The Political Thread - Browncoat edition... down with the Alliance!

[Gfted1]

But their country keep moving South.

[Agiel]

 

 

This is blatantly violated by Aegis Ashore and it's tomahawk capable VLS. Note again, being merely nuclear capable and not using that capability/ not having warheads is not enough for compliance, otherwise every single launcher would be compliant including the one the Russians are accused of having- just by saying that you don't have nuclear warheads for it. Conventional ground based launchers and missiles are banned; and that 100% includes Tomahawk launchers based on land. Yet all you'll get from the media is some mumbling about Russian claims, when their accusations are extremely easy to verify as being true, if you can be bothered to.

 

Note again again, since no one in the media seems to want to mention it, 'nuclear' missiles only being covered is not specified at any point in the treaty text. Conventional missiles and launchers are banned same as nuclear, anyone with even vestigial knowledge of military matters knows anything else would be pointless.

 

And of course China, while not bound by it, couldn't get close to hitting either western Europe or mainland US with ground based IRMs. The threat there is entirely from China, uh, treacherously putting their country near US bases in a dangerous escalation?

 

And as I've said before, there's close to zero sense to put Tomahawks in a _fixed launcher_, especially so close to Kaliningrad. The US has had fairly little cost exacted upon it by abiding by INF because for the money it was willing to expend it has far better means of delivering cruise missiles by sea and by air. Without nuclear warheads for Tomahawks the amount of firepower it can put out is a pittance compared to these means (Aegis Ashore only has 24 VLS cells per facility, and any number dedicated for Tomahawks would correspondingly make it worse at its intended mission; this is compared to 16 JASSM-ER able to be carried by a B-2, 24 by a single B-1B, up to 96 Tomahawks for an Arleigh Burke destroyer, up to 122 for a Ticonderoga cruiser, and 154 standard for a converted Ohio guided missile submarine). If the concern is that at the absolute maximum a mere 48 missiles with 1000lbs conventional warheads have the potential to so cripple Russian warfighting capabilities, then that would beg the question of how their air defences, C4ISR redundancies, and force dispersals couldn't possibly have accounted for this.

 

Vis-a-vis China INF withdrawal is also ill-conceived, since the primary theaters should the balloon go up is _air and sea_, and stationing the notional weapons system in allied countries is only going to be a re-run of the exact diplomatic debacle that helped pushed the US into signing INF in the first instance.

 

 

 

[W]ell, it's irrelevant since no one actually knows if Russia has the system it's accused

 

The system is actually quite well known, given that it's based on a sea-launched weapon that might have fallen under the auspices of INF if launched from land-based platform (in fact the same launcher of the Iskander-M, which is mobile and from which much of the fear behind the SS-20, Pershing II, and GLCM was derived from). The impasse is largely derived from the fact that the Russians may have believed that it was compliant so long as it wasn't fueled to the INF range, which Article VII.4 has something to say on:

 

 

 

 

The range capability of a GLCM [...] shall be considered to be the maximum distance which can be covered by the missile in its standard design mode flying until fuel exhaustion, determined by projecting its flight path onto the earths sphere from the point of launch to the point of impact.

Edited February 2, 2019 by Agiel

[Guard Dog]

[Zoraptor]

And as I've said before, there's close to zero sense to put Tomahawks in a _fixed launcher_, especially so close to Kaliningrad.

 

 

The Aegis Ashore system is in Romania, which isn't close to Kaliningrad. The Polish system isn't operational yet.

 

It doesn't matter if it makes zero sense to put tomahawks in the Aegis Ashore launchers, if you can, and if they are land based then they're simply non compliant with INF and the US is in breach. It's trivial to put nukes back on tomahawks and I'd bet pretty much everything that that is exactly what will happen- not that it matters with respect to the INF, since as previous land based launchers are exactly as illegal as missiles of any type. After all, the US had BM109Gs and Pershing IIs for a reason up to 1987, same as the USSR had their versions. Mostly though, this is about blaming the Russians so it doesn't look like it's the US unilaterally bailing on yet another agreement after ABM, Paris and Iran.

 

And what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. If it makes little sense for the US it also makes little sense for the Russians. Their country and nuclear arsenal is large enough that they can just fire ICBMs at everyone and anyone without abrogating the treaty, quite apart from their own air/ naval cruise and ballistic missiles. And despite the US being clearly in breach at very very least exactly as much as the Russians- and in terms of the provable, a whole lot more- it isn't the Russians threatening to withdraw, it's the US.

