuclear triadImage result for us nuclear triadImage result for us nuclear triad

Trump doubles down on nuclear weapons

Trump says “let it be an arms race” when it comes to nuclear weapons

“Absolutely Frightening”: Greenpeace on Trump’s Call for a New Nuclear Arms Race

Trump, Putin both seek to boost their nuclear capability

Published on Dec 22, 2016

President-elect Donald Trump signaled Thursday that he will look to “strengthen and expand” the US’s nuclear capability hours after Russian President Vladimir Putin pledged to enhance his country’s nuclear forces.
The exchange appeared to raise the prospect of a new arms race between the two nuclear superpowers, which between them boast more than 14,000 nuclear warheads, the still deadly legacy of their four-decades long Cold War standoff.
But the comments by Putin, who is presiding over a project to restore Russia’s lost global power and influence, and Trump, who will shortly become the US commander-in-chief, did not spell out exactly what each side is proposing or whether a major change of nuclear doctrine is in the offing.
Trump weighed in with a tweet just hours after Putin spoke following a meeting with his military advisers to review the activity of the past year.
“The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes,” Trump wrote.
It was not immediately clear if the President-elect is proposing an entire new nuclear policy that he would begin to flesh out once he takes office next year.
Trump could also be referring to plans to modernize the current US nuclear arsenal that are currently underway and will cost hundreds of billions of dollars. The Obama administration has outlined a plan to modernize delivery systems, command and control systems and to refurbish warheads in the US nuclear triad — the US force of sea, airborne and missile delivered nuclear weapons.

Trump and nuclear fears

US Nuclear Weapons Systems Need an Upgrade. Here’s Why

America’s nuclear bomb gets a makeover

USA Dropped a Safe Nuclear Bomb in Nevada – F-15 Launching a Brand New B-61 Bomb

B61 US Nuclear Bomb Program

Nuclear Modernization: Is the United States Headed for a New Arms Race?

Stratcom Commander Emphasizes Need to Modernize Nuke “Russia is modernizing their nuclear triad”

Report on Russia’s Nuclear Triad Modernization

INSIDE VIEW !!! US Air Force Minuteman Strategic Missile Silo Mini Documentary

Published on Mar 10, 2016

The LGM-30 Minuteman is a US land-based intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), in service with the Air Force Global Strike Command. As of 2014, the LGM-30G Minuteman III version[a] is the only land-based ICBM in service in the United States.[citation needed]

Development of the Minuteman began in the mid-1950s as the outgrowth of basic research into solid fuel rocket motors which indicated an ICBM based on solids was possible. Such a missile could stand ready for extended periods of time with little maintenance, and then launch on command. In comparison, existing US missile designs using liquid fuels required a lengthy fueling process immediately before launch, which left them open to the possibility of surprise attack. This potential for immediate launch gave the missile its name; like the Revolutionary War’s Minutemen, the Minuteman was designed to be launched on a moment’s notice.[2][3]

Minuteman entered service in 1962 as a weapon tasked primarily with the deterrence role, threatening Soviet cities with a counterattack if the US was attacked. However, with the development of the US Navy’s Polaris which addressed the same role, the Air Force began to modify Minuteman into a weapon with much greater accuracy with the specific intent of allowing it to attack hardened military targets, including Soviet missile silos. The Minuteman-II entered service in 1965 with a host of upgrades to improve its accuracy and survivability in the face of an anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system the Soviets were known to be developing. Minuteman-III followed in 1970, using three smaller warheads instead of one large one, which made it very difficult to attack by an anti-ballistic missile system which would have to hit all three widely separated warheads to be effective. Minuteman-III was the first multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) ICBM to be deployed. Each missile can carry up to three nuclear warheads, which have a yield in the range of 300 to 500 kilotons.

Peaking at 1000 missiles in the 1970s, the current US force consists of 450 Minuteman-III missiles[4] in missile silos around Malmstrom AFB, Montana; Minot AFB, North Dakota; and F.E. Warren AFB, Wyoming.[1] By 2018 this will be reduced to 400 armed missiles, with 50 unarmed missiles in reserve, and four non-deployed test launchers to comply with the New START treaty.[5] The Air Force plans to keep the missile in service until at least 2030.[6][7] It is one component of the US nuclear triad—the other two parts of the triad being the Trident submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), and nuclear weapons carried by long-range strategic bombers.

Type Intercontinental ballistic missile
Place of origin United States
Service history
In service 1962 (Minuteman-I)
1965 (Minuteman-II)
1970 (Minuteman-III)
Used by United States
Production history
Manufacturer Boeing
Unit cost $7,000,000
Specifications
Weight 78,000 lb (35,300 kg)
Length 59 ft 9.5 in (18.2 m)
Diameter 5 ft 6 in (1.7 m) (1st stage)
Warhead Nuclear: W62, W78, or (2006–) W87
Detonation
mechanism
Air Burst or Contact (Surface)
Engine Three-stage Solid-fuel rocket engines; first stage: Thiokol TU-122 (M-55); second stage: Aerojet-General SR-19-AJ-1; third stage: Aerojet/Thiokol SR73-AJ/TC-1
Operational
range
approx. 8,100 (exact is classified) miles (13,000 km)
Flight altitude 700 miles (1,120 kilometers)
Speed Approximately 17507 mph (Mach 23, or 28176 km/h, or 7 km/s) (terminal phase)
Guidance
system
Inertial
Accuracy 200 m CEP
Launch
platform
Missile Silo (MLCC)

Minuteman-III (LGM-30G): the current model [edit]

Side view of Minuteman-III ICBM

Airmen work on a Minuteman-III’s multiple independently-targetable re-entry vehicle (MIRV) system. Current missiles carry a single warhead.
The LGM-30G Minuteman-III program started in 1966, and included several improvements over the previous versions. It was first deployed in 1970. Most modifications related to the final stage and reentry system (RS). The final (third) stage was improved with a new fluid-injected motor, giving finer control than the previous four-nozzle system. Performance improvements realized in Minuteman-III include increased flexibility in reentry vehicle (RV) and penetration aids deployment, increased survivability after a nuclear attack, and increased payload capacity.[1] The missile retains a gimballed inertial guidance system.

Minuteman-III originally contained the following distinguishing features:

Armed with W62 warhead, having a yield of only 170 kilotons TNT, instead of previous W56’s yield of 1.2 megatons.[28]
It was the first[29] Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRV) missile. A single missile was then able to target 3 separate locations. This was an improvement from the Minuteman-I and Minuteman-II models, which were only able to carry one large warhead.
An RS capable of deploying, in addition to the warheads, penetration aids such as chaff and decoys.
Minuteman-III introduced in the

Examining the U.S. Nuclear Spending Binge | Arms Control Association

Published on Jul 31, 2016

The Arms Control Association has for years raised warning sirens about the cost and necessity of the modernization plans and have suggested a number of steps that could be taken to put the plans on a more sustainable course. The Pentagon estimates that the proposed modernization effort of the U.S. nuclear triad and its supporting infrastructure over the next 25 years will cost between $350-$450 billion.

The remainder of the Obama administration and that of the next president will likely be faced with a number of increasingly urgent questions about America’s nuclear modernization project, including its affordability, opportunity costs, impacts on global stability and more.

Speakers on this panel addressed the scope of the current nuclear weapons spending plans, challenges and options available to the next president, and the feasibility of the modernization plans given the experience of previous administrations.

• Mark F. Cancian, Senior Advisor with the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies
• Hans Kristensen, Director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists
• Andrew Weber, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs
• Amy Woolf, Specialist in Nuclear Weapons Policy at the Congressional Research Service
• Kingston Reif, Arms Control Association, Moderator

LGM-30 Minuteman Launch – ICBM

Published on May 31, 2016

The LGM-30 Minuteman is a U.S. land-based intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), in service with the Air Force Global Strike Command.

