-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla Investor's General Macroeconomic / Market Discussion
- Thread starter FluxCap
- Start date
I'd love to but for the last year I've been having unpleasant medical problems which have seriously restricted my travel (specifically, I'm temporarily on an insanely restricted diet so it's currently very hard to eat while travelling). I'm not expecting to be well enough to really enjoy travel by this June. :-( Hopefuly next year...
sundaymorning
Active Member
Get well soon, and thanks for very nice insights here of late.
I'm definitely interested to have a formal table. I don't know how many of us we'll have, but we are discussing core issues that influence our investment decisions as well as, for some of us, our state of mind. I'm learning from you all.
Dealing with the Threat of North Korea
Presidents have almost always been frustrated by Congress in terms of domestic policies. Thus the advent of nuclear weapons has led to even greater accretion of power to the President. Trump is not immune from such pressures and temptations so this Saturday, April 15th, may offer the first opportunity for us to see what happens when two bullies face off.
“This year North Korean officials, including leader Kim Jong Un, have repeatedly indicated an intercontinental ballistic missile test or something similar could be coming, possibly as soon as April 15, the 105th birthday of North Korea's founding president and celebrated annually as ‘the Day of the Sun.’”
US Navy strike group heads towards Korea
In the dustbin of my memory is an article about the vulnerability of ballistic missiles to sabotage during the boost phase. Obviously a flaming target filled with propellent is tempting and hard to disguise. Remember when we thought the last rocket failure of Space X was due to a bird or a gunshot from a rival? There was a smudge on one photo to the right of the rocket just before, or at, explosion.
The thought occurred to me that in principle the U.S. is probably capable of protecting itself against a direct hit by North Korea or can frustrate any test at will, demonstrating the futility of Kim’s effort to intimidate us by direct attack on the mainland. (Hawaii might be another matter, but it votes Democratic.) Of course any demonstration might lead the young Kim to obliterate Seoul with artillery, but we would never sacrifice an ally, right? (Although Kennedy probably did not give the order, certainly the CIA could have stopped the assassination plot against the South Vietnam president, Ngo Dinh Diem. And then there’s Mubarak, or just fill in.) I don’t think such recklessness is part of making America great, but can we rest easy since the Donald can't quite give up the campaign mode?
Another dark thought. What if an all too hasty captain launched a sea based missile by accident? We already have the example of shooting down a regularly scheduled commercial flight from Iran a few years ago. (Fortunately, the Vice Admiral commanding the flotilla to Korea is a woman.)
Our current President has limited sources of information. One cannot assume he is up to date on the warning systems of nuclear war. Does he read the New Yorker, for example?
World War Three, by Mistake
Is he alert to the fact North Korea has launch vehicles capable of off-road mobility?
North Korea tests missile in what may be step toward mobile ICBM
Has he even perused the conservative literature?
Mobile Missiles: The Real North Korea Threat Is Here
I found a lot more, but not the original article about the boost phase defense. Nonetheless there is a chapter on it in this book. A few concluding worries are quoted below.
https://www.nap.edu/read/13189/chapter/4#34
From pp. 50-51
“Engaging notional solid-propellant threats from North Korea is even more constrained, as shown in Figure 2-13. Reaching even the more easterly notional threat trajectories requires a 6 km/sec interceptor to be based unacceptably close to the adversary’s territory. Note that the reach of the 4.5 km/sec interceptor is greater against notional solid ICBMs than against liquid ICBMs even though solid burn times are much shorter. This is because the notional liquid boost trajectories are of lower altitude and the 4.5 km/sec interceptor cannot get low enough at longer range to engage the notional liquid-propellant threat at a greater distance.
“Because of their shorter burn times and lower burnout altitudes, it is not feasible to intercept notional short- and medium-range missiles with ground- or sea-based versions of the two interceptors or space-based interceptors in the exoatmosphere. Intercepting notional missiles of 2,000 km range or less during boost would require interceptors that can engage within the atmosphere, and those interceptors would have to be close to the threat launch point. One such example is a notional 1,300 km single-stage missile aimed at Tokyo. Here, boost-phase intercept of such an attack is infeasible with a platform outside North Korea’s airspace.
“The committee found only one case of a notional ICBM launched from North Korea against Hawaii that could be engaged during boost phase by a notional 4.5 km/sec interceptor, provided it has a more agile KV than currently planned.
"In summary, Figure 2-12 shows that a notional North Korean-launched liquid-propellant ICBM aimed at the East Coast would be the most pressing challenge for a boost-phase defense system to kinetically engage. Moreover, a ground-based boost-phase interceptor with a nominal speed of 6 km/sec would have to be based at sea or in China to reach the boost phase of a notional North Korean liquid-propellant ICBM. However, a notional 6 km/sec interceptor appears to be too large to be carried in the Aegis vertical launch system (VLS) or on a tactical aircraft. From Figure 2-13 it is evident that a notional 4.5 km/sec interceptor has no viable boost-phase capability against a notional solid ICBM unless it overflies North Korean airspace and that even a notional 6.0 km/sec interceptor, when sea based, has little room to maneuver, and then for only a limited azimuth of threat launches.
“One can conclude then that, until otherwise demonstrated, no airborne or Aegis VLS-based interceptor could be used for boost-phase defense against notional ICBMs aimed at the United States, even against a country that is as small as North Korea and that is accessible by sea, unless those interceptors are based on or over neighboring territory or over the threat country itself. However, a possible application limited by the interceptor fly-out envelope and on-station endurance is the engagement of notional longer range missiles launched from North Korea against Hawaii or other Pacific Ocean targets where the boost trajectories are headed toward international waters or allied territories and where boost-phase interceptors can be stationed.”
Suggested Citation: "2 U.S. Boost-Phase Defense." National Research Council. 2012. Making Sense of Ballistic Missile Defense: An Assessment of Concepts and Systems for U.S. Boost-Phase Missile Defense in Comparison to Other Alternatives. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13189.
Please note: publication date was nearly 5 years ago. Do we have more capability now? Inquiring minds would like to know.
