Buy this man a drink.
The United States has spent huge amounts of money to develop the technology to intercept missile warheads and is in a position to install systems that have a very credible and unknown capability to defend against a limited missile attack. (Unknown is a good thing in the world of deterance.)
Slowing or stopping our missile defense research and deployment would give China and Russia time to catch up with the US. As that happens, the technology will leach out to other countries, leaving the US weaker and more vulnerable to a missile attack.
The Norks have done us a great big favor. How are Obama and the Democrats going to justify slowing or halting missile defense now?
The Norks have done us a great big favor. How are Obama and the Democrats going to justify slowing or halting missile defense now?
A big hug and a kiss for the great chairman.
This clip from CNN explains why:
This clip from CNN explains why:
In the same manner as the democrats have done in the past--saying missile defense is a destabilizing factor, the other side sees it as a part of an offense, will only arm up more to defeat it, and it won't work anyway, would be my quess.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Belgium can help.
ReplyDeleteLi'l Kim is an ugly son of a bitch, the outside matching the inside.
ReplyDeleteI think these two make a rather fetching couple.
ReplyDeleteGive the Russians and Chicoms a chance to "Catch Up"?
ReplyDeleteAfter it was promised we'd share that technology with the whole Whirled, in the pursuit of peace
... missile defense, which owes its origin to President Ronald Reagan's 1983 Strategic Defense Initiative speech challenging the country to develop a defense system that would provide the United States with the ability to destroy any and all nuclear-equipped intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) launched against Washington by the former Soviet Union. Reagan believed that a successful missile defense could both end the nuclear arms race and make nuclear weapons obsolete.
He even went so far as to promise to share the technology with the Soviets.
In what would be a harbinger of things to come, Reagan did not consult with either the military or Defense's civilian leadership before unveiling his proposal.
Republicans, missile defense, and the Reagan legacy
By Lawrence J. Korb
So, as per the Plan, the Russians and Charlie Chicom are expected to "catch up", if they do not, we'll just give the data sets required to build a ballistic shield, themselves, per Ronald Reagan and the nuclear disarmament crowd.
Even GW Bush offered, to Mr Putin, the opportunity to "Catch up" with US assistance.
Missile defense
by Helle C. Dale @ the Heritage Foundation
At the ensuing Black Sea Summit between President Vladimir Putin and President Bush, Mr. Putin snippily turned away Mr. Bush's offer to share missile defense with the Russians.
An idiotic idea to share it, whoever the author.
ReplyDeleteSharing it was integral to building it.
ReplyDeleteStill is, or it becomes an offensive system that changes the balance of terror, increasing the chances of nuclear weapons being used.
Even Mr Reagan realized and acknowledged that.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHeard that Mr Gates announced that one of the Carrier Battle Groups would be decomissioned. Did not hear it mentioned the which one, but maybe Charlie Chicom would like to buy the whole flotilla.
ReplyDeleteFigure Hillery ought to at least ask. Sell that asset rather than just scrapping it, or providing fish with a new home.
Thanks and Congrats to the North Koreans..
ReplyDeleteThey have proved that the USA now is nothing to be scared of or listened to.
The North Koreans have taught the Israelis a lesson, that under a BHO admin Rely on yourselves.....
The USA is a paper tiger against Iran, North Korea, China, Syria, Russia, Sudan & numerous world powers I cant even spell this early in the am...
Yep the Messiah is the Messiah for the Socialists, Nazis, Dictators and Despots....
The free people's of the world? your screwed, you are wealthy, you need to transfer your wealth to the undeserving poor...
If i was Iran right now I'd be popping the cork off of some non-alcoholic beer... Victory is near....
Today BHO is talking about how WORDS MATTER and how Iran needs to be engaged in MORE WORDS...
lol.........
Other news of interest this morning. Another suicide bombing in Pakistan. It seems the Taleban are telling the people of Pakistan that cooperation with the US will come at a price.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Obama is advocating for Turkey to gain EU membership...
