Slashdot Mirror

Is it just me or are some of these posts coming from people that seem dumber than dogshit? 90%? Put that number back in your ass from where you pulled it.

National Interest article says at most 12-15%. I've seen other sources, including Encyclopedia Britannica give lower estimates. Undoubtedly, a lot of lives were lost, that's for sure. Oh, almost forgot....I dare you to ask China if they stood by and did nothing. I dare you!

Zhù n jntin yúkuài

The only nations we know have actually tampered with undersea cables are the US and Russia, so I guess we know conclusively that China could do it because we've done it.

Have Huawei's products killed anybody??

Boeing 737 Max 8 has. 336 people to be exact.

Boeing is an American company, and its products have murdered 336 innocent people.

Huawei is a Chinese company, and its products have yet to killed.

After Boeing's 737 Max 8 killed 336 people, guess what happened? THE USA GOVERNMENT STILL CLAIMED THAT THE PLANE WAS SAFE and that the two 737 Max 8 that crashed was due to PILOT ERROR !

Yes, my dear Sir, America is a such a wonderful country which lies and lies !!!

This seems like how we knew that Saddam used to have WMDs, we sold them to him, and we kept the receipts. Of course, since we knew how old they were, we also knew he didn't have them any more.

The only nations we know have actually tampered with undersea cables are the US and Russia, so I guess we know conclusively that China could do it because we've done it.

With that said, yes, it's a credible threat. And yes, Huawei probably could bring something to the table in that regard. But so what? That only means that China has come along to a party which was already swingin'.

Wasn't their test site already "dismantled" by a massive tunnel collapse?

No, North Korea's Nuclear Test Site Wasn't Destroyed in an Earthquake

"The reporting has been mostly hot garbage," Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear expert at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, tweeted after reviewing satellite imagery of the 7,200-foot Mount Mantap, where North Korea's Punggye-ri test site is located.

No I did not realize that.
But looking at the distancce of Seoul from the boarder and this article, it sounds rather unlikely: http://nationalinterest.org/bl...

I mean it is possible that someone else paid the Russian troll factories to spread pro-Russian propaganda

And it's "possible" that Obama was born in Kenya. Whoop de freaking do. The thing here, AC, is that you're believing in a narrative, and I'm an atheist. I don't do belief, I do facts. And so far - how many posts are we into this thread now? - you don't have any.

Other than that I'm not sure what to say anymore because it's like talking to a wall - worse actually.

Yes, you are a wall. Evidence. Evidence.

Eh.

Vi.

Dense.

If you have any, you would be presenting it instead of just blowing more smoke. Like if I'm debating an Obamabot who's claiming that Obama was really a great guy who was just held back by a hostile GOP Congress, I will burry his dumb ass in facts. Facts like the Dem supermajority from '09-'11, or that the worst policies during his time in office came from Obama, not Republicans. And then list them.

Because in a different post you kind of admitted that your fear of Russia's nuclear arsenal motivates you to do this, which of course you twisted into making the US look like the aggressor.

Annnnnd this is where I burry your dumb ass with facts. After promising Gorbachev that NATO wouldn't expand eastward (so Germany's reunification wouldn't be vetoed), the hostile military alliance has nearly doubled in size and expanded right to Russia's borders. If that wasn't enough, Dubbya erected "missile shields" in eastern Europe to make it easier for the U.S. to launch a first nuclear strike on Russia and survive the retaliatory launches. Sure, they claimed it was for Iran, but not even Ray Charles is blind enough to buy that one, and he's dead.

Then Bush invaded a country on Russia's border, Obama overthrew another, and in the biggest act of chutzpah in history, levied sanctions against Russia in response to said American overthrow. Obama also deployed the largest number of troops seen in eastern Europe since WWII and started a trillion-dollar upgrade of America's nuclear arsenal. Hillary campaigned on shooting down Russian planes in Syria, where Russia has been invited but where the US has no business being. And now, Trump is sending the U.S. Navy to the Black Sea, which is the equivalent to Putin sending a carrier group the Gulf of Mexico 'in response to American aggression.' Of course the United States is the aggressor here. The whole in your head would have to be measured in light years to claim otherwise.

^This is what it looks when you can back back up your shit with facts and citations. When you Russiagaters can do the same, by all means let us know.

http://nationalinterest.org/bl...

The Pentagon is reiterating that a battle in Syria that allegedly left some number of Russian mercenaries dead was purely an act of self-defense on the part of U.S. forces. Indeed, the Pentagon still does not know exactly who it is that American forces targeted during their retaliatory strike on Feb. 7.