Presidents have almost always been frustrated by Congress in terms of domestic policies. Thus the advent of nuclear weapons has led to even greater accretion of power to the President. Trump is not immune from such pressures and temptations so this Saturday, April 15th, may offer the first opportunity for us to see what happens when two bullies face off.
“This year North Korean officials, including leader Kim Jong Un, have repeatedly indicated an intercontinental ballistic missile test or something similar could be coming, possibly as soon as April 15, the 105th birthday of North Korea's founding president and celebrated annually as ‘the Day of the Sun.’”
US Navy strike group heads towards Korea
In the dustbin of my memory is an article about the vulnerability of ballistic missiles to sabotage during the boost phase. Obviously a flaming target filled with propellent is tempting and hard to disguise. Remember when we thought the last rocket failure of Space X was due to a bird or a gunshot from a rival? There was a smudge on one photo to the right of the rocket just before, or at, explosion.
The thought occurred to me that in principle the U.S. is probably capable of protecting itself against a direct hit by North Korea or can frustrate any test at will, demonstrating the futility of Kim’s effort to intimidate us by direct attack on the mainland. (Hawaii might be another matter, but it votes Democratic.) Of course any demonstration might lead the young Kim to obliterate Seoul with artillery, but we would never sacrifice an ally, right? (Although Kennedy probably did not give the order, certainly the CIA could have stopped the assassination plot against the South Vietnam president, Ngo Dinh Diem. And then there’s Mubarak, or just fill in.) I don’t think such recklessness is part of making America great, but can we rest easy since the Donald can't quite give up the campaign mode?
Another dark thought. What if an all too hasty captain launched a sea based missile by accident? We already have the example of shooting down a regularly scheduled commercial flight from Iran a few years ago. (Fortunately, the Vice Admiral commanding the flotilla to Korea is a woman.)
Our current President has limited sources of information. One cannot assume he is up to date on the warning systems of nuclear war. Does he read the New Yorker, for example?
World War Three, by Mistake
Is he alert to the fact North Korea has launch vehicles capable of off-road mobility?
North Korea tests missile in what may be step toward mobile ICBM
Has he even perused the conservative literature?
Mobile Missiles: The Real North Korea Threat Is Here
I found a lot more, but not the original article about the boost phase defense. Nonetheless there is a chapter on it in this book. A few concluding worries are quoted below.
https://www.nap.edu/read/13189/chapter/4#34
From pp. 50-51
“Engaging notional solid-propellant threats from North Korea is even more constrained, as shown in Figure 2-13. Reaching even the more easterly notional threat trajectories requires a 6 km/sec interceptor to be based unacceptably close to the adversary’s territory. Note that the reach of the 4.5 km/sec interceptor is greater against notional solid ICBMs than against liquid ICBMs even though solid burn times are much shorter. This is because the notional liquid boost trajectories are of lower altitude and the 4.5 km/sec interceptor cannot get low enough at longer range to engage the notional liquid-propellant threat at a greater distance.
“Because of their shorter burn times and lower burnout altitudes, it is not feasible to intercept notional short- and medium-range missiles with ground- or sea-based versions of the two interceptors or space-based interceptors in the exoatmosphere. Intercepting notional missiles of 2,000 km range or less during boost would require interceptors that can engage within the atmosphere, and those interceptors would have to be close to the threat launch point. One such example is a notional 1,300 km single-stage missile aimed at Tokyo. Here, boost-phase intercept of such an attack is infeasible with a platform outside North Korea’s airspace.
“The committee found only one case of a notional ICBM launched from North Korea against Hawaii that could be engaged during boost phase by a notional 4.5 km/sec interceptor, provided it has a more agile KV than currently planned.
"In summary, Figure 2-12 shows that a notional North Korean-launched liquid-propellant ICBM aimed at the East Coast would be the most pressing challenge for a boost-phase defense system to kinetically engage. Moreover, a ground-based boost-phase interceptor with a nominal speed of 6 km/sec would have to be based at sea or in China to reach the boost phase of a notional North Korean liquid-propellant ICBM. However, a notional 6 km/sec interceptor appears to be too large to be carried in the Aegis vertical launch system (VLS) or on a tactical aircraft. From Figure 2-13 it is evident that a notional 4.5 km/sec interceptor has no viable boost-phase capability against a notional solid ICBM unless it overflies North Korean airspace and that even a notional 6.0 km/sec interceptor, when sea based, has little room to maneuver, and then for only a limited azimuth of threat launches.
“One can conclude then that, until otherwise demonstrated, no airborne or Aegis VLS-based interceptor could be used for boost-phase defense against notional ICBMs aimed at the United States, even against a country that is as small as North Korea and that is accessible by sea, unless those interceptors are based on or over neighboring territory or over the threat country itself. However, a possible application limited by the interceptor fly-out envelope and on-station endurance is the engagement of notional longer range missiles launched from North Korea against Hawaii or other Pacific Ocean targets where the boost trajectories are headed toward international waters or allied territories and where boost-phase interceptors can be stationed.”
Suggested Citation: "2 U.S. Boost-Phase Defense." National Research Council. 2012. Making Sense of Ballistic Missile Defense: An Assessment of Concepts and Systems for U.S. Boost-Phase Missile Defense in Comparison to Other Alternatives. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13189.
Please note: publication date was nearly 5 years ago. Do we have more capability now? Inquiring minds would like to know.
The one good thing about the North Korean situation is that it seems clear that Kim has been abandoned by both China and Russia. Having the Great Powers in *agreement* is a safer situation than, for instance, the situation in Syria or Ukraine.
But there is more work to be done.
Kim Jong Un’s rockets are getting an important boost — from China
Kim Jong Un’s rockets are getting an important boost — from China
N5329K
Active Member
Here's a pretty good (and not entirely outdated) overview.
Robin
The limits of U.S. missile defense | Brookings Institution
MitchJi
Trying to learn kindness, patience & forgiveness
Very informative interview with Allan Nairn about the attack on Syria etc.:
Allan Nairn: Civilian Deaths Are Spiking in Syria & Iraq as U.S. Launches Unrestrained Bombing Raids | Democracy Now!