As of 2014, the LGM-30G Minuteman III version is the only land-based ICBM in service in the United States.

PONI Live Debate: Triad Modernization

Should the US Spend $1 Trillion on Nuclear Weapons?

Breaking down Russia and U.S. nuclear capabilities

China Nuclear Message to Donald Trump

Nuclear weapons… new Documentary BBC 2016

As Pentagon overhauls nuclear triad, critics advise caution

The Future of US Submarines: Ohio Replacement SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Subs

Evaluating President-elect Trump so far

President Obama Is Modernizing Nuclear Weapons – Here’s Why You Should Care

Inside Aging American Nuke Base

Presidential Debate Highlights | Trump, Clinton Nuclear Weapons Policy

Donald Trump: Why Can’t We Use Nuclear Weapons If We Have Them?

#LoserDonald: Why Don’t We Use Nukes?

Nuclear weapon states continue to upgrade stockpiles: SIPRI

NEW USA Military Technology threats to Russia & China Navy (2016)

Obama Promised a “World Without Nuclear Weapons,” But May Now Spend $3 Trillion on Weapons Upgrades

This Russian Weapon Can Destroy an Entire Army | WORST NIGHTMARE for US Military

TOP 5 WEAPONS OF U.S.A.

US Military’s new $100 Billion WEAPONS will dominate the World

World Nuclear War scenario… how it would look like – Documentary

Nuclear Weapons (The History)

4th Generation Nuclear Weapons

Fail Safe – Movie (1964)

Fail-Safe, Conclusion

The Making of “Dr. Strangelove”

The Bomb Run Sequence from Dr. Strangelove

Dr. Strangelove Final Scene

Trump Said the U.S. Should Expand Nuclear Weapons. He’s Right.

America needs to bolster its deterrence not to start a war, but to prevent one.

December 23, 2016

On Thursday, Donald Trump created controversy when he tweeted, “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.” In case anyone was confused, he followed up Friday morning with an off-air remark to MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that clarified his intentions: “Let it be an arms race,” he said. “We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.”

The backlash was swift and unanimous. Critics charged that there is no plausible reason to expand U.S. nuclear weapons, that Trump’s comments contradicted a decades-old bipartisan consensus on the need to reduce nuclear stockpiles, and that such reckless statements risk provoking a new nuclear arms race with Russia and China.

On this matter, however, Trump is right.

U.S. nuclear strategy cannot be static, but must take into account the nuclear strategy and capabilities of its adversaries. For decades, the United States was able to reduce its nuclear arsenal from Cold War highs because it did not face any plausible nuclear challengers. But great power political competition has returned and it has brought nuclear weapons, the ultimate instrument of military force, along for the ride.

In recent years, North Korea has continued to grow its nuclear arsenal and means of delivery and has issued chilling nuclear threats against the United States and its Asian allies. As recently as Thursday — before Trump’s offending tweet — Rodong Sinmum, the Pyongyang regime’s official newspaper, published an opinion article calling for bolstering North Korea’s “nuclear deterrence.”

The potential threats are everywhere. Washington faces an increasing risk of conflict with a newly assertive, nuclear-armed China in the South China Sea. Beijing is expanding its nuclear forces and it is estimated that the number of Chinese warheads capable of reaching the U.S. homeland has more than trebled in the past decade and continues to grow. And Russia has become more aggressive in Europe and the Middle East and has engaged in explicit nuclear saber rattling the likes of which we have not seen since the 1980s. At the height of the crisis over Crimea in 2014, for example, Russian President Vladimir Putin ominously declared, “It’s best not to mess with us … I want to remind you that Russia is one of the leading nuclear powers.” And on Tuesday, he vowed to “enhance the combat capability of strategic nuclear forces, primarily by strengthening missile complexes that will be guaranteed to penetrate existing and future missile defense systems.” As former Defense Secretary William Perry correctly notes, “Today, the danger of some sort of a nuclear catastrophe is greater than it was during the Cold War.”

The United States needs a robust nuclear force, therefore, not because anyone wants to fight a nuclear war, but rather, the opposite: to deter potential adversaries from attacking or coercing the United States and its allies with nuclear weapons of their own.

Under President Barack Obama, the United States mindlessly reduced its nuclear arsenal even as other nuclear powers went in the opposite direction, expanding and modernizing their nuclear forces. Such a path was unsustainable and Trump is correct to recognize that America’s aging nuclear arsenal is in need of some long overdue upgrades.

So, what would expanding and strengthening the nuclear arsenal look like?

First, the United States must modernize all three legs of the nuclear triad (submarines; long-range bombers, including a new cruise missile; and intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs). The Obama administration announced plans to modernize the triad under Republican pressure, but critics are already trying to kill off the ICBM and the cruise missile, and production timelines for these weapon systems keep slipping into the future. The Trump administration must make the timely modernization of all three legs of the triad a top priority.

Second, the United States should increase its deployment of nuclear warheads, consistent with its international obligations. According to New START, the treaty signed with Russia in 2011, each state will deploy no more than 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads, but those restrictions don’t kick in until February 2018. At present, according to the State Department, the United States is roughly 200 warheads below the limit while Russia is almost 250 warheads above it. Accordingly, Russia currently possesses a nuclear superiority of more than 400 warheads, which is worrisome in and of itself and also raises serious questions about whether Moscow intends to comply with this treaty at all. The United States, therefore, should expand its deployed arsenal up to the treaty limits and be fully prepared for further expansion should Russia break out — as Moscow has done with several other legacy arms control agreements.

Third, and finally, the United States and NATO need more flexible nuclear options in Europe. In the event of a losing war with NATO, Russian strategy calls for limited nuclear “de-escalation” strikes against European civilian and military targets. At present, NATO lacks an adequate response to this threat. As I explain in a new report, the United States must develop enhanced nuclear capabilities, including a tactical, air-to-surface cruise missile, in order to disabuse Putin of the notion that he can use nuclear weapons in Europe and get away with it.

These stubborn facts lay bare the ignorance or naivety of those fretting that Trump’s tweets risk starting a new nuclear arms race. It is U.S. adversaries, not Trump, who are moving first. It is a failure to respond that would be most reckless, signaling continued American weakness and only incentivizing further nuclear aggression.

The past eight years have been demoralizing for many in the defense policy community as Obama has consistently placed ideology over reality in the setting of U.S. nuclear policy. The results, an increasingly disordered world filled with intensifying nuclear dangers, speak for themselves.

Rather than express outrage over Trump’s tweet, therefore, we should take heart that we once again have a president who may be willing to do what it takes to defend the country against real, growing and truly existential threats.

Matthew Kroenig is associate professor in the Department of Government and the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and senior fellow in the Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security at The Atlantic Council. He is a former strategist in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and is currently writing a book on U.S. nuclear strategy.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/trump-said-the-us-should-expand-nuclear-weapons-hes-right-214546

How the Pentagon Plans to Modernize the US Nuclear Arsenal

PHOTO: View of a Boeing LGM-30G Minuteman III ICBM missile as it was launched in the 1970s.

President-elect Donald Trump’s tweets this week about strengthening and expanding America’s nuclear weapons capability are raising eyebrows, but they also highlight the Pentagon’s existing programs to update and modernize its nuclear arsenal.

The components of America’s nuclear triad of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM’s), strategic bombers, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles are decades old. While the Pentagon has undergone a modernization process to keep these systems intact over that time, the Pentagon has plans to replace each leg of the triad in the coming decades.

But the Pentagon’s plans to update and modernize the nuclear triad will be a lengthy and costly enterprise. Defense Secretary Ash Carter told Congress earlier this year that it will cost $350 billion to $450 billion to update and modernize beginning in 2021. But there are some estimates that a 30-year modernization program could cost as much as $1 trillion.

