Recent Posts

How North Korea Could Start World War III: A War Between Russia and America

No comments

Yes, it is possible. 

How North Korea Could Start World War III: A War Between Russia and America
Ultimately, while American attempts to shoot-down a North Korean missile are unlikely to trigger an accidental nuclear war, it might not be good idea stress the Russian early warning system. The best option—time permitting—would be to forewarn Moscow of any attempt to shoot down a North Korean missile. However, during such events, there is no time to spare.
If the United States decides to attempt to shoot down future North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) tests using the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, it is likely that Russia’s early warning system will not mistake the interceptors for a potential nuclear attack.
That does not address the question of if the United States genuinely has the capability to intercept a North Korean ICBM—and many critics doubt that it does. However, the chances are that such an attempt to shoot down a North Korean ICBM would likely not trigger an accidental nuclear war even if the possibility does exist at some level.
“There is no reason to believe that threat identification could be a problem,” Pavel Podvig, an independent analyst based in Geneva who runs the Russian Nuclear Forces research project told The National Interest.
“It is true that an unexpected event, such as a GMD launch from Alaska, would probably generate an alarm, but the system is designed to deal with these kinds of events. Of course, it would be better if it doesn't have to deal with them, but it is not an issue of the capability of the system - I would equally not trust the U.S. system to perform adequately under stress.”

While Russia had for many years after the collapse of the Soviet Union allowed its early warning system to atrophy, the Kremlin has rebuilt and upgraded most of its ground-based missile warning radars. However, Russia has yet to fully reconstitute its space-based warning systems. Nonetheless, the systems has improved to a point where the Russians are less likely to mistakenly launch a retaliatory strike due to hole in coverage or errors.
“On satellites, yes, there are only two in orbit right now. But Russia never really relied on satellites to the extent the U.S. does, so the lack of coverage from space is not necessarily a problem,” Podvig said.
“Russia doesn't really have the launch-on-warning posture during peacetime, so detection of a few missiles/interceptors is unlikely to trigger a launch. There are, of course, scenarios in which things can go wrong, but it's an inherent risk in the system rather than a specific problem with the Russian—or U.S. for that matter—early-warning system.”
Indeed, Russia has in recent years, upgraded its early warning (EW) radars. 
“As far as I can tell, it is reasonably adequate for the job it is supposed to do,” Podvig said.
“Russia has almost completed deployment of EW radars and now can cover pretty much all directions. I know some people were asking questions about recent North Korean launches, but I do not think the fact that Russia insists on NK missile been intermediate-range has anything to do with the capability of the EW system. It is something else, although I don't have a good explanation of what it is.”
But there are reasons as to why some might assume that Russia might be prone to launching a retaliatory strike in the event that it detected incoming missiles.
“If you’re a country—or its government—that is not fully confident of its survivable systems, and suspect your adversary doesn’t believe in them either, you’re going to want to be able to launch-under-attack as a way of deterring your adversary,” Olga Oliker, director of the Russia and Eurasia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) told The National Interest.
“Since you can’t know for sure you’re being attacked until something blows up, what you’re really planning for is launching on warning. For this you need an early warning system.”
The problem for Russia is that ground-based radars do not give as much warning to leaders as a space-based system. 
“The U.S. and Russia both have early warning systems that combine satellites and ground-based radars,” Oliker said.
“For a while recently, Russia had no satellites—all the old ones had failed and it took a while to get new ones up into the sky. There are two up now, and a total of 12 planned. Russia therefore relies more on its ground-based radars. Over recent years, these have improved, and the system as a whole provides good coverage—there used to be holes. However, ground-based radars don’t give Moscow that much warning in terms of time—none of this gives you a ton of time. The U.S. system provides 30 minutes of warning at best.  Moreover, there are questions about how accurate it is. Finally, false warning is always possible, and there have been cases of it in the past.”
Mike Kofman, a research scientist at the Center for Naval Analyses specializing in Russian military affairs, agreed with Oliker’s assessment.
“Russia has new early warning radars but lost its launch detection satellite network a few years ago, and is now two satellites deep into replacing it out of a desired 10,” Kofman told The National Interest.
“As such, Russia depends on its network of radars while a new constellation of satellites comes online. Ideally, you want multiple means of warning, detecting a launch, confirming the missile on radar, estimating its trajectory and so on. The more time you have and means of confirmation the better the decision making process on how to respond.”
Of particular concern is that Russia relies very heavily on its vulnerable silo-based ICBMs even though it does have more survivable submarine and road-mobile weapons in its inventory. Moscow’s reliance on silo-based ICBMs could mean that the Kremlin might be more prone to launching a retaliatory strike if it feels its deterrent is threatened.
“So if you, as a country, have a tendency to build expensive silo-based ICBMs that you’re really proud of and put a lot of weapons on them, you might be more inclined to launch on warning,” Oliker said.
“If your warning system isn’t that good, and you’re kind of paranoid about your adversary, you might be more likely to launch on false warning. If you do that, you'll start a nuclear war by accident. This makes me nervous about Russia’s propensity to put a lot of its warheads on silo-launched ICBMs."
Ultimately, while American attempts to shoot-down a North Korean missile are unlikely to trigger an accidental nuclear war, it might not be good idea stress the Russian early warning system. The best option—time permitting—would be to forewarn Moscow of any attempt to shoot down a North Korean missile. However, during such events, there is no time to spare.

