#what is nuclear deterrence forces

[apas-95]

abt the 'exit strategy for capitalism' thing obviously the natural advantages of socialist states will lead to their uncontested military and economical dominance in the coming decades, at which point they'll have both means and motive to buy out bourgeois interests and their 'possessions' and transition the economical system while there's no easy way for imperial core states to outright end these trends, their policies obviously do affect the economical development of socialist states and there's probably enough variance to shift the timetable on all this happening by a couple years, so y'know exert whatever influence you have on the particular flavor of capitalism that's in vogue if done well (and what I'm seeing rn actually gives me hope for that) the capitalists at no point have an incentive to burn the whole thing down out of spite bc they keep earning right until they don't, you know how the saying abt ropes and hangings goes (and if done poorly and they cling to and suck dry the last scraps of the world's economy they control at least everywhere else should be out of reach by then) and my main concern with a revolution is actually that one will 100% get accused of having foreign backing, at which point you just needlessly raise the odds of some general deciding he (or she #imwithher) might as well let those nukes fly (even if they're losing, especially if they're losing) But it's all w/e, I could be convinced either way, this all just makes a lot more sense to me than a succesful imperial core revolution that doesn't end with the northern hemisphere irradiated

fundamentally the notion of a peaceful transition out of capitalism is simply not in agreement with reality. no class has ever abandoned the world stage without fighting to maintain itself, and the imperial core is already both undertaking massive violence and war against the sections of the global south it already has under its heel, and preparing for high-intensity conflict against the communists that have slipped its shackles. there is no point where the bourgeoisie would simply peacefully allow themselves to be stripped of power.

the point of nukes is exactly *why* there has to be revolution within the imperial core, rather than having the rest of the world do the job for them - there is precisely one place the US has no nuclear deterrent against, which is itself. if the thing we're supposed to fear is that both 'the US military's high command, likely facing severe mutiny, rather than ordering a negotiated surrender during civil war, decides to nuke themselves' as well as 'the US strategic missile forces, upon receiving the order to nuke themselves, carry it out', then so be it - such a fundamental strategic insanity would be just as likely to start a nuclear exchange even if there weren't a revolution - which brings us to the final point.

world war is on the horizon. the economic reasons for world war remain as they did a century and a half ago. the world has been fully carved up, and the profits are drying out. the imperialist blocks, principally the US and EU, are driven to compete against each other for their holdings, first peacefully, then through proxy war, and finally through direct conflict. as it was a hundred years ago, the buildup of war is accepted on all sides with the target of the socialist bloc and the potential for its pillaging, but (as has already started breaking out among larger and larger regional powers) any conflict of this sort would manifest as general war and looting, as desperate, recession-wracked imperialists take opportunity as it presents itself. in inter-imperialist war the most ruthless techniques are used, and a nuclear exchange would not be off the table -- and, fundamentally, the conditions that lead to world war are the same that lead to instability, insurrection, and revolution within individual countries.

war is, at this juncture, an inevitability. the only question is whether revolutionary war will win out over unjust war, will convert the war between nations to a war between classes. we are against war, but we are not afraid of it.

[rwac96]

G-Clone Project: Gojera/Godzerra (April Fools)

Subject # 4: Humanoid Kaiju/G-Cell endowed atomic mutant/ "Kaiju Girl"

(image by Witchking00)

HEIGHT: 80 Meters

LENGTH: 180 Meters

MASS: 50,000 Metric Tons

Based on a project suggestion by roboticist Dr. Hideo Shida, creator of the 'RoboMusume' anti-Kaiju weapon during his last days before his passing. In the aftermath of Godzilla's (II) rampage throughout Tokyo, not only the city was doused in radiation but the Monster King left behind samples of its body. "G-Cells", christened by Dr. Genichiro Shiragami, are a rare and dangerous commodity sought after by multiple governments, organizations, and special interest groups all over the world. After witnessing footage of Godzilla's battles against other Kaiju such as Biollante, Ghidorah, and Spacegodzilla; Shida suggested a Kaiju-sized humanoid made from bioengineering. The UNGCC Council was hesitant, remembering the doctor's unorthodox "Bride of Godzilla" mech, how it violated Japan's anti-nuclear weapons policy, and the near-disaster that would've destabilized both the Earth and Hollow Earth if it weren't for RoboMusume's peculiar self-sacrifice. To bring legitimacy to his idea, Shida explained that the subject would have the might and power of Godzilla, but with the mind of a human being.

Miki Segusa spoke up about her concerns over this idea since she advocated for Godzilla to be left in peace ever since he adopted a juvenile Godzillasaurus and the plans of Mechagodzilla, MOGUERA, and Project T failed. Not to mention this was three months after Spacegodzilla's attempted conquest of Earth, a Kaiju-sized human being made those of the G-Countermeasures council uneasy. But Shida replied the possibility of this supposed soldier being an ideal improvement over Mechagodzilla as a defender of Japan and a deterrent to Godzilla. Days after this meeting, select bioengineering scientists began with the 'G-Cell Project', moving their resources to France.

By 1996, Shida had passed away due to old age, and it seemed UNGCC was on the verge of pulling the project's funding. That was until the Baas Island explosion and Godzilla's emergence as "Burning Godzilla", a nuclear meltdown that would've destroyed the world. The G-Cell team found themselves free of oversight during the crisis, as the appearance of Destoroyah heightened the danger. But, the crisis has passed with Destoroyah's rampage stopped and G-Force minimizing the damage as Godzilla perished. But, his leftover radiation transferred to the supposedly deceased Godzilla Junior revitalizing him and maturing him into a new Godzilla (III). With the future uncertain, a breakthrough was made with the G-Cells, the project was renamed the 'G-Clone Project'.

The New Godzilla lacked its father's hostility to humans but, the UNGCC wasn't going to take any chances, as they heard reports of another Godzilla battling an extraterrestrial known as the 'Gryphon' in the United States, unaware that it was what Monarch classified as 'Titanus Gojira'. Then, the monster known as 'Zilla' escaped its holding cell in France and rampaged in 1998, causing complications for every government involved. Many questions surrounded the Kaiju's appearance, as the French contingent of the project had gone rogue. Fearing that their pet project, 'Gojera', would be discovered, they ejected a large egg onto an island that had leftover nuclear radiation from atomic bomb tests in the 1950s. The egg laid dormant for months, until it hatched, revealing an abnormally large infant girl...with dorsal spines eerily similar to Godzilla. The infant fed on the radiation, having an accelerant growth similar to Godzilla (III) until she reached maturity in 2003.

Unfortunately, like Zilla, Gojera, or as Westerners would refer to Subject #4 as 'Godzerra', escaped containment and made landfall upon the coast of Japan, much to the surprise of everyone involved in the battle and witnessed it. Though she slightly resembled a human being, she had the ferocity and aggressive demeanor of any Godzilla, what made it worse was the young woman's genuine malice and enjoyment of the destruction she wrought. It was evident that communication with Godzerra would be unwise, as she seemed to revel in violence. Luckily, the UNGCC had created another anti-Godzilla weapon, launching Kiryu against the Kaiju Girl. Though it turned the tides in humanity's favor, it was clear that something about the mech set her off. As things seemed to be in G-Force's favor, Godzerra bellowed a defiant roar, making Kiryu pause. Seeing the mech's eyes turn from orange to red, she looked down at the gathered soldiers with an eerie smile, as if she knew what would happen next and turned back to the sea.

"Reap what you sow."

-A scientist translated from the Shobijin when Godzerra 'spoke'.

In horrifying reality, Kiryu was built around the skeleton of the 1954 Godzilla that attacked Japan and was killed by the Oxygen Destroyer. Some blamed a technical malfunction, others claimed that the Kaiju Girl's roar influenced the mech, and the Shobijin claimed that the spirit of Godzilla (I) lived within the bones. Overall, the latest anti-Godzilla weapon ironically caused more harm than Godzerra. After Kiryu ran out of power and was escorted back to G-Force, the UNGCC faced intense backlash internationally. Dr. Ishiro Serizawa of Monarch demanded answers, for both the explanation revolving around Kiryu's existence and Godzerra, the latter being verily outside of the Natural Order Monarch had studied for years. Many bioengineer scientists and researchers were questioned, as they could face jail time. Unfortunately, Godzerra resurfaced in Tokyo Bay, demolishing G-Force forces. As the Kaiju Girl marched closer and closer to the city center, the UNGCC Council and the Prime Minister had no choice but to launch Kiryu, believing whatever caused its malfunction was fixed.