Edited February 2, 2019 by Zoraptor

[smjjames]

ABM? Which deal/treaty is that?

[Zoraptor]

Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty. It isn't as recent a withdrawal (Bush jr era)

[smjjames]

I was thinking that, but wasn't sure since the others are referring to Trump.

 

In related news, Russia says they're also pulling out of the treaty. https://thehill.com/policy/international/russia/428176-putin-says-russia-will-abandon-nuclear-arms-pact-after-us-does

[Sarex]

[Malcador]

That seems really unwise to do.

[Sarex]

That seems really unwise to do.

 

This video says it approached an airplane, but in other places I read the f15 crossed in to Russian airspace.

[Malcador]

 

That seems really unwise to do.

 

This video says it approached an airplane, but in other places I read the f15 crossed in to Russian airspace.

 

 

Just in terms of risking an accident.  But I suppose that is an effective way to intercept, will have to go look to see how the US or NATO forces typically do it.

[Hurlshort]

[Agiel]

 

And as I've said before, there's close to zero sense to put Tomahawks in a _fixed launcher_, especially so close to Kaliningrad.

 

 

The Aegis Ashore system is in Romania, which isn't close to Kaliningrad. The Polish system isn't operational yet.

 

 

...or SS-N-30 launch from a Kilo-submarine of the Black Sea Fleet. Either which way both Aegis Ashore facilities are fixed sites, which make them poor platforms for offensive weapons.

 

 

 

It's trivial to put nukes back on tomahawks

 

Ignoring the fact that I mentioned earlier that making a new, nuclear-armed variant of the Tomahawk is actually a significant undertaking, and not simply a matter of simply swapping out the payload. Most frustratingly for those in the know is the fact that development of such a new system based on Tomahawk is at minimum going to take half a decade, and far longer for some notional "Pershing III".

 

 

 

 

Mostly though, this is about blaming the Russians so it doesn't look like it's the US unilaterally bailing on yet another agreement after ABM, Paris and Iran.

 

The actions of a confederacy of dunces: a head of state beholden to Kremlin (damn the purported "pee tape," the real evidence of Kompromat has been staring at everyone in the face for over three decades) and an NSA that bristles at international agreements whatever the shape and form, against the recommendations of the United States' own military, as General Paul Selva put it: "There are no military requirements we cannot currently satisfy due to our compliance with the INF Treaty. While there is a military requirement to prosecute targets at ranges covered by the INF Treaty, those fires do not have to be ground-based.” It doesn't change the fact that Putin has wanted out of INF for over a decade, and for good reason: missile development is about the sole military arms industry that has largely remained largely intact since the collapse of the Soviet Union (the much touted Su-57 has had its procurement of a mere 12 airframes deferred yet again into 2020, with every indication out there that the can will be kicked to the right again. Translation: The money isn't there after the Indians decided to cut their losses on an aircraft that would have been state-of-the-art... in 2005). The RSVN alone fields seven different types of land-based ICBMs compared to the USAF's one, and three different types of SLBMs against again the USN's one. But hey, surely the Russian people are willing to have the pension age moved past the average life expectancy in Russia, after all, "What's good for NPO Novator is good for Russia."

[HoonDing]

Russia would wreck NATO.

[Zoraptor]

 

 

And as I've said before, there's close to zero sense to put Tomahawks in a _fixed launcher_, especially so close to Kaliningrad.

 

 

The Aegis Ashore system is in Romania, which isn't close to Kaliningrad. The Polish system isn't operational yet.

 

 

...or SS-N-30 launch from a Kilo-submarine of the Black Sea Fleet. Either which way both Aegis Ashore facilities are fixed sites, which make them poor platforms for offensive weapons.

 

 

 

They're fine for a first strike weapon though, which is exactly what the Russians say about them. Yeah, there are other options for first strike weapons as well but everyone always wants more options and, to be frank, those bases make basically no sense for their stated purpose either- missile defence against Iran and DPRK, set up in Poland? That the Russians should just take the US's word for it that they won't be used as such would be moronic and naive, pinky swearing that they won't be used as such is trumped utterly by the signed treaty stating outright that the launchers should not exist in the first place.