And that process has gotten underway since the lifespan of the existing delivery systems ends in the next 15 to 20 years. Replacement systems are currently in the phase of research, development, testing and evaluation.

The U.S. Air Force maintains a fleet of 450 Minuteman III ICBM missiles located in underground silos across the plains states, each carrying multiple nuclear warheads. A key leg of the nuclear triad, the Minuteman III missiles went into service in the 1970’s and have been upgraded ever since to keep them mission ready. No new ICBM missiles have gone into service since the MX missile was deployed in the 1980’s, but those missiles were retired a decade ago.

This summer, the Air Force began the process of soliciting designs for a new ICBM to replace the Minuteman III, with the first new missile scheduled to enter service by 2029.

The Air Force has already begun the process of replacing the 76 B-52 strategic bombers that have been flying since the 1960’s with the new B-21 “Raider” that will begin flying in 2025. Upgrades to the B-52, designed in the 1950’s, have allowed the aircraft to continue serving as a nuclear-capable aircraft and also allowed it to conduct airstrikes against ISIS.

PHOTO: Senior Airmen Mark Pacis, left, and Christopher Carver mount a refurbished nuclear warhead on to the top of a Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile inside an underground silo in Scottsbluff, Neb., April 15, 1997.Eric Draper/AP Photo
Senior Airmen Mark Pacis, left, and Christopher Carver mount a refurbished nuclear warhead on to the top of a Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile inside an underground silo in Scottsbluff, Neb., April 15, 1997.more +

The Navy has also begun the process to find a replacement for its 14 Ohio Class ballistic missile submarine fleet that first went into service in the 1980’s. But the first Columbia Class submarine is not slated to enter service until 2031.

But it is important to point out that a replacement of these systems, while incredibly expensive, does not equate to an overall growth of the nuclear arsenal.

In other words, the U.S. is looking to become more efficient — it’s not looking for more nuclear weapons. As one defense official put it, with the cost of the new systems, the Pentagon is simply not able to do a one-to-one replacement.

As of September 2015, the United States has a total of 4,571 warheads in its nuclear weapons stockpile, according to a State Department official. The United States has retired thousands of nuclear warheads that are removed from their delivery platform that are not included in this total, the official said, noting those warheads are not functional and are in a queue for dismantlement.

The 2011 New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) nuclear weapons agreement limits to 1,550 the number of nuclear warheads that can be deployed on ICBMs, submarines or heavy bombers by the U.S. and Russia. Both countries have until February 2018 to meet the New START’s reduction target levels for deployed warheads.

The United States currently has 1,361 deployed nuclear weapons while Russia has 1,796. The larger Russian number is seen as a temporary increase as Russia replaces older warheads with new ones.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pentagon-plans-modernize-us-nuclear-arsenal/story?id=44372054

Donald Trump says he wants to ‘greatly strengthen and expand’ U.S. nuclear capability, a radical break from U.S. foreign policy

Putin praises Russian military’s show of strength in Syria

Embed Share

Russian President Vladimir Putin praised his country’s military on Dec. 22, saying its armed forces had performed well in the fight against “international terrorists” in Syria. (Reuters)

December 22 at 1:05 PM

President-elect Donald Trump on Thursday called for the United States to expand its nuclear arsenal, after Russian President Vladi­mir Putin said his country’s nuclear potential needs fortifying, raising the specter of a new arms race that would reverse decades of efforts to reduce the number and size of the two countries’ nuclear weapons.In a tweet that offered no details, Trump said, “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.”During the campaign, Trump talked in one debate about the need to modernize the country’s infrastructure of nuclear weaponry, saying the United States is falling behind. But it is not clear whether Trump is thinking of increasing the number of nuclear weapons the United States possesses, or updating the existing supply.

Trump’s tweet came shortly after Putin, during a defense ministry meeting, talked tough on Russia’s stockpile of nuclear weapons.

“We need to strengthen the military potential of strategic nuclear forces, especially with missile complexes that can reliably penetrate any existing and prospective missile defense systems,” Putin said.

Russia and the United States have worked for decades at first limiting, and then reducing, the number and strength of nuclear arms they produced and maintained under a Cold War strategy of deterrence known as “mutually assured destruction.” Both Republican and Democratic presidents have pursued a policy of nuclear arms reduction, said Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association.

Currently, the United States has just under 5,000 warheads in its active arsenal, and more than 1,550 deployed strategic warheads, a number that fluctuates, according to Kimball. In an October assessment by the State Department Bureau of Arms Control Verification and Compliance, Russia has about 400 more nuclear warheads than the United States does. But the United States has about 170 more delivery systems than Russia.

Under the New START Treaty, the main strategic arms treaty in place, both the U.S. and Russia must deploy no more than 1,550 strategic weapons by February of 2018. Kimball said both countries appear to be on track to meet that limit, which will remain in force until 2021, when they could decide to extend the agreement for another five years.

Since President George H.W. Bush’s administration, it has been U.S. policy not to build new nuclear warheads. Under President Obama, the policy has been not to pursue warheads with new military capabilities.

The U.S. military is in the beginning stages of updating its nuclear triad, which covers the delivery systems — bombers, submarines and intercontinental ballistic missiles. Last year, the Pentagon estimated it must spend an average of $18 billion a year over 15 years starting in 2021, to replace weapons that already have been refurbished and upgraded beyond their original shelf life.

Trump’s history of discussing nuclear weapons

President-elect Donald Trump has called nuclear weapons “the single greatest problem the world has” – but he’s also made some controversial statements about them. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)

But independent experts have estimated the total cost of modernizing the aging nuclear arsenal could reach $1 trillion over 30 years, according to the Arms Control Association.

“If Donald Trump is concerned about the rising costs of the F-35, he will be shocked by the skyrocketing costs of the current plan to modernizing the U.S. nuclear arsenal,” Kimball said. “Trump and his people need to explain the basis of his cryptic tweet. What does he mean by expand, and at what cost?”

But others argue that nuclear weapons and the principle of deterrence are essential components of national security, and the Obama administration’s efforts to further reduce its nuclear weapons have been just wishful thinking.

Michaela Dodge, a Heritage Foundation policy analyst specializing in nuclear weapons and missile defense policy, said that the White House in its 2010 Nuclear Posture Review made the erroneous assessment that there was little likelihood of conflict with Russia. Yet Moscow is in the midst of a large-scale nuclear weapons modernization program, and has violated many arms control treaties that it signed, she said.

“There is already an ongoing nuclear arms race, except now the United States isn’t racing,” she said in a telephone interview. “It’s mostly Russia and China.”

Dodge has called for the incoming Trump administration to request funding for nuclear warheads, delivery platforms and nuclear infrastructure. She also said the United States should withdraw from treaties that have eroded defense capabilities.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/donald-trump-says-he-wants-to-greatly-strengthen-and-expand-us-nuclear-capabilitiy-a-radical-break-from-us-foreign-policy/2016/12/22/52745c22-c86e-11e6-85b5-76616a33048d_story.html?utm_term=.1db715df6977

Nuclear triad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A nuclear triad refers to the nuclear weapons delivery of a strategic nuclear arsenal which consists of three basic components: land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), strategic bombers, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). The purpose of having a three-branched nuclear capability is to significantly reduce the possibility that an enemy could destroy all of a nation’s nuclear forces in a first-strike attack; this, in turn, ensures a credible threat of a second strike, and thus increases a nation’s nuclear deterrence.[1][2][3]

Other methods of nuclear attacks are nuclear torpedos and the use of hypersonic glide vehicles.