The latest Mechagodzilla encountered the Kaiju Girl, resulting in an intense battle, appearing equally matched. Despite Godzerra's mixture of brute strength and human-like strategy, Kiryu gained the upper hand, wounding the atomic mutant with the Absolute Zero Cannon. While it failed to kill Godzerra, Kiryu did expel her, meaning humanity finally had a sure means of fighting back against any Kaiju. But, one year after the battle, Mothra returned to Earth, the Shobijin warning that the first Godzilla's bones must return to the sea for it was blasphemous to use them as a weapon. Takaaki Aso, former G-Force commander and the Prime Minister at the time, stated that too many resources had been sunk to scrap the project now. But, the Shobijin ensured that Mothra would defeat the atomic clone, despite Aso's doubts and remembering the 1992 battle against Godzilla (II) that claimed Battra's life. Soon, Godzerra returned to Tokyo, heading for Kiryu's hangar but was intercepted by Mothra. But, due to her time in space, the divine moth had reached old age; making her outmatched against the Kaiju Girl.

Unwilling to let Mothra fight alone, the G-Countermeasures Council ordered Kiryu's deployment; while Miki Segusa used her telepathy to contact Godzilla (III), fearing the situation's escalation. Despite being outnumbered, Godzerra proved to be a match for both the mech and the moth. Until Godzilla's arrival, who was curious about this being before engaging in combat. Despite the Monster King's strength and power, the Kaiju Girl lived up to G-Clone's original aspiration of creating a being to best their primary foe. Before she would kill the King of The Monsters, Mothra used the last of her strength to take the Atomic Breath for Junior, being set ablaze and exploding. Enraged at his 'sister's' callous reaction to the Guardian Kaiju's death, the saurian gained a second wind and the battle turned in his favor.

As the battle dragged on due to Godzilla's determination to avenge Mothra, G-Force units with Kiryu Mechanic Yoshito Chujo charged into the battlefield to repair the mech. With repairs completed, the Mechagodzilla joined Junior in the fight, turning an even battle to the favor of Earth's Defenders. But, Godzerra, revealing with cruelty, unleashed her own Atomic Pulse, unleashing Spiral Blasts upon Godzilla. Hearing the current Monster King's pained cries, the first King of the Monsters' spirit awakened within Kiryu, blasting the Kaiju Girl away. Unwilling to see such carnage between members of his species, despite the mutant's unnatural origins, Kiryu grabbed Godzerra and flew out to sea, sinking the two monsters in the Japan Trench.

The battle was finished but was declared a hollow, pyrrhic victory, with Tokyo in ruins once more, Mothra dead and Godzilla barely returning to the sea before collapsing due to his injuries, going into a healing hibernation. Finally seeing his grudge against Godzilla as folly, Aso ordered the Kiryu project to be officially scrapped and funding to G-Force cut in half. Since then, the UNGCC and G-Force are now a shadow of their glory days in the '90s and 2000s. However, the G-Clone Project secretly holds the DNA of multiple monsters, including Godzilla, to create more clones in case other Kaiju emerge. As for Godzerra, it took years for her to break Kiryu's grip, re-emerging in 2016, months after the rampage of 'Shin'. Godzerra had taken up residence on the mysterious 'Monster Island', isolating herself from the other Kaiju. Declaring the rather empty title of 'Queen of the Mutants'.

[eretzyisrael]

by Daniel Greenfield

The Biden-Harris administration and the European Union believe that Ukraine has the right to win while Israel only has the right to defend itself. That is the fundamental difference between the treatment of Ukraine and Israel, and the treatment of their two wars.

Ukraine’s demands for bigger and deadlier weapons systems, including tanks and jets, were swiftly met even while the Biden-Harris administration cut off or “slow walked” more basic weapons deliveries to Israel to force it to slow down offensive operations, including in Rafah. Those pressure campaigns allowed Hamas to hold on to and murder captured hostages.

That’s what the “right to win” looks like as opposed to the paltry “right to defend itself.”

Every time Ukraine pushed further or opened a new front in the war, including going into Russia, there was applause, rather than warnings about “escalation.” But every phase of Israel’s military campaign, including the push into Rafah where the hostages and tunnels were, was marked by pressure campaigns and warnings about the danger of “escalation” in the Middle East.

Ukraine attacking a nuclear world power isn’t “escalation,” Israel taking out a Hamas leader is.

The political establishment believes that Ukraine has the right to do more than just throw back invading armies, but believes that Israel’s rights are limited to defending and maintaining its 1948 borders, that it must surrender of all its Six-Day War borders, including half of Jerusalem, to Islamic terrorists and then promise them everything else they ask for to end the fighting.

And when the terrorists attack anyway, Israel will have the “right to defend itself” for a week or two. Then it’ll be time for another “ceasefire,” more negotiations and more surrenders.

Kamala and the political establishment are wrong. Israel does not have a “right to defend itself,” it has a right and a duty to go on the offensive and win. It has a right and a duty to utterly defeat and destroy every single Islamic terrorist organization at war with it. It has a right and a duty to secure whatever territory the terrorists were using for their operations, including the Philadelphi Corridor on the Gaza-Egypt border, through which massive amounts of weapons were delivered to Hamas.

That’s the least of what winning means.

In 1948, 1967 and 1973, Israel undertook to win. In those first three decades, it won and emerged stronger for it. In the next terrible four decades, it lost land, ambition and safety in a failed search for a peace that could never come on any terms other than its own strength.

Defense was traded for offense. Conflicts were to be managed. A weakening deterrence would reduce the scope of any individual exchange of fire. The United States and the Europeans would offer “guarantees” in exchange for a perpetual process of peace negotiations and war.

That was Israel’s “right to defend itself.”

On Oct. 7, Israel hit bottom. The cost of peace at any price was no longer just the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Gaza, rockets falling on major cities or a worldwide campaign of demonization by its “peace partners,” but a new invasion of Israel. Out of that horror rises a single fundamental question: Will Israel remain on the defensive or will it fight to win.

The right to defend itself is Israel’s slow suicide. Survival rests on the right to win.

[matan4il]

do you think irans attack this past weekend was a test? a dip of the toe, if you will, to assess potential future plan viability?

can’t shake the thought unfortunately

Hi lovely, sorry it's taken me a moment to reply! I think you're justified in thinking this way, because when the top military experts all did not foresee Iran's unprecedented attack on Israel coming, we all have to take their threats very seriously.

That said, I personally find it hard to believe that Iran will make its "big move" before it has a nuclear weapon. Israel (supposedly) has nuclear weapons, and also has (again, supposedly) some of them loaded unto nuclear submarines. Why the submarines? Because those are hard to locate, which means that even if an enemy thinks they can somehow exterminate Israel with one decisive strike, they'll still pay the price of Israel's retaliation, launched from those submarines. And THAT is a serious deterrent. So if Iran wants to destroy Israel and live to tell the tale, it needs at the very least its own nuclear weapon, and a plan on how to stop Israel's nuclear submarines from striking back.

Iran is def not in a place where it thinks it can avoid Israel's retaliation (at least not yet). How do I know? Because of the money they invest in Hezbollah. More than any of the other terrorist organizations it funds, the Iranian regime arms, trains and prepares Hezbollah to be its main extension during an all out war with Israel. Hezbollah is believed to be at least ten times stronger than Hamas, at least in terms of manpower and number of rockets, and Iran was still reluctant to add its power to that of Hamas on Oct 7. They're reserving that terrorist organization and its power for the day they'll need it. The reluctance to use it during the current war tells me Iran is still not ready for the ultimate showdown with Israel. It's also supported by the fact that Iran was quick to announce after its attack on Israel, that they're done if Israel doesn't further attacks, and then the Iranian regime pretended like it couldn't determine who launched the (counter)strike on Isfahan, and also did all it could to hide the damage that we now know was caused to Iran's aerial defense systems, protecting its nuclear program...

Iran is not ready yet. Does that mean they're not learning from this little exchange of blows? They are. Just like Hamas used every time they fired rockets at Israel to study Iron Dome, and make their next attacks more efficient. But what did the Iranian regime learn? That even when it looks like Israel is more diplomatically isolated than ever, that doesn't mean that the world's leaders will stand by when unjustified aggression is launched at it. They DO understand that what Iran gets away with when it comes to Israel can come for their own countries next. That its air defense systems are still no match for Israel's attack capabilities, since the Iranians failed to even detect them coming in. That there is a coalition in place, which even includes identified and unidentified moderate Arab countries, back by western ones, and this constellation will be much harder to fight than Israel on its own, even with Iran's proxies. That 99% success at defending Israel means Iran is not even close to where it needs to be, if it wants to launch its ultimate attack.