"Our strikes were done out of self-defense," Pentagon chief spokesperson Dana W. White told reporters on Feb. 22. "We were very clear about that. We saw that group moving towards us. We still don't know, and I won't speculate, about the intentions or the composition of that group."

White reiterated that the United States did everything it could do ensure that no Russian forces got caught in the crossfire in Syria. "What I can tell you is that we used our deconfliction phone line, and we used it before, during and after the strike," White said. "And we were assured by the Russians that there were no Russians involved. And so those are all of the details that I have...That was purely out of self-defense."

The Pentagon statement contradicts a recent Bloomberg report that suggested that the White House would attempt to showcase the recent battle as an example of the Trump Administration's tough stance on Russia. A source told Bloomberg that the "Trump administration is considering citing the deaths of scores of Russian mercenaries in a Feb. 7 battle with U.S.-backed forces in Syria as evidence of the president's tough stance toward the Kremlin."

The Bloomberg report also cited White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders as making an "oblique reference" to the incident in Syria. ""He has done a number of things to put pressure on Russia and to be tough on Russia. Just last week, there was an incident that will be reported in the coming days, and another way that this president was tough on Russia," Sanders said during a press briefing.

It is unclear exactly who was involved in the Feb. 7 battle and how many Russians actually died. Media reports have diverged wildly from paper to paper and from source to source. The best estimates for Russian mercenary casualties seem to be roughly around 40 dead and 70 wounded. "Those are figures for combined casualties, referencing 3 companies of Wagner involved in support of Syrian forces," Center for Naval Analyses research scientist Michael Kofman wrote in his personal blog. "Of these the number of PMCs [private military contractors] killed and wounded is probably more than a dozen but doubtfully exceeds 30-40."

Both the Pentagon and the Russian government are deemphasizing the Feb. 7 incident because a wider conflict that is spiraling out of control does not benefit anyone.

http://www.janes.com/article/7...

The Obama administration planned to upgrade all legs of the âtriadâ(TM). This includes a new nuclear-capable Long Range Standoff (LRSO) cruise missile, 12 Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) to replace the Ohio class, Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) to largely replace silo-based Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and new Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider long-range nuclear bombers.

The Trump administration will continue those efforts, plus add low-yield submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and a new nuclear sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM). Undersecretary of Defense for Policy John Rood told reporters the funding numbers for this new plan would not be revealed until the fiscal year 2019 budget is submitted later in February.

You can argue that the Columbia subs are necessary - the UK is doing the same thing. I suppose the same argument applies replacing the Minutemen. The LRSO is basically an updated version of the ACM - a missile the US deployed and then withdrew

And one of the justifications for the LRSO was that it has selectable yields, unlike other US nukes. However the new SLBMs and SLCM duplicate this. Actually the US did have nuclear SLCMs before but phased them out - there were nuclear armed Tomahawks.

I.e. there's a fair bit of fat that could be trimmed off either proposal.

If it were up to me I'd build new subs, keep the current Trident II SLBMs, replace Minutemen and keep the cruise missiles and spend any spare cash on missile defence.

Or you could go really radical and go to a pure SLBM/SLCM system because subs are very hard for an adversary to zap in a first strike and then use all the spare money on missile defence. Those silo based missiles are vulnerable to a first strike.

Maybe do a deal with Russia and China to phase out silo and bomber based missiles? I'm not sure they go for that though - they presumably fear that US missile defence would at some point give the US nuclear primacy. Still the US had that in 2006 and it didn't seem to worry them then. Since then they've both introduced SLBM subs which are not vulnerable to a first strike on patrol.

>"I would imagine that would cause more shutdowns (that might last a shorter duration) as they spend money up to/over the limit until there is a new influx of money from taxes. "

There is a word for that- "savings." Make savings part of the budget and then we have a buffer until we can, again, lower spending or raise taxes.

The problem is the mentality that we can just borrow our way out of problems. It doesn't work. "In 2015, the United States government spent $223 billion in tax dollars just to service the national debt."

http://nationalinterest.org/bl...

And the biggest root problem is that people keep voting for leaders who will spend more AND tax less. It is very unfortunate that there was not some mandate in the Constitution to deal with this that can't be so easily overridden. Of course, the Constitution didn't stop the Fed from spending trillions on things clearly "reserved to the States or the People".