AMY GOODMAN: As Secretary of State Rex Tillerson meets with his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, in Russia to talk about the war in Syria and other issues, we spend the hour with the longtime investigative journalist Allan Nairn. For decades, Allan has covered the impact of U.S. foreign policy across the globe—in East Timor, Guatemala, El Salvador, Indonesia, as well as other countries. I spoke to Allan Nairn Monday, and we discussed the escalation of U.S. military operations across the Middle East, as well as the unique danger Trump poses both abroad and at home. I began by asking Allan Nairn about last week’s U.S. attack on a Syrian air base.
ALLAN NAIRN: It was an attack on an old U.S. partner, old U.S. torture partner, Assad. The chemical attack was a monstrous atrocity, but it wasn’t the most monstrous atrocity that was done in Syria probably that week or that month. The Assad regime routinely massacres civilians using conventional weapons. And also, the forces backed by the Gulf states and Turkey—Turkey of NATO, the Gulf States, U.S. allies—for a number of years were also using tactics that involved attacks on civilians. And some of them ended up morphing into ISIS.
This particular attack on the Syrian airfield, I don’t think, is going to save any lives in Syria, in terms of its effect on the conflict. It may save Trump, to a certain extent, politically. It was mainly an act of political theater. The U.S. establishment is an organism. And that organism, in an important respect, has a temperament that is similar to that of Trump. It gets satisfaction from displays of aggression. And if you look at the press coverage, you see that this attack has made them feel good, has made them feel better about themselves as leaders of the United States establishment. But it’s not saving lives in Syria. In fact, this particular U.S. attack was—was probably far—not the most deadly attack in Syria that the U.S. staged that week, that the U.S. staged last week. Although many people were calling for the U.S. to do this air attack on Syria, many apparently didn’t realize that the U.S. was already bombing Syria. In Syria and in Iraq, just over the recent weeks and months, U.S. air attacks have hit mosques, schools, apartment complexes, and killed many, many hundreds of civilians, so much so that the people who monitor this, like the Airwars group, have estimated that the U.S. has now surpassed Russia in its killing of civilians by bombing raids. So, this was—this was more of a symbolic strike.
<Snip>
The fact that the U.S. bombed—U.S. bombs hit mosques, hit schools, hit apartment complexes, even, in some cases, hit wedding parties, such as in one famous massacre carried out by the forces of General Mattis, the Mukaradeeb wedding massacre, who’s now the defense secretary, within the U.S. system—
AMY GOODMAN: In?
ALLAN NAIRN: That was in Iraq, on the border near Syria. Within the U.S. system, those killings of civilians are excused, because the U.S. was not targeting those civilians per se. They just happened to be next to the targets, so they died in the explosion. So the U.S. system says it’s OK. That makes us morally different from Assad, from ISIS, from the Russians, etc. The Pentagon uses calculations, algorithms, before they make these airstrikes. They calculate how many civilians they predict will die by accident. So, in a certain sense, it’s an accident. But in another sense, if you were applying domestic criminal law standards, it wouldn’t be considered an accident. They could be charged with criminally negligent homicide. They could be charged with various kinds of manslaughter. And they make these calculations, and they say, "OK, if we drop this bomb, X number of people will die." It used to be, during the attack on—the Bush attack on Iraq, that the standard was somewhere in the mid-twenties. Roughly 25 civilians could be—it would be OK to do an airstrike if it would only kill roughly 25 civilians. Now the calculations have changed. One thing that Trump, with the support of General Mattis, has done is he’s encouraged the Pentagon to say, "Oh, well, even if it’s more than 25, no problem. We will still go ahead with this—with this airstrike." So, with those standards, some of which, by the way, were inspired by the Russian example, what the Russians call Grozny rules, just unrestrained bombing.
<Snip>
ALLAN NAIRN: I think it may well be true that in terms of Trump’s own emotional wiring, his mental wiring, maybe, you know, he did see those disgusting, gruesome videos of the tear gas attack, and maybe he said, "OK, we’ve got to attack Syria." I can believe that. But I’m sure Trump also saw some other very famous images, like the one of the little boy, the refugee from the Mediterranean, face down on the shore as he had just drowned to death because the boat he was riding failed to reach shore in Europe, and countless, countless other images. And the policy response—I don’t know about the emotional response of Trump, but the policy response of Trump to that drowned boy on the shores, to say, "Screw the refugees"—in fact, to make that hatred toward the refugees one of the very pillars of, A, his presidential campaign and, B, his new government.
<Snip>
Part two:
Trump Is Moving "Full Speed Ahead" in War in Yemen, Despite Massive Civilian Casualties | Democracy Now!
Part 3:
Allan Nairn: Only Mass Disruption From Below Can Stop Right-Wing Revolution & Trump's Absolute Power | Democracy Now!
ALLAN NAIRN: It’s not just the Trump presidency. It’s a right-wing revolution, which has captured control, up to this moment, of the presidency, the House, part of the Senate and now the Supreme Court. And if they abolish the legislative filibuster in the Senate, which they may, then they will have total, absolute control of all branches of government and will enter a radically new phase beyond anything that’s happened so far, because there will be absolutely no constraints on what they can do. The only constraints could be if they trip over themselves, as they have on some occasions up to now.
Trump brought in a collection, a coalition, of broadly rightist elements—racists, neofascists, the Republican establishment, the Koch brothers, oligarchs, all sorts of elements with their own very well-defined agendas for radical change in the U.S. Now, some points of those agendas clash, so that’s caused some of the problems—for example, on the repeal of Obamacare. But on 80 percent of things they agree, and they’re moving forward. They’ve already systematically started repealing constraints on pollution, constraints on police forces, that have been—had previously been placed under federal supervision because their involvement in killing of civilians, often with racist motivations. They are moving to give Wall Street and corporations complete license to commit crimes. Under the Obama-Clinton establishment, these corporate figures, when they committed crimes, would often end up having to pay a big settlement. They’d have to pay some billions of dollars to the Justice Department. Under Trump, not only will they not be criminally prosecuted, they won’t have to pay civil settlements, and they’ll be encouraged to do their worst. A very effective part of Trump’s campaign was saying—linking Clinton to Goldman Sachs. The Trump White House and government is stocked with Goldman Sachs people as no government ever before, even exceeding the Clinton team, which is—which is saying a lot.