We do have to be wary, and I'm sure the heads of Israel's security forces are. But I also think we still have time before Iran makes its "big move" to destroy Israel, because honestly, I do believe they know they won't get more than one shot. So... I have that's a bit of comfort. I'm not saying Iran won't attack, but I am saying I don't think we're there yet. And just like Iran can use this little exchange to study Israel, we can do the same right back. Remember, Israel has a laser defense system that's meant to go operational in the near future, and it's meant to be even better (in more than one way) than Iron Dome. So we have a few tricks up our sleeves, too... ;)

Sending you a big hug, I hope you're okay, and if you celebrate it, then have a happy Passover! xoxox

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)

[originalleftist]

I wonder if those who think Israel should be destroyed, or that the US should do nothing to assist in it's defence, have ever really thought about what Israel's defeat and destruction would entail.

Because even beyond the immense loss of life, primarily to civilians, that that would entail, the reality is that Israel has nuclear weapons. And if it is ever in a position where it is desperate enough, where it's existence is imminently threatened, it will likely use those weapons. And again, this is not because Israel is uniquely destructive or genocidal- it's literally the central reason why every country that has nuclear weapons (so the US, Russia, China, UK, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea) has them. As a final deterrent, and means of retaliation, against destruction.

So if Hamas or Iranian or another enemy were to successfully overrun Israel, such that Israel's existence as a nation-state was imminently threatened, those nukes would come into play. And it should go without saying, but that will not help anyone. Not Israelis. Not the US. And not Palestinians. Because you can't have your own state when you're dead.

Israel is a small nation, surrounded by enemies. The choices of it's government bear some responsibility for the latter fact, but regardless, that is the situation at present. The best guarantee that Israel will never find itself desperate enough to consider using those nukes is likely a strong guarantee of US support. No, that doesn't mean that the US has to give Israel unlimited offensive weapons for any purpose. But it does mean that whenever Israel's existence is threatened, it does not stand alone.

The alternative is not a good one. For anyone. And if you want the destruction of Israel by force, you are not supporting a "free Palestine". You have one goal- the slaughter of "Zionists" (by which is meant, Israeli and also often diaspora Jews). And are willing to see Palestine and a lot of other places turned to radioactive wastelands to get it.

Remember this as well when you see commentators and social media posts denouncing Biden for supporting Israel against Iran, accusing him of genocide, and urging people to stay home/vote third party/vote Trump on Election Day.

[girlactionfigure]

An Excess of Democracy

The State of Israel is more endangered today than at any time since 1948, including 1973. She is tied down in Gaza while her enemies wait their turn in Lebanon, Syria, the PA, Yemen, Iraq, and Iran – which may already have nuclear weapons. An unprecedented campaign of antisemitic incitement is destroying popular support for her throughout the world, and government after government is punishing her by recognizing the “State of Palestine” on her territory. The more genocidal her enemies, the more she is falsely accused of genocide. Her decision to position herself as a satellite of the US has borne bitter fruit, as that country’s policies are increasingly decided by elements that want to see Israel disappear; at the same time, the enemies of the US treat her as an outpost of US power that must be eliminated.

Israel’s political, intelligence, and military elites have shown themselves incompetent. They failed to foresee, prevent, or even effectively react to the invasion of 7 October. They have turned the military successes of the war into what appears to be a surrender to all of Hamas’ demands.

Over the years they have projected an image of Israel as a punching bag rather than the proud and powerful nation that she is. Despite our nuclear-armed military, they have allowed Iran to encircle us with terrorist proxies and even to establish a deterrent force in Lebanon that we fear to challenge. They have allowed Iran itself to obtain nuclear weapons.

On 13 April 2024, Iran launched an attack against Israel that included hundreds of drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles, the largest such attack in military history. All but a few were intercepted by Israel with some help from the US and others; the cost of this defensive operation to Israel was estimated at more than $1 billion. Had the attack succeeded, there would have been great damage to military and infrastructure targets, as well as loss of life. Israel retaliated a few days later by destroying some radar installations in Iran. The weakness of Israel’s response was a result of US pressure and the deterrent effect of Iran’s Hezbollah proxy.

At home, our leaders have allowed the PA to systematically gobble up parts of Area C in Judea/Samaria that are supposed to be under full Israeli control by international treaty. They have allowed, and then legitimized, illegal Bedouin settlement in the Negev. They have allowed the flourishing of Arab crime syndicates in the Negev and Galilee, and in the Arab towns and mixed Arab-Jewish cities.

Tens of thousands of Israeli citizens have fled from their homes: in the south from fear of resurgent Hamas terrorism, and in the north from daily bombardment by Hezbollah with rockets and anti-tank weapons, which have laid waste to cities and towns in the area. As I write this, large fires started by Hezbollah rockets are burning in northern cities.

Our governments are ineffectual, paralyzed by arguments over issues like the judicial reform and the Haredi draft, beset by powerful lobbies and popular groups that are manipulated by political actors. The two largest minority populations, Israeli Arabs and Haredim, maintain autonomous “states” within our state, where the laws and informal understandings that govern the rest of the population don’t necessarily apply.

Many Israeli Arabs, with the notable exception of the Druze and a small number of Bedouins, do not accept the principle that Israel is a Jewish state, do not serve in the military, and in many cases avoid taxation and other responsibilities. Haredim refuse to serve in the military and maintain an educational system in which “secular” subjects like mathematics and modern Hebrew language are not taught.

Because of the war, reserve soldiers are now to serve 90 days a year, which is destructive to family life, jobs, and especially independent businesses. At the same time, tens of thousands of yeshiva students have been exempted from the draft. Attempts to change this have been met by demonstrations which block major roads, and threats by Haredi politicians to bring down the government. Israeli governments have been trying to find a successful compromise to enable the sharing of the security burden for decades without success.

***

What can be done? What must be done to preserve the Jewish state, prevent another Jewish dispersion, and restore Israel’s role as the protector of the Jewish communities of the diaspora? As always, there are short-term and long-term answers. Today our most critical concern must be the war in Gaza. As long as Hamas continues to be in control of the strip, we effectively lose a large chunk of our country that will remain uninhabitable, and the IDF will be tied down and unable to respond to other threats. Even more importantly, if Israel is defeated by the terror tactics of Hamas – and make no mistake, an agreement along the lines of the one announced last week by the US president will be understood by the entire world as a crushing defeat – our enemies on all fronts will bring us more 7 Octobers.

Hamas’ victory strategy depends on two major Israeli weaknesses: the public concern for the hostages (and the manipulation of that concern by political actors that oppose the government), and Israel’s susceptibility to American pressure.

The cruelty of Hamas and the situation of the hostages is tearing at the hearts of all Israelis. But barring a miracle, there is no solution that will bring them home at a price the nation can afford. We must say to their families: we cannot trade the Jewish state for your people. We must do everything that we can to save them, but we cannot surrender to our murderous enemy in order to do so. It’s delusional to think that we can accept a 6-week ceasefire (not to mention the other concessions demanded), given the pressure from America and the other fronts of the war, and then return to finish off Hamas. It will not happen.

The US administration has done and is continuing to do everything it can short of military intervention on the side of Hamas to prevent Israel from achieving a decisive victory. Israeli leaders must understand that we cannot win if we obey the directives from Washington. They must tell the Americans whatever they need to hear, but order the IDF to finish the job, to remove Hamas from power and destroy its military capability.

***

It is painful to write this, but I fear that our present government may be incapable of taking the actions required for the state to survive. Worse, the political structure of our state may be ill-adapted to survival in today’s Middle East.

I would sum up the problem by saying that Israel suffers from an excess of democracy. There are many things that are wonderful about a truly democratic state: in theory, it can behave justly toward individuals with diverse interests and needs. It is a way to align the policies of a country with the “general will” of the populace, in the words of Rousseau. Unfortunately there are some specific situations where democracy is sub-optimal.

One of them is a state of war. In wartime, decisions must be made that will favor victory but which will cause popular suffering, or suffering of influential groups. Such decisions often cannot be made democratically.1 An example is the question of whether Israel should accept a deal that will free some hostages, but also release many imprisoned terrorists and place restrictions on her conduct of the war.