Moderate Taliban Leader Warns Barack Obama's Plan will make Afghanistan Worse - Telegraph
ReplyDeleteSays it will escalate the war and draw more jihadis into country.
How many more jihadis is the question and how long will their religious war go on like this?
Back on topic - North Korea.
ReplyDeleteThis is what happens when you talk loudly and carry no stick.
WiO said:
ReplyDeleteToday BHO is talking about how WORDS MATTER and how Iran needs to be engaged in MORE WORDS...
For most of the whirled, words matter more than deeds.
From the Telegraph:He's got the whole whirled in his hands
ReplyDeleteLast week, however, it became clear that Mr Obama, a humble freshman senator until a few months ago, is seen by many – and perhaps by himself – as president of the world. Far from budget negotiations, recalcitrant car manufacturers and populist outrage at corporate bonuses, being able to paint on a broader canvas seemed to give him a fillip.
"It is a revolutionary world that we live in, and history shows us that we can do improbable, sometimes impossible, things," he told the enthralled crowd in Strasbourg on Friday, promising "transformational change" across the globe.
I agree with Deuce. This will focus the rest of the Country's mind, even if not Obama's.
ReplyDeleteWell, hell, I like transformational change, don't you all. We'll call it "TC."
ReplyDeleteA little, TC, please.
Words matter to quote the Israeli government...
ReplyDeleteYes we can and YES we will stop Iran if your too chickenshit to do so...
so if reagan shared all this missile defense technology with the soviets back in the day -
ReplyDeletewhy is Putin so upset about BMD in eastern europe?
the russians already have the tehnology...right?
it might be incorrect to assume no action was taken by the U.S.; the launch in 2006 was also deemed a failure
ReplyDelete"Northcom's tracking of the launch indicated the missile passed over the Sea of Japan and Japan. Additional tracking of the three-stage missile showed the first stage of the missile fell into the Sea of Japan and "the remaining stages along with the payload itself landed in the Pacific Ocean."
What? There ain't no Nokor satellite beep-beeping over ol' Rufus' N. Mississippi abode?
ReplyDeleteGot to love it...
ReplyDeleteObama BOWS to the King of Arabia....
Japan and South Korea are gonna nuke up, since Obama is all yack and no shack.
ReplyDeleteEverybody is going to "Nuke up." It was written in stone when we lit off "little boy" (or, fat boy, whichever one of those two was the first.)
ReplyDeleteYes we can and YES we will stop Iran if your too chickenshit to do so...
ReplyDelete==
Yes, we will stop Iran by giving Nukes to Pakistan Saudia UAE Egypt etc. Bunch of yankee fscktards.
Also, Obama is advocating for Turkey to gain EU membership...
ReplyDeleteTo be expected.
NYTimes:
ReplyDeleteEuropeans Offer Few New Troops for Afghanistan
They should sink that aircraft carrier group off of Key West somewhere. Make a great attraction for scuba divers. Charge a fee, reduce the national debt.
ReplyDeleteWhat I don't understand about this is why the Chinese don't put a cork in Li'l Kim. Surely they have no interest in Japan or others in the area possibly arming up. Why don't they pop the bastard?
ReplyDeleteFrom what I''ve read this missile went right over Japan. What the hell? If you're not going to shoot that down, what are you going to shoot down? Nothing, I quess.
ReplyDeleteNo, elijah, I do not think that any technology was transfered, not until Mr Clinton came to be President and then
ReplyDeleteIn 1996, Loral and Hughes showed the PRC how to improve the design and reliability of the guidance system used in the PRCÌs newest Long March rocket. ...
198.62.75.12/www2/china/overview/pg3.html
Which may have been a different data set than the ABM system contemplated, at that time.
None the less it is an indication of US intent, to share the technologies of mutual assured destruction.
Hillary is working the phones even as we type. More cause for concern...
ReplyDeleteThe ones that fly over, those are harmless, bob.