Approaching $21 trillion now and still growing at $10k PER SECOND...
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Why bother with addressing global warming, the US could just invade Canada. http://nationalinterest.org/bl...

The US military has put all of its eggs into one basket. The military needs new planes and the only available new plane is the F-35. Therefore, there is only one reasonable course of action: deal with it. If the repair facilities are not up to snuff, then spend the money and do what needs to be done. There is no Plan B (or "Plane B" since we are talking about planes here).

I read both articles.

The first article makes the case that "concurrency" has been a disaster. "Concurrency" is the idea that the new plane was delivered in generations. The first F-35 planes delivered are much less capable than the final generation (the "Block 3F" plane, which is scheduled for release now, over a decade after the first F-35 flew). The first article's main outrage is that several hundred early-gen F-35 planes may never be upgraded to Block 3F; the military is seriously considering leaving them unfit for any other use than as trainers, and using the money thus freed up to just buy more newer-gen F35s.

I am not an expert on military stuff or on government procurement, so please take my opinions with a grain of salt. That said: I am not convinced that "concurrency" has been a disaster. The F-35 is truly a quantum leap in the state of the art of military aircraft; its "sensor fusion" features are dramatically more advanced than the F-22. We are just now getting the Block 3F features. Would we really have been better served by the plane remaining vaporware until 2017? Didn't the early flight hours with the F-35 give us useful information? Is there no value to having pilots training on the real aircraft? Hasn't it been useful to fly the F-35 in training exercises to see how well it actually does? I am not competent to put a price tag estimate on how much value there is in all of the above. But I did find a recent article from Forbes where someone makes the case that "concurrency" has been a net win for the F-35 program, so please read this and decide whether you buy his arguments:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2017/09/29/how-concurrency-in-building-the-f-35-fighter-has-proven-to-be-a-big-plus/#7cd2b7bc7147

By the way, I would not be in favor of a new fighter jet program being run the same way as the F-35 program was run... I think that now that the F-35 has (with great pain) demonstrated the quantum leap in fighter performance, a follow-on program should be able to be run as more of an incremental development, with less risk and drama.

The second article is about how several branches of the military are behind schedule on building maintenance facilities for the F-35, and how that is impacting readiness numbers. As I said above, my only comment on this: we have no choice but the F-35, so we just need to spend the money and fix the problem.

Also, one thing to keep in mind about the F-35: because of its unique combination of stealth, sensors, and flight range, it can do missions with fewer aircraft than 3rd-generation fighters:

One scenario called for a four-ship of F-35Bs to launch from an amphibious assault ship into a "double-digit" (examples might include S-300 or Buk-M1) surface-to-air missile and high-end fighter threat environment to hit a strategic target. While such a mission might be "marginally successful"--at best--when flown by a dozen or more aircraft like the Hornet, the four F-35Bs completed the scenario with near impunity. "It was like watching a pack of dogs going after something," Davis said.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/f-35b-stealth-fighter-how-the-us-marine-corps-could-dominate-17198

So even if it turns

actually it is impossible for south to fight north without capital seoul, which is well within north's artillery range, getting destroyed and million getting killed within minutes.

This gets repeated frequently, but I don't think it's accurate. The capital of South Korea, Seoul, is actually about 35 miles from the border. The North Korean artillery is not massed literally right on the border. It's probably within a few miles of the border which makes the range to Seoul more like 35-50 miles give or take a mile or two and depending upon the sighting of individual batteries. The maximum range for a typical howitzer type artillery piece is about 5 to 25 miles or so depending upon the type of shell and the diameter of the bore. For example, the current standard towed howitzer in the US arsenal is the M777 with a maximum range of about 15 miles with standard 155mm shells or up to 25 miles with extended range M982 Excalibur shell. Longer ranges are possible and have been historically achieved, as witnessed by the Paris Gun or the Schwerer Gustav super heavy guns with maximum ranges of 81 miles and 28 miles respectively. However, these massive howitzers were very impractical, consuming massive amounts of resources for very little relative yield of high explosives delivered over modest distances compared to strategic bombers, which is why they never saw widespread use. Rocket based artillery, such as that employed in the M270 offers much longer ranges but with much smaller warheads. These weapons are useful for attacking troop and vehicle formations or area denial, but the smaller warheads lack the punch that you get from heavier and shorter range artillery. Finally there are ballistic surface to surface missiles, but these are much more expensive and vulnerable to theater missile defense systems such as MIM-104 Patriot, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) or Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System. It seems reasonable to assume that most of the North Korean artillery, with the possible exception of their rocket artillery and ballistic missiles which are much more limited in number, are out of range of Seoul in their current emplacements. This means that only a fraction of the North Korean artillery is actually available to bombard Seoul itself and in very limited quantities. The rest can hit the DMZ and nearby areas, but Seoul is almost certainly out of range unless the North Korean army can advance to within range, but this would be absolutely impossible without air cover as the Germans discovered in WWII when attempting to advance tank formations to push back the D-Day landings under heavy air attack while taking very heavy losses. The North Korean artillery is basically frozen in place in their bunkers by superior US and allied air power, lacking both the fuel and the cover needed for any moves southward, never mind actually controlling that ground for long enough to set up a firing position and shell Seoul. A few well placed cluster bombs alone would produce mass casualties among North Korean towed artillery pieces or tanks attempting to move southward. The following article covers the situation in far greater detail, but the conclusion remains the same. The threat from the North Korean artillery to Seoul is overstated at best.