Another problematic case is that of large permanent minorities who utilize democratic institutions like elections to pursue “identity politics” rather than issue-oriented ones. In Israel, in addition to the ethnic and religious divisions, we find entrenched ideological and personality-oriented subgroups. In 2019-21 they combined with our complicated electoral system to produce four parliamentary elections in a period of two years. The tension between the elected Knesset and the independent bureaucracy, which represents Israel’s former ruling elite, guarantees gridlock on important issues. In addition, the almost decade-long attempt to take down PM Netanyahu utilizing the judicial system, and supported by most of the media and the academic establishment, has been a distraction and strain on both sides.

Israel is both almost permanently at war, and blessed with large ethnic/religious minorities. Thus her aspiration to be a democratic state works against the possibility that she will have an effective government. And the challenges to being a tiny Jewish state in the Middle East absolutely require leadership that functions optimally.

Given the power relationships in our political society, it is unlikely that there is a smooth path – for example, a constitutional convention – to a new form of government. But the responsibility of the state to her citizens, and to the Jewish people as a whole, demands that she make this transition in any case, regardless of the disruption of normal life that it is likely to entail. ______________________________________

1But didn’t the democracies defeat the Nazis in WWII? Actually, both Roosevelt and Churchill acted as virtual dictators. And Stalin…

[pixeljade]

I do keep seeing posts that say "whys Joe even funding Israel except that he loves Genocide" or "Why is there discussion of leaving NATO in the senate survey" and like. Here. Let me explain this to you. (DISCLAIMER: I hate Joe Biden I'm just doing this because understanding your opponents motivations makes it so you can more effectively fight them)

When you're President, issues are not just single simple issues. Theres a shitton of moving parts, and he cant be obvious about his awareness of all these parts for transparency's sake because that also gives his enemies (which would include those of us who want Both Parties Gone) an upper hand. Joe Biden views Israel as a necessary US base of operation in the middle east to defend the USA in case of an attack by China and (more pressing lately) Russia.

See, with Russia attacking Ukraine, Ukraine is thinking of joining NATO as a means of better defending itself. They've been talking about it for ages but really started getting the ball rolling when Putin attacked. NATO is a treaty organization which, if Ukraine does join, all the other members of NATO would be forced to come to its aid (i.e., literally all of them would be considered At War With Russia). On top of this, Russia has strong allies with a lot of anti-USA powers, including China. I wouldnt even be surprised if North Korea shows up. If this is starting to ring bells relating to the world wars in history class, good, because thats exactly what this scenario would entail. Another, open world war. Yes people scream 'world war 3' over the tiniest provocation but its just as foolish to claim its impossible. Add in that Putin has said he will gladly use nukes if he has to, and...well. you can put two and two together. It wont be a pretty picture.

Anyways, the middle east is, and has been, a central point in our proxy wars against Russia for ages. This is both because of the resources (oil) there, as well as its potential as a strong base of defense for the west against the east. Israel in particular is USA's biggest military defense resource, as they have a shit-ton of anti-ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) capabilities. Simply put, they serve as a bulwark against the forces of the east. They're also one of the biggest deterrants against all-out world war; because if anyone DOES try to send a nuke out west, we'll just blow it up before it hits us and then have Israel nuke them back, with far less time to defend.

So lets put ourselves in Joe's shoes knowing all of this. It starts to feel a bit like he HAS to keep giving Israel what they want in order to prevent world war 3 and/or nuclear holocaust, huh? This should also clarify why he said "If there were not an Israel in the middle east we would have to make one", and why he reportedly is very upset with all the Palestinean death yet still gives Israel weapons. Its a shitty appeasement tactic with an eye on global politics. (Side note: astute readers may also note that the actions regarding China are part of this, including the tik tok ban. They are correct.)

But does this make his actions correct? Fuck no. As many have noted Israel wouldnt even be able to continue existing without assistance from America, and Israel would likely be the first place to be destroyed by Russia if they seek to win, if it were weakened sufficiently. Meaning Joe could EASILY turn the tables on Israel and threaten to (or actually) cut them off and say "Fine, if you want to go that way then enjoy the hellfire that comes for us all, chuck." He could also decide to start rebuilding relations with China despite our differences, and therefore deprive Russia of allies in the world war 3 scenario. He could also build up these same defense systems in another middle eastern allied country (which I'd be against because colonialism is part of the problem). And that's simply taking it from the perspective of Joe, I, personally, do not think that America should remain in its current form. It has far more blood on its hands than just the Palestinean blood, and its destruction (preferably without nukes) could allow better things to take root.

Anyways, like I said, this is so that we might better defeat our enemies, so if you're wondering what the implications here are, I'd say start getting involved in politics at a local level. Not just protests, go to city council meetings! Its mostly boring stuff but once you get a hold on what it all means (and you will!) You'll start to see ways to shift the American culture away from this war-dependent fascistic society which has been surging so terrifyingly. You will start to see the glimmers of hope which shine through the sludge that it is American Politics.

Anyways if someone says this is a pro-Biden post im going to stab you with a million knives.

[mariacallous]

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s order for nuclear weapon drills went public on May 6, the day after Orthodox Easter—a bitter irony since he styles himself a fervent guardian of Christian values, which do not include the simulation of nuclear annihilation the last time I checked. I wonder whether he signed the order before or after his much-publicized attendance of Easter service at Moscow’s Cathedral of Christ the Savior.

The exercises will simulate “theater,” or regional, nuclear attacks, in contrast to “strategic” nuclear exercises simulating war with the United States. These theater exercises will be centered in Russia’s southern military district, likely targeting not only Ukraine but also NATO members Romania, Bulgaria, and Turkey. The message coming from Moscow is that the exercises are in answer to loose talk from French President Emmanuel Macron and other NATO leaders about possibly sending alliance forces to fight in Ukraine.

The Kremlin appears to be reinforcing, in no uncertain terms, a red line against NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine. Fortunately, it is a red line that most NATO leaders share, including U.S. President Joe Biden. From the very outset of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Biden made it clear that the United States and its allies would send military assistance to Ukraine but not engage in the fighting. His goal was and remains crystal clear: to avoid a direct fight between Russia and NATO in Europe that could escalate to World War III and nuclear conflict.

Putin also wants to avoid a direct fight between Russia and NATO. For him, that means avoiding strikes against NATO territory or reconnaissance aircraft patrolling the airspace over the Black Sea. NATO deliveries are fair game for attack once they arrive on Ukrainian soil, but not while they are still transiting NATO territory.

The United States and Russia thus agree on one thing in this terrible war: They do not want to risk a nuclear holocaust. Why, then, do the Russians keep claiming that the world is facing one?

Part of it is evidently the Kremlin’s effort to derive value from this very brinkmanship—a pattern of behavior rarely seen since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, the last time the world came to the brink of a nuclear exchange. During the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union fought proxy wars in many places, from Angola to Vietnam, but threats to use their nuclear forces rarely played a role. Neither side used such threats to achieve conventional battlefield goals, the way leading Russian officials have been doing throughout the war in Ukraine.

Instead, Washington and Moscow first built up their strategic arsenals—the long-range nuclear weapons by which they threaten each other directly—sustaining essential parity as they went. So long as neither side built significantly more than the other, and as long as both sustained a high level of readiness, the two superpowers had a nuclear deterrent that both considered stable.

This stability became so boring and reliable that people more or less forgot about nuclear annihilation. Once policymakers in Washington and Moscow began to control and limit their nuclear arsenals in the 1970s—starting with the first U.S.-Soviet détente and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty—the rest of the world was glad. No one wanted to think about what would happen if the nuclear superpowers “pressed the button.” And they did not have to: The superpowers were heading in a different direction, reducing their reliance on nuclear weapons.

The war in Ukraine has thrown this complacency into turmoil, because Putin and his minions have insisted on rattling the nuclear saber throughout the invasion. Now the rest of the world has to think again about nuclear weapons and what Russia might do with them.

This bizarre game of nuclear look-at-me is linked to the Kremlin’s equally bizarre complaint that its act of invading Ukraine has created an existential threat to Russia. In this telling, NATO support to Ukraine is tied up with strategic defeat of Russia. As commentators in Moscow claim, Russia only wanted the best for Ukraine—its liberation from a “Nazi” regime and a fake idea of statehood. However, once NATO began to aid Kyiv, the bloc’s goal was not helping Ukraine, but destroying and dismembering Russia.