Traditional components of a strategic nuclear triad

While traditional nuclear strategy holds that a nuclear triad provides the best level of deterrence from attack, in reality, most nuclear powers do not have the military budget to sustain a full triad. Only the United States and Russia have maintained nuclear triads for most of the nuclear age.[3] Both the US and the Soviet Union composed their triads along the same lines, including the following components:

  1. Bomber aircraft capable of delivering nuclear bombs (carrier-based or land-based; usually armed with long-range missiles).[1]
  2. Land-based missiles (MRBMs or ICBMs).[1][3]
  3. Ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs). Nuclear missiles launched from ships or submarines.[1][3] Although in early years the US Navy sea leg was carrier aircraft based with a very short period using sub launched cruise missiles such as the Regulus before SLBMs were ready to be deployed.

The triad also gives the commander in chief the flexibility to use different types of weapons for the appropriate strike while also preserving a reserve of nuclear armaments theoretically safe from a counter-force strike:

  • ICBMs allow for a long-range strike launched from a controlled or friendly environment at a lower cost per delivered warhead and easiest targeting from a surveyed geographic location.[4] If launched from a fixed position, such as a missile silo, they are vulnerable to a first strike, though their interception once aloft is substantially difficult,[1][3] Some ICBMs are either rail or road mobile. Medium-range ballistic missiles and ground-launched cruise missiles were also assigned for strategic targets based in nations closer to the potential confrontation, but were eventually forbidden by arms control treaty to the US and Russia.
  • SLBMs, launched from submarines, allow for a greater chance of survival from a first strike, giving the commander a second-strike capability.[1][3] Some long-range submarine-launched cruise missiles are counted towards triad status; this was the first type of submarine-launched strategic second-strike nuclear weapon before ballistic missile submarines became available. A SLBM is the most difficult to get accurate targeting for as it requires obtaining an accurate geographical fix to program targeting data to the missile, the total cost of a SLBM is increased by the cost of the submarine force, large crews and deterrence patrols.[4]
  • Strategic bombers have greater flexibility in their deployment and weaponry. They can serve as both a first- and second-strike weapon. A bomber armed with AGM-129 ACM missiles, for example, could be classified as a first-strike weapon. A number of bombers often with aerial refueling aircraft kept at safe points would constitute a second-strike weapon.[1][3] In some strategic contexts either with nearby potential enemies or with forward basing lighter aircraft can be used on the strategic level as either a first-strike weapon or if dispersed at small airfields or aboard an aircraft carrier can reasonably avoid a counterstrike giving them regional second-strike capacity, aircraft such as the Mirage 2000, F-15E, A-5 Vigilante, Sea Harrier, or FB-111 are or were tasked part or full-time with land or sea-based strategic nuclear attack missions. An aerial refueling fleet supports intercontinental strategic operations both for heavy bombers and smaller aircraft; it also makes possible around the clock airborne standby of bombers and command aircraft making these airborne assets nearly impossible to eliminate in a first strike. Bomber airborne alert patrols are very expensive in terms of fuel and aircraft maintenance, even non-airborne alert basing requires both crew training hours and aircraft upkeep.[4]

Tactical nuclear weapons are used in air, land and sea warfare. Air-to-air missiles and rockets, surface-to-air missiles, and small air-to-ground rockets, bombs, and precision munitions have been developed and deployed with nuclear warheads. Ground forces have included tactical nuclear artillery shells, surface-to-surface rockets, land mines, medium and small man-packable nuclear engineering demolition charges, even man-carried or vehicle-mounted recoilless rifles. Naval forces have carried nuclear-armed naval rocket-assisted and standard depth charges and torpedoes, and naval gunnery shells. Tactical nuclear weapons and the doctrine for their use is primarily for use in a non-strategic warfighting role destroying military forces in the battle area; they are not counted toward triad status despite the possibility of many of these systems being usable as strategic weapons depending on the target.

Triad powers

The following nations are considered fully established triad nuclear powers, they have robust capability to launch a worldwide second strike in all three legs and can disperse their air forces and their sea forces on deterrent patrols. They possess nuclear forces consisting of land-based missiles, ballistic or long-range cruise missile submarines, and strategic bombers or long-range tactical aircraft.

China

Unlike the United States and Russia where strategic nuclear forces are enumerated by treaty limits and subject to verification, China, a nuclear power since 1964, is not subject to these requirements but currently has a triad structure smaller in size compared to Russia and the United States. China’s nuclear force is much smaller than the US or Russia and is closer in number and capability to that of France or the United Kingdom. This force is mainly land-based missiles including ICBMs, IRBMs, and tactical ballistic missiles as well as cruise missiles. Unlike the US and Russia, China stores many of its missiles in huge underground tunnel complexes; U.S. Representative Michael Turner[5] referring to 2009 Chinese media reports said “This network of tunnels could be in excess of 5,000 kilometers (3,110 miles), and is used to transport nuclear weapons and forces,”[6] the Chinese Army newsletter calls this tunnel system an Underground Great Wall of China.[7]

Currently China has one Type 092 submarine that is currently active with JL-1 SLBM according to Office of Naval Intelligence.[8][9] In addition, the PLAN has deployed 4 newer Type 094 submarines and plan to deploy up to 8 of these Jin-class SSBN by the end of 2020.[10][11] The new Type 094 fleet uses the newer JL-2 SLBM. China carried out a series of successful JL-2 launches in 2009,[12] 2012[13][14] and 2015.[15] The United States expect the 094 SSBN to carry out its first deterrent patrol by 2015 with the JL-2 missile active.[10] There is an aged albeit upgraded bomber force consisting of Xian H-6s with an unclear nuclear delivery role. The PLAAF has a limited capability fleet of H-6 bombers modified for aerial refuelling as well as forthcoming Russian Ilyushin Il-78 aerial refuelling tankers.[16] China also introduced a newer and modernized H-6 variant the H-6K with enhanced capabilities such as launching long ranged cruise missile the CJ-10. In addition to the H-6 bomber, there are numerous tactical fighter and fighter bombers such as the: J-16, J-10, JH-7A and Su-30 which all capable of carrying nuclear weapons. China is also developing hypersonic glide vehicles.

India

India completed its nuclear triad with the commissioning of INS Arihant in August 2016.[17][18][19][20][21][22] INS Arihant is a nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine armed with 12 K-15 missiles with a range of 750 km,[23] which will later be upgraded K-4 missiles with an extended range of 3500 km.[24][25][26] India maintains a no first use nuclear policy and has been developing a nuclear triad capability as a part of its credible minimum deterrence doctrine.[27] India’s nuclear-weapons program possesses surface-to-surface missiles such as the Agni III and Agni IV. In addition, the 5,000–8000 km range Agni-V ICBM was also successfully tested for third time on 31 January 2015[28] and is expected to enter service by 2016.[29] India has nuclear-capable fighter aircraft such as the Dassault Mirage 2000H, Dassault Rafale, Sukhoi Su-30 MKI, MIG-29 and SEPECAT Jaguar. Land and air strike capabilities are under the control of Strategic Forces Command which is a part of Nuclear Command Authority.

Russian Federation

Also a nuclear power,[30] Russia inherited the arsenal of all of the former Soviet states; this consists of silo-based as well as rail and road mobile ICBMs, sea-based SLBMs, strategic bombers, strategic aerial refueling aircraft, and long-range tactical aircraft capable of carrying gravity bombs, standoff missiles, and cruise missiles. The Russian Strategic Rocket Forces have ICBMs capable of delivering nuclear warheads,[citation needed] silo-based R-36M2 (SS-18), silo-based UR-100N (SS-19), mobile RT-2PM “Topol” (SS-25), silo-based RT-2UTTH “Topol M” (SS-27), mobile RT-2UTTH “Topol M” (SS-27), mobile RS-24 “Yars” (SS-29) (Future replacement for R-36 & UR-100N missiles). Russian strategic nuclear submarine forces are equipped with the following SLBM’s, R-29R “Vysota”, NATO name SS-N-18 “Stingray”, RSM-54 R-29RMU “Sineva”, NATO name SS-N-23 “Skiff” and the R-29RMU2.1 “Liner” are in use with the Delta-class submarine, but the RSM-56 R-30 “Bulava”, NATO name SS-NX-32 is under development for the Borei-class submarine. The Russian Long Range Aviation operates supersonic Tupolev Tu-22M, and Tupolev Tu-160 bombers and the long range turboprop powered Tupolev Tu-95, they are all mostly armed with strategic stand off missiles or cruise missiles such as the KH-15 and the KH-55/Kh-102. These bombers and nuclear capable strike aircraft such as the Sukhoi Su-24 are supported by Ilyushin Il-78 aerial refuelling aircraft. The USSR was required to destroy its stock of IRBMs in accordance with the INF treaty. In addition to the nuclear triad Russia is also developing nuclear torpedos and hypersonic glide vehicles.