Israel doesn't need much military because it has most of the west, including the US. So that 5th grade kid has the backing of high schoolers the next block over, and sometimes visits for lunch.

These suggest that Israel makes their own modern nukes.
https://www.thenation.com/arti...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://nationalinterest.org/fe...

As another example, the Pentagon will be freed from a requirement that it file a report every time a small business vendor is paid, a task that consumed some 1,200 man-hours every year.

Sounds like a lot, I guess.

The F-35 Is a $1.4 Trillion Dollar National Disaster — April 2017

The Distributed Aperture System is one of the primary sensors feeding the displays to the infamous $600,000 helmet system, and it is also failing to live up to the hype.

So if we amortise the JSF program over 40 years, the $1.4 trillion outlay / pork gravy works out to $1100/s (more than even Eliza "meth" Millipede can make stuffing fliers at home).

Is 1200 hours/year of accounting oversight on a relatively small financial leak unjustified?

Personally, I'd crank some numbers before jumping to a hasty conclusion, because this is the ultimate haemorrhage in all of recorded history.

I happen to mostly take complaints about the information system with a grain of salt. Integration problems are hard, and things will probably improve with a combination of time, experience, and more $$$ guzzling everywhere (perhaps in some cases to good effect).

The F-35 lost repeatedly in air-to-air maneuvering despite the fact that the test was rigged in its favor because the F-16 employed was the heavier two-seater version and was further loaded down with heavy, drag-inducing KFC chicken buckets to hinder its maneuverability.

F-35 boosters argue that the plane's low radar signature will keep it out of WVR situations, but the history of air combat is that WVR engagements cannot be avoided altogether.

Incompetent epsilon-signature airframe, abetted with movable mission goalposts, have a far worse long-term prognosis.

But no, apparently the problem here is too much picayune cost control.

Personally, I'd crunch some serious numbers before supporting that assertion in any direction.

Tu-95? Don’t let its looks deceive you.
Also, there are supersonic Tu-160 - only 16 such planes in active servive tho.

Yeah, I believe 2010 popular mechanics. Seriously??? Artillery isn't rocket science, it's simple.

And there are other threats... http://nationalinterest.org/fe...

Meaning it's not a good idea to send it on missions where you don't have air superiority or your adversary has effective anti-aircraft missiles. So it's great against ISIS and such, but against forces properly supplied with Russian or Chinese anti aircraft missiles, your A10's would last approximately 1 mission each.

As far as I can tell, the F35 is supposed to be much more survivable in such an environment. No matter how good a plane is at mud moving, it's of little use if it's easy to kill.

So it's entirely a question of: "what mission and what threat do you have in mind", and adapt your armament to that. You don't decide to keep the A10 just to have something flying. Even if it's cheap.

Keeping the A10 may serve a purpose, but it probably won't be of much use if the adversary is Russia, China, or Iran.

"There isn't another jet even on the drawing board that competes with it in the air,"

What are you basing this on?

I thought the Russian Su-35 was perfectly comparable to the F22. It's also in production and being marketed to other countries. Of course it's hard to compare on specifications alone, but this comparison discusses various aspects, though being a US site ultimately states that the F22 would come out on top.

Now please don't misunderstand me, the very last thing we need is an actual showdown over Syria between these planes, so please be careful about who you vote for!

For those wanting some context, here is a collection of articles from a variety of sources. For those saying "show me the evidence", they wouldn't believe any evidence -- or are themselves Russian trolls.