Some leading officials in NATO member states have indeed voiced Russia’s strategic defeat as an objective for what they are trying to achieve in assisting Ukraine. But again, Biden has been crystal clear that the bloc has a limited objective that does not threaten Russia itself. In May 2022, he said: “We do not seek a war between NATO and Russia. As much as I disagree with Mr. Putin, and find his actions an outrage, the United States will not try to bring about his ouster in Moscow. So long as the United States or our allies are not attacked, we will not be directly engaged in this conflict, either by sending American troops to fight in Ukraine or by attacking Russian forces.”

But Putin and his chief ministers have not been mollified. They continue to go on and on about how the United States and NATO are seeking the strategic defeat of Russia and its demise as a nation. Their motivation is obvious: If its people believe that the country is facing total destruction, they will stay in the fight for the sake of survival.

So there is a lesson here for leaders not only in the United States but also in Europe and Asia: The fabric of nuclear deterrence is changing, its mind game adjusting to a new era of nuclear brinkmanship. So far, Putin and those around him have been the most active practitioners, but North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, whose nuclear capacity now extends beyond his regional neighbors, has been not far behind. Beijing, although it has sustained a nuclear good-guy image with a policy of no first use, could be tempted to follow Putin’s example as its nuclear force structure becomes more modernized and its ambitions extend throughout Asia.

With so much loose nuclear talk in the air, the United States and its allies must think hard about how to sustain stable and strong deterrence. In other words, they are going to have to focus on how to talk responsibly to the global public about nuclear weapons. The most important audience in deterrence, of course, are the potential nuclear aggressors.

The first rule should be to maintain discipline about using terms such as “strategic defeat,” so as not to pander to claims that it is Washington and its allies that are posing an existential threat. If the United States does not seek the destruction of the aggressors’ regimes and the dismemberment of their countries, it should say so. If Washington is not clear about the objectives in a conflict, then it should say nothing at all.

The second rule should be to sustain the effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear deterrent and the reliability of its command and control systems. That means consistent, solid support for the ongoing modernization of the nuclear triad. It means continuing nuclear training and exercises in a transparent manner and testing nuclear delivery systems—missiles and bombers. All of these actions should not be articulated in a threatening manner—the United States should not be the one rattling the nuclear saber—but convey quiet confidence in the country’s nuclear deterrence forces.

Third, Washington should be pursuing with assurance the mutual predictability that comes from controlling and limiting nuclear weapons at the negotiating table. Of course, Russia, China, and North Korea show little interest in coming to that table today, but the United States should not be the side that is quitting it. The global public wants to see continued progress on nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation, not a descent into a new nuclear arms race. And importantly, the table of nuclear talks is a good place to deliver deterrence messages. As difficult as it may be, the United States and its allies must continue to lead in this arena.

Finally and most importantly, the United States and its allies must sustain steady progress in military assistance to Ukraine. The most serious implication of the delayed funding vote in the U.S. Congress was that the United States could be halted in its tracks by a bully brandishing nuclear weapons. U.S. leaders need to convey quiet confidence in the country’s nuclear deterrent and keep their promises to Ukraine. Together, these two elements make up the critical message that must go to others who might try nuclear threats to get their way.

In each of these steps, Washington has great potential to bolster its nuclear deterrent. The United States’ naturally open system facilitates communicating deterrence messages when a president speaks to the nation or military and political leaders testify before the U.S. Congress. The national budget process permits the country to convey openly and clearly the process of its nuclear modernization. And working together with allies, the United States can drive nuclear statecraft forward in ways that preserve nuclear predictability and, at the same time, strengthen deterrence. The fabric of nuclear deterrence may be changing, but determining its future must not be left to the aggressors.

[age-of-moonknight]

Helloo

If im not bothering you too much, may I ask what you know about the cia?

I know it may not be a question related to moon knight, or maybe it could be, but im kinda interested to know the basics at least and you seem to know a lot about it

Btw, i absolutely adore your blog

Hello!!! :D I'm so glad that you enjoy this blog and thanks for stopping by! Although, well,,,,hm,,,maybe it's just my rabid paranoia sinking its claws even deeper into me, but this is one of the more interesting asks I've gotten for this blog, that's for sure. 😅 For perhaps some context, I think anon might be referencing this post I made, gosh, close to two years ago now, where I got....maybe a little too excited talking about the history of the CIA and what Marc's time with The Company could mean for his character hahaha Accordingly, a full rundown on the agency's history, not to mention its many, many facets, is probably a bit outside the purview of this blog, but this is then a good time to state that if anyone ever wants to talk about anything and everything besides Moon Knight, my dms are always open and I'm happy to chat! However,,,I also have an affliction where I am an incorrigible pedant who jumps at the chance to write essays on things that interest me (and intelligence interests me very, very much, unfortunately). As such, while all my instincts are telling me this is absolutely glowing bait on a hook, if anyone wants to read a rambling wall of text about that agency Marc spent some time with, that will be waiting for you under the cut. Again, disclaimer, I'm just some person on the internet and thus can't really be considered a credible source on much of anything (except maybe how many times Moon Knight has teamed up with the Punisher hahaha). All the following info could easily be gathered from OSINT sources (and we're talking, like, Wikipedia, although this gave me the chance to pull out one of my favorite textbooks, Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy by Mark Lowenthal (vol. 7). If you're the textbook reading-type and interested in the topic, I'd suggest giving it a shot, particularly chapters 2 and 3 for the CIA and the U.S.' broader intelligence community). I tried to keep this incredibly surface level, as these are all topics that you could write monographs on, so if you want more sources/context, just hit me up! This also got,,,,unreasonably long (I didn't even know tumblr HAD a point where it would stop autosaving, but apparently trying to list all of the CIA's crimes against humanity will get you there), so I ended up having to split this across multiple posts.

Conception I discussed it in my previous post, but I'll give a brief rundown on how the Central Intelligence Agency came to be. So, the United States had intelligence organs pre-World War II, but they would typically only be spun up for however long a conflict lasted and then all of their assets would be reintegrated back into the military, da? But then with the end of WWII ushering in the atomic age and nuclear deterrence pushing out conventional conflict in favor of an espionage-fueled Cold War, the U.S. government deemed it prudent to have a permanent intelligence gathering service. There was just one hiccup, the question of what to do with the U.S.' WWII-era intelligence service, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). Under the leadership of the very descriptively nicknamed Brigadier/Major General William "Wild Bill" Donovan, OSS officers had been running around conducting sabotage and espionage operations throughout Europe and Asia, doing wild things like working with an underground intelligence network of European Catholic priests and coordinating with the 20 July plot/Operation Valkyrie assassination attempt on Hitler. They were the very definition of irregular, British officials accused them of "playing cowboys," and the U.S.' massive post-war military organization was loathe to have to find some way to force OSS officers into the military's necessary uniformity, so in 1947, after a couple years of bureaucratic shuffling, the OSS apparatus got pasted onto this new intelligence agency that was so far,,,rather bookish and the CIA as we know it was born. This divide, between the incredibly Ivy League analysts and the more martial remnants of the OSS that got folded in was a contributor to the two major branches of the CIA (and their infamous intra-agency rivalry), so this perhaps a good segue into the CIA's different internal departments, its "directorates."

There are the two ogs, the Directorate of Operations and the Directorate of Analysis, and then the newer Directorates of Digital Innovation, Support, plus Science & Technology. (Note: this is as the agency stands now; there have been some fluctuations in structure and naming conventions over the years).

The Directorate of Operations (DO) needs little introduction, as it's the legacy of the OSS and what most people think of when they hear the word "espionage," the kind of work one individual once described to me as "fast cars, nice suits, and unlimited spending" (hope he's still out there and doing well). They're your politically deniable boots on the ground collecting HUMINT (human intelligence such as handling contacts and the like) and executing covert actions. It contains the ultimate sharp point of the spear, the Special Activity Center (SAC) with its Political Action Group (PAG), which spreads black propaganda, influences elections, and conducts other psychological operations, and the Covert Action Group (CAG), which draws operators from the military's special forces programs to form their own direct action, counter-intel/counter-terror, unconventional warfare, paramilitary group (they have a very diverse set of martial skills). Naturally, most recipients of the U.S. intelligence community's highest honors, the Intelligence Star and Distinguished Intelligence Cross are from the SAC. Most of the stars on the CIA HQ's Wall of Honor, which memorializes officers who died in service of the CIA, represent SAC officers too, however.