ReplyDeleteIt's the ones that land that cause a challenge.
The trajectory could and one could assume was tracked from launch. It would have been evident, early in the flight that Japan was not the target. Any reports at what altitude the thing was at, over Japan. Had it reached space by then, or was it still sub-orbital, gotta wonder, it'd make a world of difference..
Mat, you've got to understand; you Jews NEED the Palestinians. As long as they're around the Jews MAY NOT be the most obnoxious people on Earth. Conceivably.
ReplyDeletePolite international players don't launch missiles over one another, Rat:)
ReplyDeleteDrones, spy planes, yes, missiles, no.
The Orinsky, bob, they sunk that one off the coast near Pensacola, FL. Already being used as a tourist attraction
ReplyDeleteWe fly satellites over the entire globe, bob.
ReplyDeleteThat is why the altitude, over Japan, would make a political difference.
If they even reached orbit.
Mat, you've got to understand; you Jews NEED the Palestinians. As long as they're around the Jews MAY NOT be the most obnoxious people on Earth. Conceivably.
ReplyDelete==
Coming from Dennis the Menace. But that would be a complement you don't deserve. :)
Li'l Kim's got at least one playboy son that jet sets around the world. We ought to get up a kidnap team, just to break the boredom. Hold him for ransom, maybe trade him for those two AlGore American girls held by Kim. Would beat going to a Tax Day Tea Party to blow off some steam!
ReplyDeleteI started looking at your video of the carrier sinking, Rat. My computer seems to halt, then a little spinning icon comes on, then the video moves on a few frames. Repeat. Really irritating, so I didn't make it to the end. Ruins trying to listen to music. Is there a fix for this?
ReplyDeleteTrade Arabia - Middle East & GCC Business Information | Trade News Portal
ReplyDeleteSiemens Energy, a power services provider, has announced that it will to buy a 28 per cent stake in the Italian solar company Archimede Solar Energy (ASE) aimed at expanding its capabilities in solar thermal power plants.
ASE is the sole producer of solar receivers operating with molten salt as the heat transfer fluid. Siemens is market leader in steam turbine-generators for solar thermal power plants.
By combining these two technologies Siemens wants to enhance the efficiency of these plants and further reduce the production costs for solar power. The two companies did not disclose the purchase price of the shares.
“By acquiring a stake in ASE Siemens is underlining its intention to become the leading provider of solutions for solar thermal power plants,“ said René Umlauft, CEO of the Siemens renewable energy division.
“In the upcoming years the market for solar thermal power plants will grow at a rapid pace and the interest of our traditional customers in the energy sector in this promising future-oriented technology will increase significantly,” he added.
The market for solar thermal power plants will, according to Siemens, estimates show double-digit growth rates per year to reach a volume of over 10 billion euros ($13.5 billion) by 2015.
.
.
http://www.tradearabia.com/news/newsdetails.asp?Sn=OGN&artid=
Barack Obama Seeks to Sign an Arms Control Agreement With Russia's Dmitri Medvedev - WSJ.com
ReplyDeletePresident Obama met Russian President Dmitri Medvedev in London this week, and you'd have thought topics like the financial crisis and Iran would have more than filled the conversation. But when a U.S. President meets his Russian counterpart, the reflex left from the Cold War is always to sign another arms control deal. So here we go again.
The Obama Administration wants to replace the soon-to-expire 1991 START treaty with a new regime that would set a ceiling of 1,000 nuclear warheads apiece for the U.S. and Russia. That would dramatically cut the two countries' existing number of operational weapons, both strategic and nonstrategic, from a current estimated total of about 4,100 for the U.S. and 5,200 for Russia. It would also exceed the terms agreed by the Bush Administration in the 2002 Moscow Treaty, which committed each side to reduce their arsenals to between 1,700 and 2,200 strategic warheads by 2012.