United States

The United States operates Minuteman ICBMs from underground hardened silos, Trident SLBMs carried by Ohio-class submarines, it also operates B-52, B-2 strategic bombers, as well as land-based tactical aircraft, some capable of carrying strategic and tactical B61 and large strategic B83 gravity bombs, and AGM-86 ALCMs. While the US no longer keeps nuclear armed bombers on airborne alert, it has the ability to do so, along with the airborne nuclear command and control aircraft with its fleet of KC-10 and KC-135 aerial refueling planes. Previous to development of submarine-launched ballistic missiles, the US Navy strategic nuclear role was provided by aircraft carrier–based bombers and, for a short time, submarine-launched cruise missiles. With the end of the cold war, the US never deployed the rail-mobile version of the Peacekeeper ICBM or the road mobile Midgetman small ICBM. The US destroyed its stock of road-mobile Pershing II IRBMs and ground-launched cruise missiles in accordance with the INF treaty. The US also has shared strategic nuclear weapons and still deploys shared tactical nuclear weapons to some NATO countries.[1][3][31]

Former triad powers

France

A former triad power, the French Force de frappe possesses sea-based and air-based nuclear forces through the Triomphant-class ballistic missile submarines deployed with M45 intercontinental SLBMs armed with multiple warheads, nuclear capable Dassault Rafale F3 and Dassault Mirage 2000N fighter aircraft (armed with Air-Sol Moyenne Portée) which replaced the long-range Dassault Mirage IV supersonic nuclear bomber and KC-135 aerial refuelling tankers in its inventory. France had S2 and then S3 silo based strategic nuclear IRBMs, the S3 with a 3,500 km range, but these have been phased out of service since the dissolution of the USSR. France operates aircraft with a nuclear strike role from its aircraft carrier.

Non-triad powers

Non-triad powers are nuclear armed nations which have never developed a strategic nuclear delivery triad.

North Korea

North Korea has claimed to have indigenous nuclear weapons technology since a large underground explosion was detected in 2006. The DPRK has both aircraft and missiles which may be tasked to deliver nuclear weapons. The North Korean missile program is largely based on domestically produced variants of the Soviet Scud missile, some of which are sufficiently powerful to attempt satellite launch. The DPRK also has short-range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. Western researchers believe the current generation of the DPRK’s suspected nuclear weapons are too large to be fitted to the country’s existing missile stock.[32]

Pakistan

Pakistan does not have an active nuclear triad. Its nuclear weapons are primarily land-based. The Minimum Credible Deterrence (MCD) is a defense and strategic principle on which the atomic weapons program of Pakistan is based.[33] This doctrine is not a part of the nuclear doctrine, which is designed for the use of the atomic weapons in a full-scale declared war if the conditions of the doctrine are surpassed.[34] Instead, the MCD policy falls under minimal deterrence as an inverse to Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).[35] In August 2012, The Economist magazine wrote an article stating that Pakistan was an emerging nuclear triad state. Pakistani plans of responding to any capture or pre-emptive destruction of their nuclear defences seems to be one reason why they are determined to develop a third leg, after air- and land-based delivery systems, to Pakistan’s nuclear triad, consisting of nuclear-armed ships and submarines. As Iskander Rehman of the Carnegie Endowment, a think-tank, observes in a recent paper, Pakistani nuclear expansion and methods of delivery is drifting “from the dusty plains of the Punjab into the world’s most congested shipping lanes… It is only a matter of time before Pakistan formally brings nuclear weapons into its own fleet.”[36]

Pakistan possesses several ballistic missiles such as the Shaheen-1A and the Shaheen-II, missiles having ranges of 900 km and 2000 km respectively. They also contain systems said to be capable of carrying several nuclear warheads as well as being designed to evade missile-defense systems.[37][38] Pakistan also possesses the Babur cruise missile with a range up to 700 km. These land-based missiles are controlled by Army Strategic Forces Command of the Pakistan Army.

The PAF has two dedicated units (the No. 16 Black Panthers and the No. 26 Black Spiders) operating 18 aircraft in each squadron of the JF-17 Thunder, believed to be the preferred vehicle for delivery of nuclear weapons.[39] These units are a major part of the Air Force Strategic Command, a command responsible for nuclear response. The PAF also operates a fleet of F-16 fighters, of which 18 were delivered in 2012 and, as confirmed by General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, are capable of carrying nuclear weapons.[40] The PAF also possesses the Ra’ad air-launched cruise missile which has a range of 350 km and can carry a nuclear warhead with a yield of between 10 kilotons to 35 kilotons.[41]

In 2004, the Pakistan Navy established the Naval Strategic Forces Command and made it responsible for countering and battling naval-based weapons of mass destruction. It is believed by most experts that Pakistan is developing a sea-based variant of the Hatf VII Babur, which is a nuclear-capable ground-launched cruise missile.[42]

United Kingdom

The UK never rolled out its own land based missile nuclear delivery system. It only possesses sea-based nuclear forces through its Royal Navy Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines, deployed with Trident II intercontinental SLBMs armed with multiple warheads. The Royal Air Force used to operate V bomber strategic bombers throughout the Cold War and continued airborne delivery using Tornado and Jaguar aircraft until the late 1990s. The planned UK silo-based IRBM, the Blue Streak missile, was cancelled as it was not seen as a credible deterrent, considering the population density of areas in the UK geologically suited for missile silos. The tactical Corporal surface-to-surface missile was operated by the British Army. The American made intermediate range Thor missile aimed at Soviet targets was operated briefly by the RAF but before the arrival of the Polaris SLBM. Previously having a nuclear strike mission for carrier-based Buccaneer attack aircraft and later Sea Harriers, the UK no longer deploys nuclear weapons for delivery by carrier-based naval aircraft or any other means other than the Vanguard submarine-launched Trident SLBM.

Suspected triad powers

Main articles: Jericho (missile), Popeye Turbo, and F-15I

Israel has been reported in congressional testimony by the US Department of Defense of having aircraft-delivered nuclear weapons as early as the mid-1960s, a demonstrated missile-based force since the mid-1960s, an IRBM in the mid-1980s, an ICBM in the early 2000s[43] and the suspected second-strike capability arrived with the Dolphin-class submarine and Popeye Turbo submarine-launched cruise missile. Israel is suspected of using their inventory of nuclear-capable fighter aircraft such as the long-range F-15E Strike Eagle, F-16 and formerly the F-4 Phantom, Dassault Mirage III, A-4 Skyhawk and Nesher. Israel has appreciable and growing numbers of long-range tanker aircraft and aerial refueling capacity on its long-range fighter-bomber aircraft, this capacity was used in the 1985 long-range conventional strike against the PLO in Tunisia.[44] Jane’s Defence Weekly reports that the Israeli Dolphin-class submarines are widely believed to be nuclear armed, offering Israel a second-strike capability with a demonstrated range of at least 1500 km in a 2002 test.[45][46] According to an official report which was submitted to the American congress in 2004,[43] it may be that with a payload of 1,000 kg the Jericho 3 gives Israel nuclear strike capabilities within the entire Middle East, Africa, Europe, Asia and almost all parts of North America, as well as within large parts of South America and North Oceania, Israel also has the regional reach of its Jericho 2 IRBM force. The existence of a nuclear force is often hinted at blatantly and evidence of an advanced weapons program including miniaturized and thermonuclear devices has been presented, especially the extensive photographic evidence given by former Israeli nuclear weapons assembler Mordechai Vanunu. There have been incidents where Israel has been suspected of testing, but so far Israel for diplomatic reasons has not openly admitted to having operational nuclear weapons, and so is only a suspect triad state.