The Directorate of Analysis (DA), in contrast, doesn't get enough love, despite making up nearly half of the CIA for decades. Whereas the DO mainly collects the intelligence through various means, the DA has the people who take the raw intel and try to turn it into something digestible for policy makers (whether that means just translating the intel into basic English or proposing whole, wide-sweeping policy strategies has varied across the agency's history depending on its professionalism and the degree of government oversight at the time). They get so overshadowed despite being a key part of the intelligence cycle, it's almost not funny hahaha (I kid you not, the official CIA website not only has a "kids" section with an online coloring book that depicts the various directorates as heroes, but it even went so far as to depict the DO with a rather dashing hat and cape,,,,while they gave the representation of the DA glasses and a briefcase, I weep hahaha). However, if you've ever heard a stereotype of the CIA actually being made up of a bunch of incredibly Ivy League, smart but cliquey, uncomfortably cold (both in manner and strategy) eggheads, that would be because of the DA. That's a very disparaging stereotype,,,,but it got its start from somewhere. It's still the CIA after all, and there have been times in the institution's history where the only thing to distract the DA from its intra-agency pissing contest with the more domineering DO was to shield the CIA from any sort of external government or other agency encroachment on the CIA's "purview."

Probably the next most established division would be the Directorate of Science & Technology (DST). Whereas the DO is predominantly HUMINT and the DA works closest with policy makers, the DST is the one expanding the CIA's technological capacity to deal with CBRN threats (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear), and collect SIGINT (signals intelligence over radio waves and the like), IMINT (image intelligence as from satellites), and GEOINT (geological intelligence monitoring seismographs to, for example, detect if a nation is doing underground nuclear tests). Intel collection is only as good as the tools used and naturally intelligence agencies all around the world are constantly trying to leapfrog each other in capabilities, circumvention, and denial (preventing adversarial interest's collection efforts, that is).

Similarly, the most recent division is the Directorate of Digital Innovation (DDI), which is similar to the DST, but the DDI is focused almost entirely on cyberwarfare/espionage. They also seem to be doing a lot with OSINT ("open-source" intelligence, AKA any information you can access without a security clearance). OSINT used to be a bit of a joke in the intelligence community ("so, it's just what you read in the paper this morning??? That puts it one step above LAVINT: intelligence collected by overhearing conversations in the lavatory"), but with the explosion of information made available by the modern internet landscape and social media, you can go far with OSINT. (If you too salivate over the potential OSINT, maybe checkout Bellingcat if you haven't already)

Lastly but not least, there's the Directorate of Support, who are all the people who keep The Company running smoothly, managing logistics, comms, security at CIA sites, and overseeing officer training.

So yeah, I've alluded to the DA's and DO's rivalry, so maybe I should talk about inter- and intra-agency competition and the hot water those things have got the CIA in over the years. Maintaining an effective intelligence community is a tricky thing, particularly in a nation trying its best to be democratic and at least nominally respect human rights. You want officers to be able to collect intelligence, but you can't let them have so much free rein they rough up the nation's own citizens with impunity (as that's a bad look and can lead to civilian push back that could not only hurt the regime but handicap intelligence gathering in the future) and you definitely don't want an intelligence agency getting so much power it feels like it can start dictating a nation's policy instead of just advising on it. (Plus, the absolute nightmare scenario of an agency that's gone completely off the rails and no longer bothers much with consulting on politics at all, but just operates completely independently). Thus, to prevent the intelligence community from getting too big for its own good, a little competition, a little checks-and-balances from within the intelligence community can be beneficial. The drive by one intel group to outperform another (and consequently get more recognition/funding/etc.) can lead to a mutual improvement of the products that end up on a policy maker's desk. Having said that, I hope I explained it in such a way where you might see the issue with the CIA being the U.S.' singular, domineering force in the federal intelligence community for decades. The DA and DO had their marked cultural divide, but the CIA had very little competition from other agencies and, for example, had their ultimate weapon: the President's Daily (intel) Brief. The CIA, due to its vast capabilities, for years had the privilege of providing the president with (what the CIA deemed to be) the most important intel topics of the day. Accordingly, particularly during the Cold War before government oversight of the CIA really kicked up, this allowed the CIA to sway the government towards some at best politically questionable and more critically ethically deplorable policy choices.

Yeah, having gotten this far, I don't think I've made it clear that, for as much as I am fascinated by and spent,,,,a lot of resources studying subjects such as intelligence and terrorism, I am fully cognizant and never quite cease to be outraged by the injustice that permeates those fields. The CIA for sure, with its vast resources and the outsized role the United States played in meddling in international affairs during the Cold War and on, is a chief and, now, well-documented offender. I'm sure CIA intelligence collection and guidance has prevented many attacks we'll never know about, but you can't talk about the CIA without discussing the actions that directly resulted in thousands dead. Let's go over some of their greatest hits, shall we? (And that takes me so long I have to put it in a whole other post).

[kellyvela]

One of my favorite things about Dani and her fans is how much they have romanticized dragons and unironically feed into the mother of dragons title and will literally treat those three lizards like they are her 'children.' Like, they don't know that considering fire breathing lizards that can only destroy as your children is probably not a great thing in their fave's arc lol.

Let me answer you with GRRM's words, from the comment section of his blog post "Coolest Dragons Ever" (Feb. 10th, 2014).

George's ranking of the Cooles Dragons Ever is:

Vermithrax Pejorative (From Dragonslayer)

Smaug (From The Hobbit)

Drogon (From Asoiaf)

In the comments, a couple of readers argued that "Draco" (From Dragonheart) was "the nicest dragon ever" and "the most friendly and charming dragon."

This was GRRM's answer to them:

"Yes, but dragons are not meant to be friendly or charming"

So, lets add this quote to the list:

Dragons are the nuclear deterrent, and only Dany has them —GRRM - Vulture - 2011

Yes, but dragons are not meant to be friendly or charming —Coolest Dragons Ever" (Feb. 10th, 2014)

She[Dany]'s the mother of dragons, and she controls what is in effect the only three nuclear weapons in the entire world that I’ve created. —“Interview exclusive de George R R Martin, l'auteur de Game Of Thrones” de -Le Mouv’- 2014 - [Transcription]

If I were Daenerys Targaryen. I could ride on my dragons and eliminate them in the flames. But is death the only solution we have to offer? —Lire Magazine - April 2015

“Oh sure, dragons are cool too,” he chuckles. “But maybe not on our doorstep”. —The Guardian - November 2018

Maybe if she[Dany] understood a few things more about dragons and her own history in Essos, things would have gone a little differently. —Esquire - November 2018

“I have tried to make it explicit in the novels that the dragons are destructive forces, and Dany (Daenerys Targaryen) has found that out as she tried to rule the city of Meereen and be queen there. (...) “She has the power to destroy, she can wipe out entire cities, and we certainly see that in ‘Fire and Blood,’ we see the dragons wiping out entire armies, wiping out towns and cities, destroying them, but that doesn’t necessarily enable you to rule — it just enables you to destroy.” —GRRM - Fox News Channel - November 2018

"In my head the expression "mother of dragons" is much better than "father of dragons". There is also this link with the woman who gives life, who transmits lives, carrying a gigantic power of death, of fire, of destruction. There are very powerful metaphors in there." —Dragons! (2/4) Dragons d'Occident, la figure du mal [2018] - Video - Reddit translation

Now dragons are really formidable and they can turn the tide of a battle. It flies, it's difficult to hit, it breathes fire, against which most knights and men at arms have little or no protection. So if you have dragons, that's were the nuclear option analogy comes in. You're hard to mess around with. So the dragons and fear of dragons was one of the things that made the Targaryens very secure in their power. —Before the Dance: An Illustrated History with George R.R. Martin | House of the Dragon (HBO) - August - 2022

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Read more here:

Chronicle of a Death Foretold

Queen of Ashes

All Grrm Quotes About Dragons

[maowives]

for what it's worth, afaik (which is like, you know, severely constrained by context, so take this with a massive grain of salt, also I am definitely just Some Guy[sic]) China has built up its nuclear program with the express purpose of countering US military strategy, similar to much of their broader military design. for one, China's underground tunnel network for ICBM transport, storage, and launch, was designed with the express purpose of assuring Chinese second-strike capability, such that, should an American nuclear strike be launched against China, there will be assured capacity to launch a retaliatory strike even after the nukes land in China. for one, this acts as a pretty significant deterrent, in just my opinion, but also, I think illustrates a broader phenomenon with Chinese military strategy -- which is that the Chinese socialist project has been aware of its inevitable clash with the American imperialist regime from day one, and has designed its entire military structure to address this from the ground-up, whereas American military strategy A) has to be able to accommodate running an entire global military empire, which means it has to be nominally flexible, context-neutral, and therefore less specialized and B) especially in how it projects power, is currently designed less for fighting a conventional war against a military of equal or approaching equal firepower, especially with regards to air superiority. However, China has never been one to be hasty with decisions, so I doubt they will be the ones to initiate open military conflict with the United States unless the political conditions become correct for them to do so.