Trump's 'horrible' handshake with Melania suggests 'their marriage is in jeopardy': Body language expert

No comments
President Donald trump made waves last week when he greeted his wife on stage with an "awkward" handshake, and a body language expert says the move made the first couple "look horrible."
The moment came last Friday during an appearance at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland when President Trump gave Melania a handshake after she introduced him in front of military families. 
"You go sit down, honey," Trump said as he urged Melania off stage.
Social media was quick to explode with commentary over the encounter.
The latest interaction between the commander in chief and first lady isn't the first to raise eyebrows over the presidential couple, and body language expert Dr. Lillian Glass warns it could be a signal of trouble in their marriage. 
"It makes them look horrible. It makes them look like their marriage is in jeopardy," Glass told AOL News. "It fuels gossip. It makes them look like they’re just in it for the show and she can’t stand him."
Glass suggests the nature of the event during which the formal greeting occurred might have played a factor, saying Trump may not fully grasp appropriate military protocol at public events.
"Many politicians know what to do, they know how to act, or they’ve been in similar situations before with foreign activities and also with the military," Glass says. "He doesn’t really know what to do. He doesn’t have that background." 
From the infamous tarmac hand slap in Israel to the Slovenia native's serious facial expression during the January inauguration, the 45th president and first lady's marriage has been the subject of intense scrutiny since the former businessman took office.
Offering a bit of advice, the body language expert suggests the pair should have the guidance of a "chief of protocol" who can guide them on the "where to walk" and "what to do" elements of public appearances.
If left without help in navigating the in's and out's of public life as America's first couple, Glass suggests the Trumps may continue to suffer from the "Free Melania" headlines that often make waves when an odd public encounter occurs.
"They’re extraordinarily awkward," Glass warns. "And it looks very odd."

Kim Jong Un: What If America Just Assassinated North Korea's Dangerous Dictator?

No comments

It might make things worse. 