Other nuclear delivery systems

Air Mobile ICBM Feasibility Demonstration—24 October 1974

There is nothing in nuclear strategy to mandate only these three delivery systems. For example, orbital weapons or spacecraft for purposes of orbital bombardment using nuclear devices have been developed and silo deployed by the USSR from 1969 to 1983, these would not fit into the categories listed above. However, actual space-based weapon systems used for weapons of mass destruction have been banned under the Outer Space Treaty and launch ready deployment for the US and former USSR by the SALT II treaty. Another example is the US, UK, and France do or have previously included a strategic nuclear strike mission for carrier-based aircraft, which especially in the past were far harder to track and target with ICBMs or strategic nuclear bombers than fixed bomber or missile bases, permitting some second-strike flexibility; this was the first sea-based deterrent before the SLBM. The US and UK jointly explored an air-launched strategic ballistic nuclear missile, the Skybolt, but canceled the program in favor of submarine-based missiles. In 1974 a Lockheed C-5 Galaxy successfully tested an air launch of a Minuteman ICBM; this system was not deployed, but was used as a bargaining point in the SALT treaty negotiations with the USSR.

See also

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_triad

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The War of the World — Videos

Posted on November 24, 2015. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Bomb, Books, British History, Bunker Busters, Communications, Constitution, Demographics, Diasters, Documentary, Economics, Elections, Employment, Energy, European History, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Friends, history, Illegal, Immigration, Islam, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Middle East, Missiles, Natural Gas, Non-Fiction, Nuclear, Oil, People, Philosophy, Pistols, Politics, Radio, Radio, Rants, Raves, Religious, Rifles, Television, Terrorism, Unemployment, War, Wealth, Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Welfare, Wisdom, Work | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

The War of the World — Episode 1

The War of the World — Episode 2

The War of the World — Episode 3

The War of the World — Episode 4

The War of the World — Episode 5

The War of the World — Episode 6

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The John Birch Society Documentary–Videos

Posted on September 6, 2011. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Private Sector, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Documentary on the John Birch Society

Mind blowing speech by Robert Welch in 1958 predicting Insiders plans to destroy America

Ron Paul Endorses The John Birch Society

Dr. Ron Paul, Texas congressman and 2008 Republican presidential candidate, was the featured speaker Saturday evening, October 4 on the final day of the John Birch Society’s 50th Anniversary Celebration. The topic of his keynote address was “Restoring the Republic: Lessons From a Presidential Campaign,” in which he lectured the audience on how our republic can be restored with groups such as the John Birch Society (JBS) and his own Campaign for Liberty leading the way.

Stand up for Freedom – Part 5- Ezra Taft Benson

Stand up for Freedom – Part 6 – Ezra Taft Benson

Stand up for Freedom – Part 7 – Ezra Taft Benson

Background Articles and Videos

G. Edward Griffin – The Collectivist Conspiracy

An Idea Whose Time Has Come – G. Edward Griffin – Freedom Force International – Full

G. Edward Griffin   The Dangerous Servant   A Discourse on Government

Stand up for Freedom – Part 1 – Ezra Taft Benson

Stand up for Freedom – Part 2 – Ezra Taft Benson

Stand up for Freedom – Part 3 – Ezra Taft Benson

Stand up for Freedom – Part 4 – Ezra Taft Benson

Stand up for Freedom – Part 5- Ezra Taft Benson

Stand up for Freedom – Part 6 – Ezra Taft Benson

Stand up for Freedom – Part 7 – Ezra Taft Benson

Socialized Healthcare, Evil, Freedom Destroying, by Ezra Taft Benson

Mormon History: LDS (Mormon) Prophet Ezra Taft Benson 1/2

Mormon History: LDS (Mormon) Prophet Ezra Taft Benson 2/2

Ezra Taft Benson became the thirteenth President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on November 10, 1985.

President Benson was born August 4, 1899, in Whitney, Idaho, and was the oldest of eleven children. When he was a youth, his father was called on a mission. The family worked hard to keep up the farm while he was gone, but his father’s example touched the children, and all eleven served at least one full-time mission.

In 1918, Ezra Taft Benson enlisted in the army just as World War I was ending. He then pursued a career in farming and took courses from Utah State University in agriculture. In 1921, he was called on a mission to England. Following his mission, Ezra Taft Benson attended Brigham Young University, where he was named the most popular man on campus and graduated with honors.

On September 10, 1926, Benson married Flora Smith Amussen, a woman with many talents. She had won the women’s singles tennis championship in college and had served a mission to Hawaii. Together, they had six children.

In 1929, President Benson was appointed to be the Franklin County agricultural agent and helped farmers solve agricultural problems. In 1930, he was appointed to serve as the executive secretary of the Idaho Cooperative Council, and he remained in this office for five years. He left in 1936 for additional graduate study at the University of California. When he returned in 1938, he was called to be a Stake President. In 1939, Ezra Taft Benson was asked to be the executive secretary of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives at its headquarters in Washington, D.C.

On July 26, 1943, Elder Benson was called as an apostle. He was called in 1945 to oversee the European mission and help the people who were suffering from the war. In ten months he delivered 92 boxcar loads of food, clothing, bedding, and medical supplies. He also helped reopen the missions in Europe.

In 1952, President Benson accepted a cabinet position under Dwight D. Eisenhower as the Secretary of Agriculture. He served in this position for eight years. His presence in politics helped the Church become accepted throughout the world. In 1973, Ezra Taft Benson became the president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and in 1985 became the President of the Church. He was 86 years old. President Benson emphasized the importance of reading the Book of Mormon, missionary work, and strengthening families. He served as president until his death in 1994.

The John Birch Society

“…History

Formed by Robert Welch in December 1958, The John Birch Society takes its name from the legendary World War II Army Captain John Birch. The organization’s overall goal, never altered in the 50-plus years of its existence, has always been to create sufficient understanding amongst the American people about both their country and its enemies, so that they could protect freedom and ensure continuation of the nation’s independence.

Always an education and action organization, the Society has never deviated from its opposition to communism and any other form of totalitarianism, certainly including the steady drift toward total government currently arising from within our own shores. But the positive promise of what can be built in an atmosphere of freedom has always been more of a motivation for members than any negative fear of what must be opposed.

While the Society has always focused on combating — or occasionally applauding — actions taken by government, the organization was also built on a moral foundation. Its motto proclaims the long-range goal of “Less government, more responsibility, and – with God’s help – a better world.” How much “less” government? Officials point to the U.S. Constitution and claim that adherence to its many limitations on power would result in the federal government being 20 percent its size and 20 percent its cost.

As for “more responsibility,” the Society insists that the Ten Commandments should guide all personal and organizational conduct. Agreeing with numerous pronouncements of our nation’s Founders, Society members believe that national freedom cannot long endure without moral restraint.

Soon after its creation, enemies discovered the Society’s potential to arouse and inform a generally sleeping population. At that point, there arose a totally unfair and withering smear campaign painting the organization and its members with an array of nasty and completely false charges, none of which ever had any validity.