 

As for nuclear tomahawks, the 109G existed so the warhead and system is already designed. Indeed, the W84 nuclear warhead from the 109G definitively existed as late as 2011. I guess they could have been scrapped in the intervening 7 years; but that seems fundamentally unlikely if they hadn't in the previous 24, and since the US has been gearing up to drop INF since at least 2014.

 

 

 

Just in terms of risking an accident.  But I suppose that is an effective way to intercept, will have to go look to see how the US or NATO forces typically do it.

 

 

Depends if they're actually violating airspace or not. The vast majority of airspace 'violations' on both sides aren't actually violations but intruder runs or intelligence gathering and just getting close to the airspace (except around northern Estonia, where both sides violate airspace more commonly due to the complex situation). If you're actually violating airspace you tend to get a more overtly aggressive response than responding to someone coming close which is typically just an escort and photo op. Collisions do happen though, there was that Chinese jet that crashed into the US spy plane off Hainan for example though whose fault that was has not been independently verified.

 

If I were to be facetious, NATO responds by shooting down intruders well after they've left their airspace and blatantly lying about the circumstances while their buddies run post facto interference for them (Turkish radar data showing a Su24 cruising at ~250kph, pull the other one it's got bells on)- but really, that was just Erdogan thinking he'd get in with the cool kids.

[Agiel]

They're fine for a first strike weapon though, which is exactly what the Russians say about them. Yeah, there are other options for first strike weapons as well but everyone always wants more options and, to be frank, those bases make basically no sense for their stated purpose either- missile defence against Iran and DPRK, set up in Poland? That the Russians should just take the US's word for it that they won't be used as such would be moronic and naive, pinky swearing that they won't be used as such is trumped utterly by the signed treaty stating outright that the launchers should not exist in the first place.

 

 

 

 

 

As for nuclear tomahawks, the 109G existed so the warhead and system is already designed. Indeed, the W84 nuclear warhead from the 109G definitively existed as late as 2011. I guess they could have been scrapped in the intervening 7 years; but that seems fundamentally unlikely if they hadn't in the previous 24, and since the US has been gearing up to drop INF since at least 2014.

 

 

 

 

Aegis BMD has much wider coverage than either THAAD or Patriot, as it is purpose-designed to intercept warheads outside of the Earth's atmosphere, so in addition to providing coverage to both Romania and Poland it can provide several more opportunities to intercept notional Iranian missiles targeting cities further west that may also be defended by other BMD ships (among them some frigates in the Royal Danish Navy). The Romanian site is perfectly positioned to defend France and Germany for this scenario, ditto the site in Poland for the UK and Norway.

 

Cruise missiles may have proved to be potent first strike weapon... in the 1980s when Soviet look-down/shoot-down shoot-down capabilities left something to be desired. At sub-sonic speeds a Tomahawk cruise missile would take close to two hours to reach a target using a dog-legged flight path, which is simply too long and provides too much time to be detected early (even assuming there isn't an SVR/GRU mission out of the embassies in Poland and Romania to monitor the sites) for what is a time-sensitive mission such as a decapitation strike against Kremlin and military leadership. And if it does have Moscow in its sites, well, which is it? The vaunted double-digit SAMs that ring Moscow can easily knock out cruise missiles out of the sky? Or the Tomahawk is such potent weapon system that it so dangerously undermines Russian security? If slotting in existing Tomahawks into the Aegis Ashore facilities is the fastest way to add offensive capabilities then it would make more sense to use W80-0 warheads that used to arm old TLAM-N, all of these warheads have since been dismantled in 2013. Even if there had been some W84s kept surreptitiously in reserve it still doesn't change the fact that re-introducing nuclear armed versions of these weapons is far easier said than done, as these weapons would require significant re-design to accommodate PALs, safety features, arming mechanisms, and additional electrical systems to provide power to all of the above, as compared to the SSC-8 missile of which it is generally thought that it could reach INF ranges simply by the crews topping off the fuel tanks to the brim. The minimum time to introduce such a weapon has generally been pegged to be at least five years, if it would ever happen at all since as Paul Selva has said the US military has long favoured air and sea deliver methods.

Edited February 3, 2019 by Agiel

[Gromnir]

God Wanted Donald Trump to Become President

 

am not doubting ms. sanders believes.  

 

couldn't help but recall a scene from constantine.