As we learned in the 1970s, the devil of arms control often lies in the technical arcana of warheads and delivery systems, so we'll await the text before pronouncing judgment. But the devil of arms control also lies in the overall concept, with its implicit assumption that the weapons themselves are inherently more dangerous than the intentions of those who develop and deploy them.
We would have thought this thinking was discredited after the Second Lateran Council outlawed the use of crossbows in 1139, or after the Hague Convention of 1899 banned aerial bombardment, or after the Kellogg-Briand Pact outlawed war. Nope. Mr. Obama has set the ultimate goal of eliminating nuclear weapons, and as one of his first official acts he pledged to "stop the development of new nuclear weapons."
What Mr. Obama wants to kill specifically is the Reliable Replacement Warhead, which the Bush Administration supported over Congressional opposition, and which Mr. Obama now opposes despite the support of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the military. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told us this week that "we do need a new warhead." When we asked about Mr. Obama's views on the warhead, the Admiral said, "You would have to ask him."
The RRW is not, in fact, a new weapon; it has been in development for several years and is based on the W89 design tested in the 1980s. It is said to be a remarkably safe and long-lasting warhead, a significant consideration given the gradual physical deterioration of the current U.S. arsenal, particularly the mainstay W76.
The irony is that Mr. Obama's opposition is making substantial reductions in the total U.S. arsenal that much riskier. In the absence of actual testing, which hasn't happened in the U.S. since 1992, the only real hedge against potentially defective weapons is a larger arsenal. Naturally, arms-control theologians are instead urging the Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and ban the production of weapons grade uranium and plutonium.
The thinking here is that somehow the American example will get Russia, as well as North Korea, Pakistan and perhaps Iran, to reject nuclear weapons. In fact, a U.S. nuclear arsenal that is diminished in both quantity and quality would be an incentive for these countries to increase their nuclear inventories, since the door would suddenly be opened to reach strategic parity with the last superpower. Mr. Medvedev, for one, recently announced Russia would pursue "large-scale rearmament" of its army and navy, including nuclear arsenals.
France also plans to deploy new sea-based nuclear missiles next year, even as it reduces the overall size of its arsenal. The French understand that a credible nuclear deterrent requires modern and reliable weapons. The Obama Administration should understand that the best security for both the U.S. and the allies that rely on our nuclear umbrella lies in an unchallengeable arsenal, and not an invitation to the world's Mahmoud Ahmadinejads to compete on equal terms.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879970564788365.html
==
Good. We need more steps like this from China France Britain etc.
"Evil Hearted You" (1965)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y45aHGWoQGs&fmt=
Blondie - Atomic
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwqYsoDqbCQ&fmt=
"FACCIA A FACCIA" (1967)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vweUUymYJeE&fmt=
Flipsville
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llAY7m7qbfM&fmt=18
Oil as Money and the Decline of Energy Earnings | Gregor.us
ReplyDeleteThe Oil Drum has posted a must read essay today by Chris Cook, formerly of the International Petroleum Exchange. Cook suggests that the only real money is in fact energy. And, that the world should eventually migrate to a monetary system based on that reality.
Whether one agrees, disagrees, or simply needs more time to digest such an idea, let's contemplate the 10 Year chart of the Dow Jones Industrial Average in terms of the price of Oil.
indu-in-oil-terms-620
There are myriad observations to make here. I don't wish to be either too simplistic or reductionist. However, one simply has to wonder that that the decline in Net Energy globally is what ails the global economy. The Dow was at its highest when oil was cheap near the turn of the millennium. The Dow, expressed as a cash equivalent, was buying 600-700 bbls in that period. Now the Dow is buying about 150 bbls of oil.