With a membership made up of Americans of all races, colors, creeds, and national origins, the Society is currently enjoying a surge in activity, a large growth in acceptance, and increased hope for a future marked by less government and more responsibility. It is that combination that surely will, with God’s help, lead to the better world desired by all men and women of good will. …”

http://www.jbs.org/about-jbs/history

The Communist Attack on the John Birch Society

(Cleon Skousen, 1963.)

http://www.zeios.com/OurRepublic/Article/27

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

The John Birch Society-Overview of America-Videos

Robert Welch, The John Birch Society And Ron Paul –Videos

Ron Paul On The Neoconservative Threat To The Constitution, Freedom, Peace and Prosperity–Videos

G. Edward Griffin – The Collectivist Conspiracy–Videos

Conservative vs. Neoconservative–Videos

C. Bradley Thompson–Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea–Videos

Neoconservatives–Not New and Not Conservative–American Empire Interventionists

Is Bill Bennett A Classical Liberal, a.k.a. A Libertarian or A Neoconservative? His Listeners Would Like To Know.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Cold War Spies–Videos

Posted on April 8, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Books, College, Communications, Crime, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Resources, Science, Security, Strategy, Technology, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

Cold War: Spies – part 1/5

Cold War: Spies – part 2/5

Cold War: Spies – part 3/5

Cold War: Spies – part 4/5

Cold War: Spies – part 5/5

Background Articles and Videos

Multi-Decade Communist Deception and Disinformation Strategy (1 of 3)

Multi-Decade Communist Deception and Disinformation Strategy (2 of 3)

Multi-Decade Communist Deception and Disinformation Strategy (3 of 3)

Watch Former KGB Spy, Professor Oleg Kalugin

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Spy Sorge–Hero of The Soviet Union 

Communist Deception and Disinformation Strategy–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

President Obama’s West Point Speech on War in Afghanistan–Cadet Honor Code–Generals Marshall and MacArthur Speeches On Peace and War–Duty, Honor, Country

Posted on November 30, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, government spending, Health Care, Immigration, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Technology, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

Cadet Honor Code

“A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”

http://www.usma.edu/committees/honor/info/main.htm

 

“…Yours is the profession of arms, the will to win, the sure knowledge that in war there is no substitute for victory, that if you lose, the Nation will be destroyed, that the very obsession of your public service must be Duty, Honor, Country.

Others will debate the controversial issues, national and international, which divide men’s minds. But serene, calm, aloof, you stand as the Nation’s war guardians, as its lifeguards from the raging tides of international conflict, as its gladiators in the arena of battle. For a century and a half you have defended, guarded and protected its hallowed traditions of liberty and freedom, of right and justice.

Let civilian voices argue the merits or demerits of our processes of government. Whether our strength is being sapped by deficit financing indulged in too long, by federal paternalism grown too mighty, by power groups grown too arrogant, by politics grown too corrupt, by crime grown too rampant, by morals grown too low, by taxes grown too high, by extremists grown too violent; whether our personal liberties are as firm and complete as they should be.

These great national problems are not for your professional participation or military solution. Your guidepost stands out like a tenfold beacon in the night: Duty, Honor, Country.

You are the leaven which binds together the entire fabric of our national system of defense. From your ranks come the great captains who hold the Nation’s destiny in their hands the moment the war tocsin sounds.

The long gray line has never failed us. Were you to do so, a million ghosts in olive drab, in brown khaki, in blue and gray, would rise from their white crosses, thundering those magic words: Duty, Honor, Country. …”

General Douglas MacArthur’s, Farewell Speech

Given to the Corps of Cadets at West Point, May 12, 1962

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/douglasmacarthurthayeraward.html

 

cnn – obama gives orders on afghanistan – is this his vietnam?

Obama: Send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan

Sen. Jon Kyl: Afghanistan exit strategy ‘the wrong way to go’ – 11/29/09

Obama prepares to announce Afghan surge

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIAxyFEYT_M

 

Are More Troops Needed in Afghan War?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6IYcSdnKFk

 

Will Obama’s Afghanistan speech persuade skeptical Americans?

Obama to announce Afghanistan troop strategy Tuesday

Live: Obama’s Afghanistan strategy unveiled 1 of 2

Live: Obama’s Afghanistan strategy unveiled 2 of 2

At War with General Jack Keane

President Obama has a well deserved reputation for being a habitual liar.

Barack Obama – The Lying Fascist

The American people and West Point cadets do not tolerate liars very well.

What must the cadets and American people be thinking as they listen to the President explain his strategy and course of action in Afghanistan for the second time!

Will they even believe a word he says?

The vast majority of the American people no longer believe or trust President Obama.

I suspect the speech will not be about victory in Afghanistan, but a set of milestones or a timetable for orderly withdrawal within three years or less.

The President can call it an exit strategy, an off ramp, or strategic withdrawal in Afghanistan, the American people will call it retreat and defeat, Obama R&D! 

If it is, then the time has come to pull all the troops out of Afghanistan now.

There is no substitute for victory over the Taliban, al-Qaida, and their allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Obama’s speech will be compared to other important speeches about war and peace.

Two come immediately to mind.

One was given by then Secretary of State George C. Marshall at Harvard University on June 5, 1947 that  lead to the Marshall Plan:

“…The truth of the matter is that Europe’s requirements for the next three or four years of foreign food and other essential products – principally from America – are somuch greater than her present ability to pay that she must have substantial additional help or face economic, social, and political deterioration of a very grave character.

The remedy lies in breaking the vicious circle and restoring the confidence of the European people in the economic future of their own countries and of Europe as awhole. The manufacturer and the farmer throughout wide areas must be able and willing to exchange their products for currencies the continuing value of which is not open to question. …”

Secretary of State George C. Marshall

Commencement address at Harvard University

Cambridge, Massachusetts, June 5, 1947

http://www.usaid.gov/multimedia/video/marshall/marshallspeech.html

The other speech was  given by General Douglas MacArthur:

“…On May 12, 1962, Five Star General Douglas MacArthur accepted the Sylvanus Thayer Award and delivered a remarkable speech to the corps of cadets at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York.  Since 1958, the Association of Graduates of the United States Military Academy has presented the Sylvanus Thayer Award to an outstanding citizen of the United States whose service and accomplishments in the national interest exemplify personal devotion to the ideals expressed in the West Point motto, “Duty, Honor, Country.” 

http://www.keytlaw.com/Greatwords/macarthur.htm

General Douglas MacArthur

Sylvanus Thayer Award Acceptance Address 

“Duty, Honor, Country”

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/douglasmacarthurthayeraward.html

The irony is that General MacArthur was fired by President Truman for insubordination.

George C. Marshall after reviewing MacArthur’s statements agreed with President Truman that General MacArthur should have been fired even earlier.

“If we lose the war to Communism in Asia the fall of Europe is inevitable, win it and Europe most probably would avoid war and yet preserve freedom…. There is no substitute for victory.”

General MacArthur ended his military career with a Farwell speech to the Congress that concluded with these words:

“…I have just left your fighting sons in Korea. They have met all tests there, and I can report to you without reservation that they are splendid in every way.

It was my constant effort to preserve them and end this savage conflict honorably and with the least loss of time and a minimum sacrifice of life. Its growing bloodshed has caused me the deepest anguish and anxiety.

Those gallant men will remain often in my thoughts and in my prayers always.

I am closing my 52 years of military service. When I joined the Army, even before the turn of the century, it was the fulfillment of all of my boyish hopes and dreams. The world has turned over many times since I took the oath on the plain at West Point, and the hopes and dreams have long since vanished, but I still remember the refrain of one of the most popular barrack ballads of that day which proclaimed most proudly that “old soldiers never die; they just fade away.”

And like the old soldier of that ballad, I now close my military career and just fade away, an old soldier who tried to do his duty as God gave him the light to see that duty.

Good Bye.”