Kim Jong Un: What If America Just Assassinated North Korea's Dangerous Dictator?
Putting Kim six feet underground is only one choice in a set of options that the National Security Council will present to President Trump for his consideration. It may even be a policy option that is so far outside the mainstream that Trump’s national-security aides would disabuse him of studying it further. Reaction from Beijing would be swift and unyielding, and as much as the South Korean and Japanese governments would like North Korea to behave more predictably, it’s not at all certain that Seoul and Tokyo would believe that assassinating the men at the top would achieve that objective.
When the first images of a sarin gas attack streamed into the White House Situation Room, President Donald Trump ordered his National Security Council to come back to him the next day with some concrete options. Defense Secretary James Mattis, National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Joseph Dunford did just that; after rounds of meetings with national-security principles, President Trump ordered the U.S. Navy to launch fifty-nine cruise missiles on an Assad regime airbase where the gas attack originated.
At the same time, the NSC was putting the final touches on a North Korea policy review that has been an ongoing project for months. Unlike the administration’s deliberations on the Syrian chemical weapons attack, President Trump is giving his national security advisers far more time and a wider degree of flexibility. Before the policy review began, the Wall Street Journal reported in March that Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland directed aides to include “ideas that one official described as well outside the mainstream.”
We now know just how unconventional some of these options are: they apparently include everything from reintroducing nuclear weapons to South Korea as a show of force and deterrence to assassinating Kim Jong-un and his top commanders. “We have 20 years of diplomacy and sanctions under our belt that has failed to stop the North Korean program,” a senior intelligence official involved with the review told NBC News. Read between the lines and it’s obvious what the overall message from the Trump administration is: North Korea is a problem that has been on Washington’s hot-plate for way too long, so it’s time to shake up the establishment and look for new alternatives. 
There was a time when assassinating a foreign leader was an integral component of America’s national-security toolkit. During the Cold War, leaders who were either insufficiently supportive of U.S. policy goals or in bed with the Soviets were targets for removal. Cuba’s Fidel Castro, Congo’s Patrice Lumumba the Dominican Republic's Rafael Trujillo and Guatemala's Jacobo Árbenz were all on the CIA’s hit-list at one point in time, and Libya’s Muammar el-Qaddafi was a frequent target due to his sponsorship of international terrorism. In 1986, President Ronald Reagan authorized an air strike on Qaddafi’s compound in the hope that he would be in the building. After three months of interviews across the national-security bureaucracy, the New York Times Magazine concluded that “the assassination of Qaddafi was the primary goal of the Libyan bombing” in 1986.
The Cold War, however, has been over for twenty-five years. Killing foreign political officials, an option that was once always on the table, is now generally discouraged and frowned upon. In fact, It’s been U.S. policy since the Gerald Ford presidency to stay far away from anything that would suggest that the United States is a participant, involved in some way or complicit in an assassination attempt. President Ford’s executive order on this is quite clear: “No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.” President Reagan restated—and some would say expanded—that restriction in executive order 12333, which says that “[n]o person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.”
Pursuing a policy that would lead to the assassination of Kim Jong-un and the decapitating of the North Korean leadership would therefore be a big reversal from a U.S. policy that has persisted for forty-one years. Policies, of course, can change and presidential directives and executive orders can be modified or rewritten. And there is no statutory prohibition that would prohibit the president of the United States to order a hit on a foreign leader. Although 18 U.S. Code, Section 1116 could be used to prosecute a U.S. person who attempts to kill a foreign leader, this statute only applies if the crime is committed in the United States or the leader is targeted “in a country other than his own.” If President Trump were willing to amend current executive orders on the books, his administration would presumably target Kim Jong-un and not be penalized under the criminal code. 
A question that is just as important is whether assassinating Kim or the generals in charge of North Korea’s nuclear program, ballistic missile program, military or intelligence services would be a good policy. We tend to believe that if we just took out the top, bad guy in the regime, all of the other bad guys in that regime will be scared straight, change their behavior and suddenly turn their governments into bastions of human rights and democracy. We’ve had experience with his belief before: several days prior to major military operations in Iraq, Washington lobbed cruise missiles at Saddam and the Iraqi political leadership in the belief that perhaps further war could be avoided. Whether that hypothesis would have played out is unknown because Saddam survived those attacks—it’s comfortable to assume that the Baa’thist leadership would surrender to coalition forces the next day, but it’s just as likely that the war would go on.
North Korea is an entirely different situation than Iraq was in 2003. Kim Jong-un is solidly in power, having killed or marginalized anyone (including his uncle and half-brother) perceived to be even a minimal threat to his control. Unlike Iraq, whose military was demoralized and degraded by the Persian Gulf War in 1991 and by a sanctions regime over the next decade, North Korea is a nuclear-weapons state with ballistic missiles that have the capability to level Seoul quickly and target U.S. bases in the region. Killing Kim and banking on the idea that the regime would change how it does business after seven decades would be a high price to pay if that untested theory proved to be wrong. Because North Korea is such a black-hole in terms of human intelligence, the U.S. intelligence community wouldn’t be able to confidently assess that the man or woman (Kim’s sister, for instance) who replaces Kim wouldn’t be just as vicious or unpredictable. Assassinating a head-of-state is the definition of an act of war, and nobody can accurately guess whether cooler heads in Pyongyang would prevail over those who would be itching to demonstrate strength through retaliation. 
Putting Kim six feet underground is only one choice in a set of options that the National Security Council will present to President Trump for his consideration. It may even be a policy option that is so far outside the mainstream that Trump’s national-security aides would disabuse him of studying it further. Reaction from Beijing would be swift and unyielding, and as much as the South Korean and Japanese governments would like North Korea to behave more predictably, it’s not at all certain that Seoul and Tokyo would believe that assassinating the men at the top would achieve that objective.
One hopes that all of this talk is more of political gamesmanship to goad the Chinese into cooperating with the United States, and nothing more.

Now You Can Make Your Own Awesome “Minions” Goggles at Home (12 pics)

No comments

 The Supplies
"I used 2 PVC adapters that looked roughly like minion goggles. I'm not even sure what they're called. I just found them in a bin at the hardware store for $.92 each. Also 1 small machine screw and bolt and the strap off some cheap safety glasses."



Dremel
"I had to use a Dremel to shave away a bit of the plastic so the bolt and nut would fit. "


"I used some plastic epoxy to glue the pieces together, then the nut and bolt to really secure it."

"I used the Dremel again to shave the goggles to a rough contour of my kid's head and cut slots for the back strap."

Paint 'er up
Just a quick coat of silver spray paint.






The Best Response Ever To Annoying Government Bureaucrats – This Is GOLD! (4 Pics)

No comments




Trump To African Leaders: My Friends Go To Your Countries To Get Rich

No comments
Africa is a continent of “tremendous, tremendous potential,” U.S. President Donald Trump told African leaders at a luncheon on Wednesday.
“Africa has tremendous business potential,” Trump continued, while hosting the leaders of Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Namibia, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa and Uganda during the United Nations General Assembly in New York.
“I have so many friends going to your countries trying to get rich. I congratulate you,” he said. “They’re spending a lot of money.”
He went on to praise health care advancements in the non-existent country of Nambia. It is unclear if he was referring to Gambia in West Africa, Zambia in southern Africa, or perhaps Namibia in southwest Africa. White House transcripts suggest the latter.
Trump also announced he’s interested in boosting American investment to create jobs in Africa.
His administration has been “closely monitoring and deeply disturbed by the ongoing violence in South Sudan and in the Congo,” and will be dispatching U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley to Africa to “discuss avenues of conflict and resolution and, most importantly, prevention,” he added.
In his first speech before the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday, Trump spoke for 41 minutes on a number of controversial topics, at one point threatening to “totally destroy” North Korea.
But members of the Zimbabwean delegation, including President Robert Mugabe, seemed far from interested. A widely shared image appears to show the 93-year-old leader falling asleep in his seat.
Maybe Trump’s speech would have been better-received by Nambian leaders.