On the international front, it’s not as if Trump is being digested by the security establishment. It’s that Trump is pushing the security establishment to become even more violent, to use cruder, less subtle tactics. Already, he has moved away from one key element of U.S. policy overseas, which is hypocrisy. The U.S. has always supported—the basic U.S. policy for decades has been, in country after country, to support the military and security forces as the primary U.S. interlocutors, but then, on top of that, to also support, when it’s convenient, when there’s no dangerous candidate, an elected government that can give some veneer and also some local social stability, and also, while on the one hand handing arms and training and political cover and intelligence to the armies and the security forces and the death squads, using the other hand to admonish them, saying, "Oh, that massacre you just did, using our weapons, using our training, you shouldn’t have done that massacre. That was a little—little bit excessive." This is one reason why you often find resentment from U.S. clients regarding this hypocritical approach of the U.S., which is, after all, fundamentally supporting them. Trump strips away the hypocrisy. He continues to give the arms and the training and the intelligence and the political cover. But he does away with the aspect that the Obama administration, in particular, specialized in, was the hypocrisy, the criticism.
For example, when el-Sisi and the army seized power in Egypt, after two massive massacres of opponents, supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, roughly a thousand people in each massacre, John Kerry said that they had moved to implement democracy. After the army and el-Sisi seized power in Egypt and did two massacres of roughly a thousand people each, of opponents and supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, John Kerry said they had moved to implement democracy. The Obama administration continued military and intelligence aid to the el-Sisi government, but they cut some of it back, in protest of these massacres, and they made some human rights criticisms of the government.
Trump comes in, and he changes the approach. He revokes the criticisms. He fully restores and says he intends to increase the military aid, and he welcomes el-Sisi to the White House, embraces him, says they agree. And he does this, by the way, three days before he criticizes Assad, who for years worked with the CIA. The CIA would send abductees to Assad for interrogation and torture. Trump criticizes Assad and said he’s going after him, and then later he does bomb Syria. But Trump welcomes el-Sisi to the White House, and giving him the message, "Go for it. The U.S. is totally behind you. We are not going to criticize you."
Allan Nairn: Civilian Deaths Are Spiking in Syria & Iraq as U.S. Launches Unrestrained Bombing Raids | Democracy Now!
AMY GOODMAN: As Secretary of State Rex Tillerson meets with his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, in Russia to talk about the war in Syria and other issues, we spend the hour with the longtime investigative journalist Allan Nairn. For decades, Allan has covered the impact of U.S. foreign policy across the globe—in East Timor, Guatemala, El Salvador, Indonesia, as well as other countries. I spoke to Allan Nairn Monday, and we discussed the escalation of U.S. military operations across the Middle East, as well as the unique danger Trump poses both abroad and at home. I began by asking Allan Nairn about last week’s U.S. attack on a Syrian air base.
ALLAN NAIRN: It was an attack on an old U.S. partner, old U.S. torture partner, Assad. The chemical attack was a monstrous atrocity, but it wasn’t the most monstrous atrocity that was done in Syria probably that week or that month. The Assad regime routinely massacres civilians using conventional weapons. And also, the forces backed by the Gulf states and Turkey—Turkey of NATO, the Gulf States, U.S. allies—for a number of years were also using tactics that involved attacks on civilians. And some of them ended up morphing into ISIS.
This particular attack on the Syrian airfield, I don’t think, is going to save any lives in Syria, in terms of its effect on the conflict. It may save Trump, to a certain extent, politically. It was mainly an act of political theater. The U.S. establishment is an organism. And that organism, in an important respect, has a temperament that is similar to that of Trump. It gets satisfaction from displays of aggression. And if you look at the press coverage, you see that this attack has made them feel good, has made them feel better about themselves as leaders of the United States establishment. But it’s not saving lives in Syria. In fact, this particular U.S. attack was—was probably far—not the most deadly attack in Syria that the U.S. staged that week, that the U.S. staged last week. Although many people were calling for the U.S. to do this air attack on Syria, many apparently didn’t realize that the U.S. was already bombing Syria. In Syria and in Iraq, just over the recent weeks and months, U.S. air attacks have hit mosques, schools, apartment complexes, and killed many, many hundreds of civilians, so much so that the people who monitor this, like the Airwars group, have estimated that the U.S. has now surpassed Russia in its killing of civilians by bombing raids. So, this was—this was more of a symbolic strike.
<Snip>
The fact that the U.S. bombed—U.S. bombs hit mosques, hit schools, hit apartment complexes, even, in some cases, hit wedding parties, such as in one famous massacre carried out by the forces of General Mattis, the Mukaradeeb wedding massacre, who’s now the defense secretary, within the U.S. system—
AMY GOODMAN: In?
ALLAN NAIRN: That was in Iraq, on the border near Syria. Within the U.S. system, those killings of civilians are excused, because the U.S. was not targeting those civilians per se. They just happened to be next to the targets, so they died in the explosion. So the U.S. system says it’s OK. That makes us morally different from Assad, from ISIS, from the Russians, etc. The Pentagon uses calculations, algorithms, before they make these airstrikes. They calculate how many civilians they predict will die by accident. So, in a certain sense, it’s an accident. But in another sense, if you were applying domestic criminal law standards, it wouldn’t be considered an accident. They could be charged with criminally negligent homicide. They could be charged with various kinds of manslaughter. And they make these calculations, and they say, "OK, if we drop this bomb, X number of people will die." It used to be, during the attack on—the Bush attack on Iraq, that the standard was somewhere in the mid-twenties. Roughly 25 civilians could be—it would be OK to do an airstrike if it would only kill roughly 25 civilians. Now the calculations have changed. One thing that Trump, with the support of General Mattis, has done is he’s encouraged the Pentagon to say, "Oh, well, even if it’s more than 25, no problem. We will still go ahead with this—with this airstrike." So, with those standards, some of which, by the way, were inspired by the Russian example, what the Russians call Grozny rules, just unrestrained bombing.