 

 

trump as President is part o' the divine plan? the instrument o' our salvation making us worthy o' god's love... or something.  is unlikely ms. sanders sees same as does gabriel, but nevertheless were our first thought 'pon hearing the huckabee's comment. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

I don't think God is concerned with the progress of human civilization so much as the progress of individual humans. Who wins elections, who the Pope is, etc, is I think beneath His notice. I think He cares less about our collective actions than about our individual ones. Jesus did not associate with leaders. He taught and set examples for everyday people. 

 

Just my $.02. I could be wrong. We'll all find out one day one way or another. 

[injurai]

I'm surprised America is such a beer nation when Jesus clearly demonstrated that water should be turned into wine.

[Guard Dog]

That's the Roman Empire for you. They like wine so everyone drank wine. It's a shame. Egypt & Parthia were much closer and beer was popular there. 

[Hurlshort]

There are 8,072 wineries in the US, so Jesus would still be proud.

[ktchong]

On the differences between "liberals" and "progressives" in the Democratic Party:

 

 

Here is the irony:

 

Based on what I've observed and been reading, the Midwesterners actually like progressive - or, may I dare say "socialist" - economic policies that would actually help the common people. However, they are socially conservative. They support economic progressives like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

 

On the other hand, it is the coastal liberals - i.e., Californians and New Yorkers - who support neoliberal economic and market principles: deregulation, free market, globalization, open-door immigration, etc. The "liberalism" they support is all about identity politics and social justice: feminism, LGBTQ, diversity, multiculturalism, immigration reform, anti-Islamophobia, etc. They are the "liberals" who are crazy about Kamala Harris because she checks multiple identity categories.

 

There are two kinds of "centrists", who are very different:

 

People who are socially liberal but economically conservative, (i.e., the so-called "corporatist neoliberal establishment Democrats" fit into this category.)

 

Then there are people who are socially conservative but may actually prefer progressive economic policies, like Midwesterners. This second category of centrists is currently NOT being catered to/served/targeted by either of the two major parties, so they go back and forth between the two parties. (They are like, an "untapped market" for politicians.)

 

Republicans are just socially and economically conservative - or rather, that is how they advertise themselves.

 

It is obvious why establishment Democrats are economically conservative: their corporate, banker and Wall Street donors - their "bosses" and "overlords" - would NOT tolerate progressive economic platforms, (which would have to raise taxes on the wealthy to finance government expenditures for infrastructure and people.) So establishment Democrats can't run on progressive/populist economic issues and offend their donors, but they have to run on something to get votes. So, they differentiate themselves from Republicans by focusing on social issues: LGBTQ, women issues, social justice issues, etc.

 

 

"Economically liberal"?!?  Liberal as in wanting more freedom or liberal as in wanting more government control?

 

Economically more freedom + less government control (which really means less regulations and more tax cuts) = libertarianism, which is mostly a right-wing conservative position in America. I should have used the description "progressive" instead if "liberal" because being economically "liberal" has become very different from being economically "progressive". Nowadays those two positions mean almost the exact opposite in America.

 

... actually, I did use the description economically "progressive" instead of "liberal".

 

Strictly speaking, "neoliberals" - i.e., the establishment centrist Democrats - are ideologically liberal in both social and economic policies. Economically, they believe in deregulation, free market, globalization, low taxes, open immigration, etc., all of which are libertarian ideals. Pre-Trump Republicans wanted those same things as well, except they are more extreme.

 

On the other hand, the new "progressives" (represented by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) do NOT believe in "liberal" or libertarian economics. Progressives are as socially liberal as neoliberals: both support minority and gender equality. What differentiates "progressives" from "liberals" are their very different economic platforms: progressives like Elizabeth Warren believe in regulations and oversights, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants high marginal progressive taxation, etc.

Progressives like to call - or insult - liberals/neoliberals establishment Democrats as "Republicans Lite" because liberals and Republicans can be so similar in their economic platforms: both are libertarians but to different extents. (i.e., Centrist establishment Democrats are really closet libertarians.)

Edited February 3, 2019 by ktchong

[ktchong]

On Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:

 

One question from a non-American. Why are you kinda obsessed with this woman in this forum? I haven't heard much of her before and I see like 10 threads about her opinion on every matter.