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/douglasmacarthurfarewelladdress.htm

The End of Douglas Macarthur

Truman Firing of MacArthur Hurt Approval Rating but Saved War With Red China

“…Few shared the president’s certitude. Public reaction was swift and furious. “The reaction was stupendous, the outcry from the American people shattering,” McCullough later wrote. Angry Republicans discussed impeaching the president. One Gallup poll showed 69 percent of Americans supported the general. Truman’s own approval rating would reach 23 percent that month, and did not rise above the low thirties while he was in office. Of course, time grants perspective, and he is generally ranked as one of the near-great presidents, in part because of his strong assertion of civilian control over the rogue general.”

http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/04/09/truman-firing-of-macarthur-hurt-approval-rating-but-saved-war-with-red-china.html

Even with a teleprompter, I seriously doubt that President Obama’s speech will have the impact of either the General Marshall or General MacArthur speech.

I am afraid President Obama’s speech will only embolden those who attacked America on September 11, 2001 and their allies the Taliban.

He will apologize many times more for America, appease our enemies and read his way out of the hearts and minds of the American people.

President Obama will not fade away.

The American people want justice for those killed on September 11, 2001.

September 11, 2001

The time has come for the professional soldier to complete the mission and defeat Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and their supporters in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Remember the words of General MacArthur:

 “In war there is no substitute for victory.”

In Afghanistan With the U.S. Marines & Afghan National Army

Women Marines: U.S. Employs Secret Weapon in … 

U.S. Marines React To Ambush In Afghanistan

“I have just returned from visiting the Marines at the front, and there is not a finer fighting organization in the world!”

“Duty, Honor, Country. Those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be, what you will be.”

~General Douglas MacArthur

 

Background Articles and Videos

 

Thomas Barnett: The Pentagon’s new map for war and peace

The Pentagons New Map – Thomas Barnett lecture

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4689061169761152025 

Conversations with History: Victor Davis Hanson

Discusses Obama’s Afghanistan Decision Part 1

 

Discusses Obama’s Afghanistan Decision Part 2

 

Discusses Obama’s Afghanistan Decision Part 3

 

Discusses Obama’s Afghanistan Decision Part 4

 

Taliban

“…The Taliban (Pashto: طالبان ṭālibān, meaning “students”), also Taleban, is a radical Sunni Islamist movement that governed Afghanistan from 1996 until late 2001, when all of its members were removed from power by NATO forces during Operation Enduring Freedom. It has regrouped since 2004 and revived as a strong insurgency movement governing at the local level and fighting a guerrilla war against the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).[4] The movement is made up of members belonging to different ethnic Pashtun tribes,[5] along with a number of volunteers from nearby Islamic countries such as Uzbeks, Tajiks, Chechens, Arabs, Punjabis and others.[6][7][8] They operate in Afghanistan and the Frontier Tribal Areas of Pakistan, mainly around the Durand Line border.[9]

The Taliban movement is headed by Mullah Mohammed Omar, who is still in hiding. Mullah Omar’s original commanders were “a mixture of former small-unit military commanders and madrasah teachers,”[10] and the rank and file made up mostly of Afghan refugees who had studied at Islamic religious schools in Pakistan. The Taliban received valuable training, supplies and arms from the Pakistani government, particularly the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI),[11] and many recruits from madrasahs for Afghan refugees in Pakistan, primarily ones established by the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI).[12]

Although in control of Afghanistan’s capital (Kabul) and much or most of the country for five years, the Taliban regime, which called itself the “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan”, gained diplomatic recognition from only three states: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. It has gained some amount of political control and acceptance in Pakistan’s border region, but recently lost one of its key leaders, Baitullah Mehsud, in a CIA assassination.[13]

The Taliban is today classified by security analysts as an “alternative government” in Afghanistan. It operates fifteen Sharia law courts in the country’s southern provinces handling civil and commercial cases and collects taxes on harvests in farming areas. The Taliban implemented one of the “strictest interpretation[s] of Sharia law ever seen in the Muslim world”, yet still occasionally updates its code of conduct.[14] In mid-2009, it established an ombudsman office in northern Kandahar, which has been described as a “direct challenge” to the ISAF.[15] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

Al-Qaeda

“…Al-Qaeda (pronounced /ælˈkaɪdə/ or /ælˈkeɪdə/; Arabic: القاعدة‎, al-qāʿidah, “the base”), alternatively spelled al-Qaida and sometimes al-Qa’ida, is an Islamist group founded sometime between August 1988[5] and late 1989/early 1990.[6] It operates as a network comprising both a multinational, stateless arm[7] and a fundamentalist Sunni movement calling for global jihad.

Al-Qaeda has attacked civilian and military targets in various countries, the most notable being the September 11 attacks in 2001. The US government responded by launching the War on Terrorism. Between 3,000 and 4,000 members of the network have been captured, and many thousands more killed on the front in Afghanistan.

Characteristic techniques include suicide attacks and simultaneous bombings of different targets.[8] Activities ascribed to it may involve members of the movement, who have taken a pledge of loyalty to Osama bin Laden, or the much more numerous “al-Qaeda-linked” individuals who have undergone training in one of its camps in Afghanistan or Sudan, but not taken any pledge.[9]

Al-Qaeda ideologues envision a complete break from the foreign influences in Muslim countries, and the creation of a new Islamic caliphate. Reported beliefs include that a Christian-Jewish alliance is conspiring to destroy Islam,[10] and that the killing of bystanders and civilians is religiously justified in jihad.

Its management philosophy has been described as “centralization of decision and decentralization of execution.”[11] Following the War on Terrorism, it is thought that al-Qaeda’s leadership has “become geographically isolated”, leading to the “emergence of decentralized leadership” of regional groups using the al-Qaeda “brand name.”[12][13]

…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

Truman Firing of MacArthur Hurt Approval Rating but Saved War With Red China

“…The decision was a long time coming. MacArthur, a former Army chief of staff, Medal of Honor winner, had commanded the Southwest Pacific Theatre in World War II, accepted Japan’s surrender, and oversaw that country’s occupation in the postwar years. When the Korean War broke out, MacArthur was put in command of United Nations forces against the North. MacArthur had mixed sometimes brilliant military strategy with public pronouncements that often bordered on (or flat out were) insubordination, issuing his own foreign policy dictates and trying to push the United States into a broader war with Red China.

Matters came to a head on April 5, 1951. House Minority Leader Joe Martin read a letter he had received weeks earlier from MacArthur discussing the situation in Asia. “Virtually all that he said was bound to provoke Truman,” the historian David McCullough later wrote. Chinese nationalist forces under Chiang Kai-shek should be committed to the Korean war, MacArthur wrote. “Here [in Asia] we fight Europe’s war with arms while the diplomats there still fight it with words,” MacArthur had written. “If we lose the war to Communism in Asia the fall of Europe is inevitable, win it and Europe most probably would avoid war and yet preserve freedom…. There is no substitute for victory.”

http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/04/09/truman-firing-of-macarthur-hurt-approval-rating-but-saved-war-with-red-china.html

Charlie Rose – U.S. MILITARY ACADEMY AT WEST POINT,…

 

United States Military Academy, West Point

http://www.usma.edu/about.asp

Cold War: Marshall Plan – part 1/5

 

Cold War: Marshall Plan – part 2/5

 

Cold War: Marshall Plan – part 3/5

 

Cold War: Marshall Plan – part 4/5

 

Cold War: Marshall Plan – part 5/5

 

Marshall Plan 60th Anniversary – VOA Story

 

Europe in Ruins and the Marshall Plan

 

Korean War – PART 20, MacArthur is Fired, 6.25

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

George C. Marshall–An American Hero and Leader

Obama’s Berlin Speech: The First New World Order Citizen–Fellow Traveler World Citizen!

Bill and Hillary Clinton: The Perfect Pair of Flip–Floppers

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...