<Snip>
ALLAN NAIRN: I think it may well be true that in terms of Trump’s own emotional wiring, his mental wiring, maybe, you know, he did see those disgusting, gruesome videos of the tear gas attack, and maybe he said, "OK, we’ve got to attack Syria." I can believe that. But I’m sure Trump also saw some other very famous images, like the one of the little boy, the refugee from the Mediterranean, face down on the shore as he had just drowned to death because the boat he was riding failed to reach shore in Europe, and countless, countless other images. And the policy response—I don’t know about the emotional response of Trump, but the policy response of Trump to that drowned boy on the shores, to say, "Screw the refugees"—in fact, to make that hatred toward the refugees one of the very pillars of, A, his presidential campaign and, B, his new government.
<Snip>
Part two:
Trump Is Moving "Full Speed Ahead" in War in Yemen, Despite Massive Civilian Casualties | Democracy Now!
Part 3:
Allan Nairn: Only Mass Disruption From Below Can Stop Right-Wing Revolution & Trump's Absolute Power | Democracy Now!
ALLAN NAIRN: It’s not just the Trump presidency. It’s a right-wing revolution, which has captured control, up to this moment, of the presidency, the House, part of the Senate and now the Supreme Court. And if they abolish the legislative filibuster in the Senate, which they may, then they will have total, absolute control of all branches of government and will enter a radically new phase beyond anything that’s happened so far, because there will be absolutely no constraints on what they can do. The only constraints could be if they trip over themselves, as they have on some occasions up to now.
Trump brought in a collection, a coalition, of broadly rightist elements—racists, neofascists, the Republican establishment, the Koch brothers, oligarchs, all sorts of elements with their own very well-defined agendas for radical change in the U.S. Now, some points of those agendas clash, so that’s caused some of the problems—for example, on the repeal of Obamacare. But on 80 percent of things they agree, and they’re moving forward. They’ve already systematically started repealing constraints on pollution, constraints on police forces, that have been—had previously been placed under federal supervision because their involvement in killing of civilians, often with racist motivations. They are moving to give Wall Street and corporations complete license to commit crimes. Under the Obama-Clinton establishment, these corporate figures, when they committed crimes, would often end up having to pay a big settlement. They’d have to pay some billions of dollars to the Justice Department. Under Trump, not only will they not be criminally prosecuted, they won’t have to pay civil settlements, and they’ll be encouraged to do their worst. A very effective part of Trump’s campaign was saying—linking Clinton to Goldman Sachs. The Trump White House and government is stocked with Goldman Sachs people as no government ever before, even exceeding the Clinton team, which is—which is saying a lot.
On the international front, it’s not as if Trump is being digested by the security establishment. It’s that Trump is pushing the security establishment to become even more violent, to use cruder, less subtle tactics. Already, he has moved away from one key element of U.S. policy overseas, which is hypocrisy. The U.S. has always supported—the basic U.S. policy for decades has been, in country after country, to support the military and security forces as the primary U.S. interlocutors, but then, on top of that, to also support, when it’s convenient, when there’s no dangerous candidate, an elected government that can give some veneer and also some local social stability, and also, while on the one hand handing arms and training and political cover and intelligence to the armies and the security forces and the death squads, using the other hand to admonish them, saying, "Oh, that massacre you just did, using our weapons, using our training, you shouldn’t have done that massacre. That was a little—little bit excessive." This is one reason why you often find resentment from U.S. clients regarding this hypocritical approach of the U.S., which is, after all, fundamentally supporting them. Trump strips away the hypocrisy. He continues to give the arms and the training and the intelligence and the political cover. But he does away with the aspect that the Obama administration, in particular, specialized in, was the hypocrisy, the criticism.
For example, when el-Sisi and the army seized power in Egypt, after two massive massacres of opponents, supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, roughly a thousand people in each massacre, John Kerry said that they had moved to implement democracy. After the army and el-Sisi seized power in Egypt and did two massacres of roughly a thousand people each, of opponents and supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, John Kerry said they had moved to implement democracy. The Obama administration continued military and intelligence aid to the el-Sisi government, but they cut some of it back, in protest of these massacres, and they made some human rights criticisms of the government.
Trump comes in, and he changes the approach. He revokes the criticisms. He fully restores and says he intends to increase the military aid, and he welcomes el-Sisi to the White House, embraces him, says they agree. And he does this, by the way, three days before he criticizes Assad, who for years worked with the CIA. The CIA would send abductees to Assad for interrogation and torture. Trump criticizes Assad and said he’s going after him, and then later he does bomb Syria. But Trump welcomes el-Sisi to the White House, and giving him the message, "Go for it. The U.S. is totally behind you. We are not going to criticize you."
Paracelsus
Active Member
Thanks for posting some Amy Goodman. I have appreciated and followed her for 30 years. The MOST telling interview she ever gave regarding the US role in the Middle East IMHO was with General Wesley Clark in 2007. Clark spoke openly about how the US plans for the Middle East changed after 9/11 when the decision was made to go to war with the following countries:
And while I do agree with the many postings of drinkerofkoolaid that we should be troubled by the debt ceiling, I don't agree that this is a Trump-created issue (I was a Bernie-backer as I have stated before, so this isn't about my support of Trump). This debt has been relentlessly driven by unnecessary military involvement that was planned many years ago and has been carried out by our government across two different administrations of two different political parties despite international efforts to diffuse them. Most notably was the selection of Obama for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize in hopes that it would "strengthen him"..........to resist continuing these plans. And of course while our media went nuts covering Trump's race to war, it gave little-if-any fair representation to the fact that the Nobel Peace Prize Secretary that presented President Obama with the award announced in 2015 that he now regretted doing so. Apparently the fact that the Obama Administration had created and escalated 5 new wars in Middle East didn't go unnoticed by the 2009 Nobel Prize selection committee.