 

In America, the word "socialism" - and its associated ideas like universal healthcare, tuition-free public universities, higher minimum wages, etc. - had always been taboo topics in mainstream media and politics. Poll after poll has shown that the majority of Democrats, the majority young people, and even the majority of American people as a whole, actually like and support those "socialist" ideas and programs.

 

However, American media and politicians had refused to talk about socialism in any serious way; because the rich, bankers, corporations, lobbyists, Wall Street - i.e., the so-called one-percenter elites - do not want people to talk about it. The top-percenters were worried that if Americans started having serious talk about socialism, then its ideas like universal healthcare and free universities would catch fire, and then more and more people would want those programs in America. If people start wanting socialist programs, socialist politicians will eventually arise to appeal to those voters - and be voted into the government. If the government institutes socialist programs, then the government will have to raise taxes to pay for all those programs - and the rich one-percenter elites will be the prime target to be taxed more. The best way to keep socialism at bay is to not talk about it at all. As the rich and elites own and control the mainstream media, they also control the public narrative, so they have been censoring socialism and socialist programs being discussed in the mainstream media. It is basically suppressing the narrative to protect their own interests and wealth.

 

Bernie Sanders openly called himself a "Democratic Socialist". He ran on a socialist platform and started talking about socialism about two years ago during his presidential campaign. Even though he lost the Democratic primary election, he has successfully shifted the public attitude and narrative on socialism. He has influenced a whole new generation of young people and politicians. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (or "AOC") is one of Bernie's legacies and proteges, the first of the "new generations" of politicians who openly campaigns on and calls for socialist programs in American and taxing the rich at the 70-percent (or higher) marginal rate.

 

Regardless of what she can or will accomplish for the next two years of her term as a Congress representative, she has already changed the narrative. Now everyone is talking about universal healthcare, tuition-free public colleges and universities, taxing the rich at 70-percent marginal rate or even higher, etc. Even the mainstream media can't avoid and has to start talking about her - and her socialist ideas and proposals. Republicans hate her. Establishment Democrats want to get rid of her, (to which is the very party she belongs.) Now, even the media can't avoid talking about her - and, most importantly, her socialist ideas and proposals. Once the rich one-percenters can no longer suppress the narrative, they know the new discussions on socialism will snowball into a big problem for them. So AOC has become a thorn in the eyes of the rich and one-percenters.

 

 

Americans - specifically conservatives, libertarians, and Republicans - like to conflate the terms "communism", "socialism", and "welfare". As I said, Americans do not really understand socialism or how it is different from or similar to communism, welfare state, etc. - because we could never have any serious discussions of socialism, (not until recently.)

 

Every time socialism was brought up in a discussion, conservatives and libertarians would freak out and started shouting hysterically at at top of their lungs: "Look at what happens to Cuba/North Korea/Venezuela!!! Do you want us to become like them??!? Communism has never worked!!!"

 

Here is a good example of how conservatives and libertarians react when the word "socialism" is mentioned: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxZob2GBQXE

 

As shown in the video, the best way to counter that hysterical attempt to suppress the discussion of socialism is to name the list of prosperous successful socialist countries: Sweden, Norway, Iceland, etc., etc. So far, I have not seen conservatives or libertarians being able to rebufe those countries as counter-arguments. They would just shout louder and more hysterical. (They never want to talk about those Western socialist countries, and they pretend those countries do not exist; so far, the only counter-argument I've heard was: "they have high taxes!!!" Except high taxes on the rich is actually a popular idea in America, so they try to conflict high marginal taxes with high overall taxes, and high taxes on the rich with high taxes on everyone.)

 

Which brings us to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex. She is a newly elected Democratic Socialist House representative, and she has been in her office for less than a month. Even if she does not accomplish any major legislative achievements for the next two years of her term, she has already accomplish something hugely transformative: Americans and the mainstream media are, for the first time in my lifetime, having serious discussions about socialism, (and not just bashing or dismissing it.) She has shifted the public narrative and changed American attitude towards socialism. The more Americans start to talk about socialism and socialist ideas in details, the more people realize, "hey, I like Medicare-for-All, free universities, and etc., etc.."  And that is freaking out and scaring the ****s out of Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, billionaires, CEOs, the Wall Street, and the "Jesus wants you to get rich" Evangelical cult.

Edited February 3, 2019 by ktchong

[213374U]

[Guard Dog]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz_V4lRdtjo

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAtunJv6NtE