If we can free our minds for a moment of how many bbls of oil the world produces, and the current dollar level of the Dow, and think more about Net Energy, then certain insights can unfold over the above chart. It's good to think generally here, and thematically. So here goes: we know that the Energy Return on Energy Invested–the EROEI–of nearly all energy resources is in decline, globally. In other words, it used to take only a single barrel's worth of energy to extract a hundred barrel's of oil. My Twitter pal @alexismadrigal is currently reading Dan Yergin's The Prize, and is finding some juicy examples of the high rates of return found, in the early days of oil. But now, in this century, we find that the EROEI for Oil, Natural Gas and Coal is now in steep decline. While complex, the answer is obvious: it takes alot more energy to drill for deepwater oil, to vibrate rock to release Natural Gas, and to extract Coal from old mines where the easy coal was sucked dry 100 years ago. The global EROEI of oil has descended to an average now of 12 to 1.
In the last 10 years, global EROEI has gone into steeper decline.
And that's what the DOW chart may be expressing. Again, there are myriad other factors in play that have produced the chart you see above. But the primacy of energy is without question a major influence here. Industrial companies need to extract profits from their activity that is over and above their energy costs. If their business-wide costs are infused with energy–from the food their employees need to eat to the heating and cooling of buildings–then their earnings, and their earning quality is going to decline. While that concept will be obvious to all, now add in the notion that the quality of energy earnings is also in decline.
If energy costs to an economy are rising in nominal terms, and the quality of energy earnings (EROEI) is now also in steep decline, then we would want to look for signs that the aggregate profits of the entire economy are in decline. And the above chart of the DOW may be an expression of this phenomenon.
http://gregor.us/oil/oil-as-money/
http://snipurl.com/faidd
Our Tanks Are On Full
ReplyDeleteThe energy crisis is an artificial one, created by bad policies.
Newt Gingrich
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Apr 13, 2009
For the past 30 years, America has grown increasingly dependent upon foreign sources of energy, sending American dollars to countries that are hostile to American interests and leaving us vulnerable to wild fluctuations in energy prices.
This energy crisis has not gone unnoticed in Washington. Every U.S. president since Richard Nixon has spoken about the need to make America more energy-independent. Despite their strong words, no rational strategy has been implemented for achieving that goal. In fact, where government has acted, it has usually made the problem worse.
Let's be clear: our energy crisis is not due to a lack of American energy resources. We have more coal than any other country in the world. There are 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas lying undeveloped offshore. Shale-oil reservoirs in parts of Colorado and Utah could hold upwards of 1 trillion barrels of oil—more than three times the proven reserves in Saudi Arabia. Nuclear power is a clean source of energy that produces zero carbon emissions. It generates 20 percent of America's electric power today, and with the right investment could generate far more.
.
.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/192480
==
Yeah, that's it. Shale-oil is the answer. Keep the US dependent on oil and the Saudis who can produce it at a fraction of the cost. What a dumb ass shill for the Saudis. Fsckn retard.
from The Idaho Observer (not me)--
ReplyDeletean alternative history of our times--
Deathbed Confessions
still waiting on those solar powered eighteen wheelers
ReplyDeletecaptain planet
captain planet
ReplyDelete==
Yes, it just makes you wonder how a city like Paris can do without.
Yes, it just makes you wonder how a city like Paris can do without.
ReplyDelete==
Or a country like Israel, for that matter. The only time I've seen them is as transport carriers for tanks.
Somebody fetch mat a dose of kaopectate. He's on a roll.
ReplyDeleteBobal where'd you get all our secret Jesuit world-domination plans from? There's been a leak!
ReplyDeleteI thought them were Odd Fellows plans, Miss Xena.
ReplyDeleteBarkeep!
ReplyDeleteA kaopectate and prune juice for any argumentatives. (that'll stop 'em and start 'em in their tracks)
Seems ρrospeгouѕ enough to many ѕites that Biԁ A-Z
ReplyDeletelіstѕ of onlіne games to Opt from.
Аnd that's it - Hold exploded in popularity on television set.
my website ... game
neаrly aге for Shreκ some the extгatеrгestrial bеing еffort and one moгe
ReplyDeleteωіll Vеrbalise around game stуles and in-game wеaρons.
Play thіs tуpes of online games іѕ teaѕer
ReplyDeletegames.
Fеel free to visіt my wеb blog ... game