Nobel secretary regrets Obama peace prize - BBC News
In all honesty I believe that the Tesla/Solar City story and the UAE race for a solar-future are small metaphors for the future of Middle East involvement. Now that the world has reached cost parity between oil and solar, and now that even the Middle East is investing in solar over oil (and even powering their oil wells with solar generated electricity), there is no economic reason to be involved in the Middle East any longer other than to fund the war machine and to minimize the pain of the huge fossil fuel companies that are left with $Billions of stranded assets due to a simple shift in economic paradigms. It is a horrible reflection on mankind when any decision to enter or end a war is driven by money & greed instead of the sanctity of human life. But we are finally at the crossroads where even the economics of any further Middle East involvement is now aligned with those that believe in the brotherhood of all mankind. But how does the US bow-out as 'winners'? Will we see something as ironic as Trump dropping a couple MOAB-sized bombs on strategic locations and declaring a Middle East victory - and then backing us out of the quagmire created by the last 2 administrations? Doubtful but possible. His ego would certainly allow those events to unfold.............Man of the Year for solving the US-Middle East mess (even though it was solved by simple economics). Nothing is wrecking our budget worse than that involvement. And few people beyond Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie have the courage to speak of it openly. But everyone knows it needs to end now for political and economic reasons. The answers are always between the lines.
- Iraq
- Syria
- Lebanon
- Libya
- Somalia
- Sudan
- Iran
And while I do agree with the many postings of drinkerofkoolaid that we should be troubled by the debt ceiling, I don't agree that this is a Trump-created issue (I was a Bernie-backer as I have stated before, so this isn't about my support of Trump). This debt has been relentlessly driven by unnecessary military involvement that was planned many years ago and has been carried out by our government across two different administrations of two different political parties despite international efforts to diffuse them. Most notably was the selection of Obama for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize in hopes that it would "strengthen him"..........to resist continuing these plans. And of course while our media went nuts covering Trump's race to war, it gave little-if-any fair representation to the fact that the Nobel Peace Prize Secretary that presented President Obama with the award announced in 2015 that he now regretted doing so. Apparently the fact that the Obama Administration had created and escalated 5 new wars in Middle East didn't go unnoticed by the 2009 Nobel Prize selection committee.
Nobel secretary regrets Obama peace prize - BBC News
In all honesty I believe that the Tesla/Solar City story and the UAE race for a solar-future are small metaphors for the future of Middle East involvement. Now that the world has reached cost parity between oil and solar, and now that even the Middle East is investing in solar over oil (and even powering their oil wells with solar generated electricity), there is no economic reason to be involved in the Middle East any longer other than to fund the war machine and to minimize the pain of the huge fossil fuel companies that are left with $Billions of stranded assets due to a simple shift in economic paradigms. It is a horrible reflection on mankind when any decision to enter or end a war is driven by money & greed instead of the sanctity of human life. But we are finally at the crossroads where even the economics of any further Middle East involvement is now aligned with those that believe in the brotherhood of all mankind. But how does the US bow-out as 'winners'? Will we see something as ironic as Trump dropping a couple MOAB-sized bombs on strategic locations and declaring a Middle East victory - and then backing us out of the quagmire created by the last 2 administrations? Doubtful but possible. His ego would certainly allow those events to unfold.............Man of the Year for solving the US-Middle East mess (even though it was solved by simple economics). Nothing is wrecking our budget worse than that involvement. And few people beyond Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie have the courage to speak of it openly. But everyone knows it needs to end now for political and economic reasons. The answers are always between the lines.
All very good points. The problem began with NSC-68, a report presented to Truman in April 1950. One of its principal arguments was building a private military complex which would lobby for continued foreign involvement. It militarized containment and was boosted by the onset of the Korean war so Truman approved it the next year. Senator Taft could never understand why we were spending so much on NATO, more than the Korean War. The report was classified top sacred until 1975.
Serious concern on the Soviet side about the U.S. started earlier with the decision to fuse the American and British Zones of occupation in Germany in July, 1946, thus tearing up wartime agreements on Germany--all originating from U.S. thinking as US wartime planning beyond the war for Germany was considerably more advanced than Stalin's. Barely one year after the end of WWII the Soviets feared we were eventually going to use Germany as the backbone for NATO. In my doctoral dissertation I argued this fusion of occupation zones was just an appropriate effort to get the German economy going again since the French had vetoed a plan agreed to by all other parties to treat Germany as an economic whole in December of 1945. (France was also worried about the threat of Germany that early.) Fifteen years after my dissertation I reviewed for a scholarly journal a book by a member of our occupation force after the war. He considered the junction of the two zones a deliberate act for what was to follow—a unified West German state.
I was amused many years later to interview a job applicant at our university whose specialized work was how many agreements the Soviets had broken in the post war period. We didn't hire him, but my dissertation was really a tour de force of agreements broken by the U.S. which drove the Soviets up the wall, and to building one eventually. I had a great teacher with whom I fought in class for two years but eventually became an imperfect clone.
Trump and Khrushchev really have things about walls, I guess the ins and outs, so to speak, of history.
Just more for the trivia mill.
Atlanta and NY Fed cut US first quarter GDP view after weak data
"
The New York Fed said on Friday its first-quarter GDP forecast was 2.09 percent, down from 2.56 percent a week earlier.
On Friday, the U.S. Commerce Department said retail sales fell 0.2 percent in March following a 0.3 percent decrease in February, which was the first and biggest decline in nearly a year.
Meanwhile, the Labor Department said its Consumer Price Index declined 0.3 percent last month. This was the first decline in 13 months and biggest decrease since January 2015 amid falling prices for gasoline and mobile phone services, which offset rising rents and food costs.
"
"
The New York Fed said on Friday its first-quarter GDP forecast was 2.09 percent, down from 2.56 percent a week earlier.