there are other ways (by my understanding) in which the design of the Chinese military machine is specifically focused on countering US strategy, such as a robust fleet of submarines which function well as a "hard-counter" to US aircraft carrier strategy, alongside robust forces of anti-ship missiles.

in essence, my understanding is that what we have in the Chinese military is a military machine specifically designed to systematically dismantle American military strategy in particular, whereas in American military design you have a general-purpose world domination machine, which has also been hampered by A) lacking recent experience in fighting or training to fight equal or near-equal powers B) the fact that the capitalist mode of production is immensely wasteful, and does not necessarily lead to the best designed and conditioned military. Also, it should be noted that the US has largely failed in every major military campaign its waged... in how many decades? The US military machine, though mighty, is clearly waning.*

as a last comment, the US also happens to be extremely unpopular globally, and this has been the case for decades, and this has only accelerated as it continues to alienate its allies who A) have close economic ties to China and B) risk their diplomatic ties with other nations as the US continues to massively mishandle the crisis in Gaza. if we are going to use a particular phrasing, the US has to be lucky every time, whereas the rest of the world only has to be lucky once.

*I already linked "US imperialism is a paper tiger" above in a different section, but I wanted to note a particular passage in relation to the noted comment:

When we say U.S. imperialism is a paper tiger, we are speaking in terms of strategy. Regarding it as a whole, we must despise it. But regarding each part, we must take it seriously. It has claws and fangs. We have to destroy it piecemeal. For instance, if it has ten fangs, knock off one the first time, and there will be nine left, knock off another, and there will be eight left. When all the fangs are gone, it will still have claws. If we deal with it step by step and in earnest, we will certainly succeed in the end. Strategically, we must utterly despise U.S. imperialism. Tactically, we must take it seriously. In struggling against it, we must take each battle, each encounter, seriously. At present, the United States is powerful, but when looked at in a broader perspective, as a whole and from a long-term viewpoint, it has no popular support, its policies are disliked by the people, because it oppresses and exploits them. For this reason, the tiger is doomed. Therefore, it is nothing to be afraid of and can be despised. But today the United States still has strength, turning out more than 100 million tons of steel a year and hitting out everywhere. That is why we must continue to wage struggles against it, fight it with all our might and wrest one position after another from it. And that takes time.

Again, please take everything said here with a significant grain of salt, and if any well-read ML's have anything to add or correct me on, be it minor or significant, or if they have any major contentions or reservations about my thoughts here, I would genuinely welcome and appreciate them.

[archon-maenad]

tay was born the daughter of a man who runs a dockworker's association, so she definitely knows the power of collective bargaining. and that led me to the most brilliant, ridiculous idea:

what if taylor saved the naruto world through the power of unionization?

no no listen hear me out. unionized jinchuuriki. the problem with your nuclear deterrents being sentient is that if they all decide to join forces you're left with no power to budge them, and tay is smart enough to realize that. if she wants freedom from konoha without constantly being on the run it might actually be her only option.

and with that precedent set it'll be so easy to spread the fact that you can apply this to other groups, both civilian and shinobi. if you want to make positive changes that will actually stick and begin fixing this fucked up place, strikes for better work conditions than being deemed kunai fodder is a good start.

anyways the concept of a living weapons association has been living rent free in my head for an hour and I needed to share it.

[francaistoutsimplement]

Russia's Roscosmos to build 46 ICBMs

By Al Mayadeen Net (27/04/2022)

Russia's state space agency will build 46 Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missiles. Russia's state space agency will build approximately 46 Sarmat strategic warfare systems, according to a statement made by Roscosmos chief Dmitry Rogozin.

"We will have 46 Sarmat strategic combat systems in total," Rogozin told the Solovyov Live show on YouTube.

The Russian Defense Ministry announced last Thursday that it successfully conducted the first test launch of the Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile from a silo launcher at the Plesetsk Cosmodrome.

Russia's Ministry of Defense explained that this launch was the first in the program of state trials while clarifying that flight tests of a promising heavy-class missile with a multiple reentry vehicle made it possible to assess the correctness of the schematic design and technical solutions laid down during the creation of the Sarmat missile system. 

"After the completion of the trials program, the Sarmat missile system will go into service with the Strategic Missile Forces. In the Uzhur missile formation in the Krasnoyarsk Territory, work is underway to prepare the head missile regiment for re-equipment with the new missile system," the statement further read. 

Sarmat is a heavy missile system with an intercontinental liquid-propellant ballistic missile weighing over 200 tons that is capable of hitting targets at long ranges and using various flight trajectories. This enables it to avoid all existing and prospective anti-missile defense systems.

Sarmat ICBM carries most advanced maneuverable warheads — designer

The missile is unique in terms of its unsurpassed speed, record-breaking range, the highest accuracy and complete invulnerability while penetrating anti-missile defense systems

MOSCOW, September 22. /TASS/. The intercontinental ballistic missile Sarmat carries maneuvering warheads, the CEO of the JSC Makeyev Design Bureau (an affiliate of Roscosmos) Vladimir Degtyar, has told TASS.

"The Sarmat is equipped with the most advanced maneuvering warheads," Degtyar said. The missile is unique in terms of its unsurpassed speed, record-breaking range, the highest accuracy and complete invulnerability while penetrating anti-missile defense systems. Degtyar said the Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile would be able to leave the silo under any conditions.

"According to its current characteristics, the missile will leave its silo under any conditions and fulfill its task with 100-percent certainty. This is what its reliability margin is like," Degtyar said.

In June, he told TASS that the silo for the Sarmat was a complex engineering structure that guaranteed the missile’s security against strikes with conventional high-precision weapons and nuclear ones.

Degtyar described the Sarmat as the "crowning achievement" in rocket technology the Makeyev center accomplished in cooperation with a cluster of subordinate enterprises. This newest missile system will reliably ensure the security of Russia from external threats for 40-50 years to come, Degtyar believes.

"In today's adverse geopolitical conditions, it is our impregnable shield, the main factor of nuclear deterrence and a guarantee of peace," he added. Degtyar recalled that the Sarmat would replace the Voyevoda system, which was created back in the Soviet era.

The new missile, he stressed, is not an analogue, but a new generation ICBM with colossal performance characteristics. "That is why it has already been dubbed an ‘engineering miracle’ and the ‘crowning achievement in rocket technology," Degtyar said.

Sarmat’s characteristics

The Sarmat ICBM was developed at the JSC Makeyev Design Bureau and manufactured at the Krasmash plant (both are affiliates of Roscosmos). According to experts, the RS-28 Sarmat ICBM is capable of delivering a MIRV of up to 10 tonnes to any point on the globe. Its first launch was from the Plesetsk cosmodrome in the Arkhangelsk region on April 20. The test was successful. The design characteristics were confirmed at all stages of the rocket's flight path.

[darkmaga-retard]

COMMENT: Mr. Armstrong, It is becoming obvious that your knowledge of geopolitical events is being read worldwide. I also understand why you say you will address some things only on your private blog. Your statement that Russia should use a tactical nuclear weapon on its territory to wake up the people of the West to what our leaders are playing with has been expressed in Russia. A Russian MP has now publicly stated: “We must detonate the bomb in Russia to make humanity think.”

Mr. Armstrong, you are the only person of our generation who truly deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. You do not have a life; you have a mission. I wish the mainstream press would wake up and listen to your warnings.

Anonymous

Video Player

00:00

00:10

REPLY: Thanks. Perhaps you are right; I don’t have a life, only a mission, since I do not know a woman would put up with me or many others – lol. I often feel like that clay figure in the 1981 Clash of the Titans that Zeus sticks in the middle of everything. I have been thrust into the middle of almost every financial crisis since the 1970s. What will be in the new version of The Forecaster 2024 is even when I was in prison, Congress still came to me during the 2007-2009 crash. Yet, it often seems to be a fruitless mission, for I try hard to beat Socrates’ forecasts, but I am the one who loses. No matter how loud I scream at people in various positions of power, they do not honestly listen.

Once upon a time, the argument for nuclear weapons was that they were a deterrent to prevent war. No longer! Unfortunately, our Neocons are ruthless. They do not care about humanity, our civilization, or anything other than their imperialism and hatred. They assume they will always win, yet have lost every war they concocted since World War II. They do not give a second thought to Ukraine or its people. They are just cannon fodder to take as many Russians with them.

I did have a meeting with a member of Congress, and they said that war would be with China – not Russia. They have been distracted by the claims about China while the real threat is poking the Russian bear. Nobody will listen. The Neocons keep telling the politicians that Putin is bluffing. They are handing long-range missiles to Ukraine that will target and try to destroy Moscow. How stupid can our politicians be? I fear that if Putin does NOT respond, the Russian Neocons will overthrow him in October, and World War III will be full-on.

If China invaded the US and was 500 miles into California and began shooting missiles at Washington, DC, would we do nothing?  They also do not know their history. Nations ban together against common enemies. HELLO!!!!! China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran will join together against the USA and Europe. WTF!!!! Wake Up!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Every reader should send a letter to their Congressman and tell them to wake up – the Neocons are in full control of NATO. They are trying desperately to force Russia to attack anything in NATO so they can claim he is the aggressor to get their Declaration of War. Anyone in Congress who votes for more money to Zelensky is a traitor to the American people. They lack the intelligence and experience to be there.

The Neocons Need to Start War to Cling to Power Fearing a Trump Victory

The 2nd Assassination Just Failed. They may yet try a 3rd Time, hoping that will be the Charm

[caesarflickermans]

A common question is to the state of the world outside of Panem. We receive a brief information dump at the beginning of the story that details what happened in Panem’s history:

He tells of the history of Panem, the country that rose up out of the ashes of a place that was once called North America. He lists the disasters, the droughts, the storms, the fires, the encroaching seas that swallowed up so much of the land, the brutal war for what little sustenance remained. The result was Panem, a shining Capitol ringed by thirteen districts, which brought peace and prosperity to its citizens. (THG, 1)

This implies that Panem is not only a post-USA country, but built on the North American continent as a whole. Countries might have fallen apart in the face of climate change and war.

In addition, we know that District 13’s main expertise before the Dark Days was the nuclear weapons development program; it was the reason why the Capitol left District 13 alone (MJ, 2). This fact appears to point to a Cold War metaphor of mutual assured destruction. Based on a strategy of deterrence, one wants to deter the enemy from using their, for example, nuclear weapons by threatening to use one’s own (nuclear) weapons.

Commonly, this is perceived as evidence pointing to the fact that there are other nations left: If Panem, at some point, had a nuclear weapons program, then they would have needed to have enemies abroad which they wanted to deter from attacking.

While this might have been the case in the past, the Capitol has seemingly never re-established their nuclear weapons program.

Instead, seeing this book as a story about war, the opposing factions of the Capitol and District 13 might point to the Cold War, as the order in Panem appears to be between two regimes: it is a bipolar world order. The nuclear weapons might simply want to point to this Cold War metaphor.

A frequently mentioned comparison is North Korea. Panem might simply be an isolated nation.

However, this doesn’t seem likely.

Having an enemy for the people to rally behind is an extremely common tactic by populists (the Brexit movement and its anti-immigrant policy) as well as fascists (the Nazis and their antisemitism). North Korea, too, employs this strategy:

In second grade we were taught simple math, but not the way it is taught in other countries. In North Korea, even arithmetic is a propaganda tool. A typical problem would go like this: “If you kill one American bastard and your comrade kills two, how many dead American bastards do you have? (In Order to Live by Yeonmi Park)

(Picture source)

Furthermore, North Korea commonly allows its rich elites to go abroad, and forces its poor people into slavery abroad, as well as having been vulnerable to international trade.

Thus, North Korea is not at all an isolated nation.

Even within fiction we notice that foreign entities are not absent in dystopian regimes. George Orwell’s 1984 is at constant war with one of the other two superpowers. Because they live during active war time, its citizens remain in constant fear and obedience to the regime that seemingly promises safety. If one is afraid of “the outside” then one would never run to “the outside”. Furthermore, 1984’s propaganda can explain away the relative poverty and hide the luxury of the upper classes: It’s the other nation to blame. As in The Hunger Games, food is a common theme. The reduction of resources is justified due to war. Unbeknownst to most, however, is the splendour that the upper class live in.

Overall, Panem was not truly meant to be understood in such detailed worldbuilding.

Instead, Collins has mentioned that she was channel switching between coverage on the Iraq war and reality TV. Therefore, it seems that Panem is a metaphor for global relations, for the Cold War, and for the Western disinterest about ‘other’ countries. Following this metaphor, we see a split between First World countries (Capitol), second world countries (District 13), and third world countries (the remaining Districts).*

* those terms are not in common use anymore due to the hierarchical undertones. They are only used here to describe the possible thought process Collins might have had as someone who grew up during a time where those terms were more commonly applied.

In reality, Panem already has a foreign enemy. District 13 has been independent for over seventy-five years.

If there had been other countries capable of reaching out to Panem, it would have been likely they would have reached out to District 13. Coin might have spoken about foreign aid. Or, following the end of the war, other nations might have reached out to Panem. Without doubt, we, too, would do the same if and when the North Korean regime would collapse, no?

The Hunger Games was always meant to be a message, not a messenger. Its underlying concepts, metaphors, and theories have been far more vital than worldbuilding questions for the sake of worldbuilding.

[eretzyisrael]

When We Said “Never Again,” We Meant It

My heart is breaking. What I surmised yesterday, but was afraid to write has turned out to be true. I have never wanted to be wrong more than I do this morning. But I can’t pretend that “it will be OK,” as Israelis like to say.

The IDF has been ready for some time to begin the operation to eliminate Hamas from Gaza. The plans were made long ago, and updated regularly. Hundreds of thousands of reservists have left their jobs and families, at great expense to the government. The tanks are poised near the border. Why aren’t they moving?

The reason is that they have been ordered not to by the Americans. Whether or not they planned it, Hamas struck gold when some twelve Americans and ten British subjects were included among the roughly 200 hostages that were carried back to Gaza by the terrorists. Now negotiations are taking place, brokered by the despicable Qatari regime, to obtain their release. The demonic Hamas have released two American women (for what in return?) to prove that a deal is possible.

I’m not surprised and I’m not criticizing the US president and British PM for trying to protect their people. That is the top job of a government – a job, incidentally, that ours has been failing to do for some time. But that’s another story.

Now our government has a different job. This is our last chance, after the disasters of Oslo, the withdrawal from Gaza, the Second Lebanon War, the Shalit trade, the ongoing loss of Area C, and countless other losses and humiliations, to end our slide to destruction. If Hamas is not ripped out of Gaza by its roots, the immediate result will be the loss of the northern and southern parts of our country (who would live there?) and the evaporation of any honor and deterrence that the State of Israel still has. And then there will be no peace agreement with Saudi Arabia, no hope of preventing a nuclear Iran, and no possibility of obtaining sovereignty in the strategic hill country and the Jordan Valley. We are suffering the death by a thousand cuts, and today the knife is poised over a vital artery. We are at the point of no return.

Israel today has no choice but to invade Gaza and wipe out every trace of the poison that poured out of it two weeks ago today. Otherwise, we are finished here. And if we are finished, the Jewish people are finished too, perhaps for another 2000 years or perhaps forever.

The situation of the hostages, American, British, and Israeli, is horrific. You may ask: would I say the same thing if my children were among them? Of course not, because I am only human. But that doesn’t make me wrong.

Maybe there is some magic by which the IDF can effect an Entebbe-like rescue. Who knows? I’m sure the IDF is trying mightily right now to locate them. If we invade now we may lose some or all of them, and if there is hope of rescue, then perhaps we can delay a few days longer. Of course, we have already lost 1400. And every day the international pressure not to invade, thanks to the media’s embrace of Hamas lies about its suffering civilians, is growing, along with the vicious antisemitism that our humiliation feeds.

My heart is breaking. But I say to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defense, and the Chief of Staff: do it. Give the order to start the tanks, to open fire with the artillery, to bomb every military target (even if it is called a “school” or a “hospital” or if it is the property of the UN). Do not allow humanitarian aid into Gaza, force Egypt to open the Rafah crossing, and let the world community express its love for the Gazan civilians there, in the northern Sinai. Make the campaign as short as possible and as brutal as necessary.

Show the world: when we said “never again,” we meant it.