On Friday, the U.S. Commerce Department said retail sales fell 0.2 percent in March following a 0.3 percent decrease in February, which was the first and biggest decline in nearly a year.
Meanwhile, the Labor Department said its Consumer Price Index declined 0.3 percent last month. This was the first decline in 13 months and biggest decrease since January 2015 amid falling prices for gasoline and mobile phone services, which offset rising rents and food costs.
"
Here is a link to the latest Morell interview on North Korea:
Michael Morell - Charlie Rose
For a quick overview, here is my synopsis posted earlier.
Michael Morell - Charlie Rose
For a quick overview, here is my synopsis posted earlier.
Paracelsus
Active Member
A sincere thank you for once again adding breadth and depth to the board. I do certainly appreciate, enjoy, and benefit from reading your posts.
Given that the European Central Bank headquarters are located in Germany, that the US currently has somewhere between 21 and almost 50 military bases in Germany depending on your source, and given that German banks control the EU and operate with the same policies of austerity as the US banking/political system, do you feel now that the Soviets may have been at least partially correct regarding the US eventually using Germany as the backbone for NATO - and perhaps other roles? Your post also made me think about Germany's current role with Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal of course from a 'banking' perspective, and how their uncharacteristically liberal Syrian refuge policies seemed to be aligned to support the US role of expanded military action in the Middle East which General Wesley Clark might argue was the catalyst for this for this fossil fuel-driven human crisis .
Much appreciated
Last edited:
I agree with Morell 100% on all points. :-( I should note that China is cutting off coal imports from N Korea, depriving them of hard currency (well, if you consider the renminbi a hard currency). I'm not quite sure what China's strategy is, but I think they're trying something specific in the form of economic pressure.
Kim knows he's on shaky ground domestically *and* with China... this is why he's saber-rattling. In the *really old days*, this would be handled with an offer of a comfortable retirement on an island with a small princedom.... but not everyone took those offers, Kim might not, and and such offers seem to be less popular now...
Thanks for your kind words. I always worry that I'm going to outlive my usefulness as much of the post you reference comes from years of canned lectures. I guarantee you many have found profound rest, even to near a coma, in my classes.
My views in the dissertation were all based on published accounts, memoirs, etc., available up to about 1963. The Soviets broadcasted such fears at the time and history proved them right. I had my suspicions but not much evidence to back them up except for the fact we were doing things not permitted by the wartime agreements and at Yalta and Potsdam in particular. Further, as I said, we were clearly coping with an economic disaster, on the one hand, and changing our positions under Truman from what Roosevelt would have done. (Even though the so-called Morgenthau Plan for turning Germany into a pastoral country was scotched by Cordell Hull, Morgenthau thought it was being implemented at first in Germany.) There is a book by James Stewart Martin called All Honorable Men which chronicles the ties between U.S. industry and his frustration that it had too much influence over the course of "decartelization" which he oversaw. He also talks about his frustrations when he was in the U.S. government, either Justice or Treasury, I've forgotten which. One stunning example was ties among US insurers of shipping and their Swiss counterparts which shared risk with their German insurers. It took him two years in the middle of the damn war in Europe before he was able to stop U.S. insurers from wiring shipping information like invoices, departure dates, etc. German u-boats could wait off the U.S. coast and pick whatever ship was most valuable and try to sink it!
I'm not so sure I would go so far as you do here,
Germany's refugee stance is clearly motivated by humanitarian concerns and the demographic problem in that country which is very real. The birthrate among native Germans is too low. Other countries don't have that need but we might be close to it as our national socialists are so worried about whites eventually being a minority. Not a problem for me and I assume you as well, unless you are of color. (At least you're close to Canada.
) Also, Krugman has convinced me the Euro is a disaster since there was no central mechanism for coordinating budgets like Greece's and Italy's. Perhaps you or MitchJi whose also way ahead of me in so many ways, got me to buy Mark Blyth's, Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea, which I started but have to get back to soon.
As Churchill said to Roosevelt, it's nice living in the same century as you my dear Paracelsus! I hope my great grandchildren survive it.
My views in the dissertation were all based on published accounts, memoirs, etc., available up to about 1963. The Soviets broadcasted such fears at the time and history proved them right. I had my suspicions but not much evidence to back them up except for the fact we were doing things not permitted by the wartime agreements and at Yalta and Potsdam in particular. Further, as I said, we were clearly coping with an economic disaster, on the one hand, and changing our positions under Truman from what Roosevelt would have done. (Even though the so-called Morgenthau Plan for turning Germany into a pastoral country was scotched by Cordell Hull, Morgenthau thought it was being implemented at first in Germany.) There is a book by James Stewart Martin called All Honorable Men which chronicles the ties between U.S. industry and his frustration that it had too much influence over the course of "decartelization" which he oversaw. He also talks about his frustrations when he was in the U.S. government, either Justice or Treasury, I've forgotten which. One stunning example was ties among US insurers of shipping and their Swiss counterparts which shared risk with their German insurers. It took him two years in the middle of the damn war in Europe before he was able to stop U.S. insurers from wiring shipping information like invoices, departure dates, etc. German u-boats could wait off the U.S. coast and pick whatever ship was most valuable and try to sink it!
I'm not so sure I would go so far as you do here,
mostly because anything I know about current European imbroglios is derived largely from Paul Krugman.
Germany's refugee stance is clearly motivated by humanitarian concerns and the demographic problem in that country which is very real. The birthrate among native Germans is too low. Other countries don't have that need but we might be close to it as our national socialists are so worried about whites eventually being a minority. Not a problem for me and I assume you as well, unless you are of color. (At least you're close to Canada.
) Also, Krugman has convinced me the Euro is a disaster since there was no central mechanism for coordinating budgets like Greece's and Italy's. Perhaps you or MitchJi whose also way ahead of me in so many ways, got me to buy Mark Blyth's, Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea, which I started but have to get back to soon.As Churchill said to Roosevelt, it's nice living in the same century as you my dear Paracelsus! I hope my great grandchildren survive it.
Last edited:
Gerasimental
Member
Theresa May has just called a snap general election to be held on 8th June. This will most certainly result in an even stronger mandate for the current Conservative government, but may cause jitters and uncertainty for a while in Europe.
Seldom does one find candid and specific information from the "lame stream" media. My day is made by an absolutely hysterical article from NBC today.
Guess who came to dinner with Flynn and Putin
Jill Stein was there at the head table too! The Russians are really on to our game. Wish we were so with them. Obviously some in our intelligence community are, however belatedly.
Guess who came to dinner with Flynn and Putin
Jill Stein was there at the head table too! The Russians are really on to our game. Wish we were so with them. Obviously some in our intelligence community are, however belatedly.
Paracelsus
Active Member
Great stuff to mull over before I go pound a few more nails on the gothic barn I am building.
"It took him two years in the middle of the damn war in Europe before he was able to stop U.S. insurers from wiring shipping information like invoices, departure dates, etc. German u-boats could wait off the U.S. coast and pick whatever ship was most valuable and try to sink it!"
Another great example of the events that our history books and conversations should be filled with. That account is not unlike the periphery story lines surrounding Alan Turing's Enigma Machine decoding efforts. (We finally got around to watching The Imitation Game so my wife could become familiar with the story - we live a pretty quiet existence without TV so it took longer than it should). Fascinating to think about the true 'stories' that will be told in another 50 years that most certainly will be surrounded in conspiracy claims.
"Perhaps you or Mitchji whose also way ahead of me in so many ways, got me to buy Mark Blyth's, Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea, which I started but have to get back to soon."
Yes, I had posted the links for Alan Blyth on another thread in the very hopes that others like myself who had become frustrated with the diminishing transparancy of Paul Krugman's efforts to align his answers with the previous Administration's policies could find a breath of fresh air with a much deeper understanding of the events in the EU, and also gain a better understanding of just how closely aligned our policies were with Germany/EU - particularly the policies of austerity. Had I not stumbled across Blyth I would not have thought about the questions I posed to you regarding Germany's current MO/role. I do so hope you get the chance to watch a couple of the video links I have posted. You and neroden immediately came to mind while I watched Blyth was discussing the historical events shaping the shared policies of the US and EU.
"Germany's refugee stance is clearly motivated by humanitarian concerns and the demographic problem in that country which is very real. The birthrate among native Germans is too low."
I am glad you mention this and I like this answer. And I believe that the people of Germany believe the first part of your answer, and the government of Germany is acting on the later. And in such situations when a government has the opportunity to expand its lower income workforce while supporting the closely-held beliefs of the people, it can feel good at first for the wrong reasons. I have not heard it talked about, but I liken the Syrian refugee crisis in Germany to the immigrant labor issues in the US. Ronald Reagan proposed amnesty for immigrant laborers as president long before any of the red-herring discussions in DC during the last Administration, and his efforts were an extension of his policies that supported Agri-business as Governor of California.
A Reagan Legacy: Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants
The success of Germany in recent years has left them with a standard of living and a need for a similar workforce for their policies of austerity to continue, and to support their similar vision of capitalism. Thus there may be very sound reasons why Germany welcomed (or perhaps 'needed') the refugees, and yet Denmark did not. Should you get the chance to finish watching Blyth discuss the EU situation, I would be very interested to hear your interpretation of this situation through his lens.
Thanks again, Professor. It is a pleasure to attend class with you here.
"It took him two years in the middle of the damn war in Europe before he was able to stop U.S. insurers from wiring shipping information like invoices, departure dates, etc. German u-boats could wait off the U.S. coast and pick whatever ship was most valuable and try to sink it!"
Another great example of the events that our history books and conversations should be filled with. That account is not unlike the periphery story lines surrounding Alan Turing's Enigma Machine decoding efforts. (We finally got around to watching The Imitation Game so my wife could become familiar with the story - we live a pretty quiet existence without TV so it took longer than it should). Fascinating to think about the true 'stories' that will be told in another 50 years that most certainly will be surrounded in conspiracy claims.
"Perhaps you or Mitchji whose also way ahead of me in so many ways, got me to buy Mark Blyth's, Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea, which I started but have to get back to soon."
Yes, I had posted the links for Alan Blyth on another thread in the very hopes that others like myself who had become frustrated with the diminishing transparancy of Paul Krugman's efforts to align his answers with the previous Administration's policies could find a breath of fresh air with a much deeper understanding of the events in the EU, and also gain a better understanding of just how closely aligned our policies were with Germany/EU - particularly the policies of austerity. Had I not stumbled across Blyth I would not have thought about the questions I posed to you regarding Germany's current MO/role. I do so hope you get the chance to watch a couple of the video links I have posted. You and neroden immediately came to mind while I watched Blyth was discussing the historical events shaping the shared policies of the US and EU.
"Germany's refugee stance is clearly motivated by humanitarian concerns and the demographic problem in that country which is very real. The birthrate among native Germans is too low."
I am glad you mention this and I like this answer. And I believe that the people of Germany believe the first part of your answer, and the government of Germany is acting on the later. And in such situations when a government has the opportunity to expand its lower income workforce while supporting the closely-held beliefs of the people, it can feel good at first for the wrong reasons. I have not heard it talked about, but I liken the Syrian refugee crisis in Germany to the immigrant labor issues in the US. Ronald Reagan proposed amnesty for immigrant laborers as president long before any of the red-herring discussions in DC during the last Administration, and his efforts were an extension of his policies that supported Agri-business as Governor of California.
A Reagan Legacy: Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants
The success of Germany in recent years has left them with a standard of living and a need for a similar workforce for their policies of austerity to continue, and to support their similar vision of capitalism. Thus there may be very sound reasons why Germany welcomed (or perhaps 'needed') the refugees, and yet Denmark did not. Should you get the chance to finish watching Blyth discuss the EU situation, I would be very interested to hear your interpretation of this situation through his lens.
Thanks again, Professor. It is a pleasure to attend class with you here.
Similar threads