What Does Putin Want?
5 Oct 2016

The United States should pursue confrontation where necessary and mutual interests without illusions where possible.

However therapeutic and tempting, especially during election season and after Russiaâ(TM)s direct complicity in the Syria horror, the understandable impulse to confront and isolate President Vladamir Putinâ(TM)s Russia is not wise policy. Notwithstanding the many areas of altercation as well as the doomed attempt by President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to âoeresetâ U.S.-Russia relations after the George W. Bush administration, the next president should pursue a dual strategy designed both to challenge Putin where U.S. national interests demand it but find areas of collaboration where interests coincide. The United States should pursue confrontation where necessary and mutual interests without illusions where possible.

http://nationalinterest.org/fe...

---

Russia Suspends Nuclear Agreement, Ends Uranium Research Pact With United States
5 Oct 2016

âoeThe regular renewal of sanctions against Russia ... demands the adoption of countermeasures against the U.S. side.â

Russia further curtailed its cooperation with the United States in nuclear energy on Wednesday, suspending a research agreement and terminating one on uranium conversion, two days after the Kremlin shelved a plutonium pact with Washington.

The Russian government said that as counter-measures to the U.S. sanctions imposed on Russia over Ukraine, it was putting aside a nuclear and energy-related research pact with the United States.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

---

Russian state newspapers predict âdirect military conflictâ(TM) with US as it compares Syria stalemate to Cuban missile crisis
5 Oct 2016

'Third World War' fears have been voiced by the newspapers over the growing tensions with the USA

A RUSSIAN newspaper fears a Third World War with the US over Syria.

Tabloid Moskovsky Komsomolets predicts a âoedirect military confrontationâ on par with the Cuban Missile Crisis.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/...

---

Russiaâ(TM)s Military Sophistication in the Arctic Sends Echoes of the Cold War
4 Oct 2016

Norwegian, NATO and U.S. officials express concerns over Moscowâ(TM)s increased sophistication in region

When the U.S. wants to learn what Russia is doing in the Arctic, it often turns to the Norwegian military, which has been conducting operations for decades from this Arctic town amid the fiords.

These days, it isnâ(TM)t the volume of Russian military activity in the region that concerns Norway and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies. Adm. Haakon Bruun-Hanssen, Norwayâ(TM)s chief of defense, says Russian military activity in the Barents Sea has grown in recent years but still pales in comparison to Cold War levels.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/ru...

---

Amid Deteriorating U.S.-Russia Relations, Questions Grow About Cyberwar
4 Oct 2016

Just when you thought U.S.-Russia relations couldn't get worse, diplomatic deals on both Syria and nuclear security fell apart this week.

Moscow went first, announcing that it was pulling out of a landmark agreement on plutonium. Russia's President V

Or they can use their anti-satellite weapons to break up the contraption into smaller (and thus more likely to burn in the atmosphere) pieces, while simultaneously:

• Justifying their development of such weapons;
• Testing them yet again;
• Putting adversaries (the US) on notice, that their own satellites aren't immune either, should a push ever come to shove.

Not that we don't already know that.

Now, before I write the rest of this, let me point out this comment I made earlier. I know full well that people, especially the media, lie about Trump and what he says a lot. They do misrepresent what he says. My dislike of him is - as far as I know - not based on those lies.

Wanting to ban Muslims from entering the country simply on the basis of their religion is pretty awful. That's listed on his website, so I hope you find that an acceptable source. It actually helps ISIS by giving them extra recruiting material - they love seeing blanket anti-Muslim statements, it gets them fighters and support. We can and should reject Islamism, but we should do it without blaming all Muslims, as well as without claiming it has nothing to do with Islam - Maajid Nawaz has an excellent article here.

His stance on NAFTA and free trade in general is not supported by most economists. He has no coherent economic worldview. He, for some reason, thinks a trade deficit is automatically a bad thing (see previous link to his website). On this page he claims he can "Reclaim millions of American jobs and reviving American manufacturing by putting an end to China’s illegal export subsidies and lax labor and environmental standards." How, exactly, he is going to change China's environmental standards is left to the reader. His plan to lower the corporate tax rate to 15% is potentially bad; it depends on how that's implemented.

Not something I find "particularly disagreeable", but merely baffling - "Crime— Homicides last year increased by 17 percent in America’s fifty largest cities. That’s the largest increase in 25 years. More than 2,000 have been shot in Chicago since January of this year alone. Donald Trump is the law and order candidate in this Presidential race." (under Section 5, titled "Other Reforms") - how does he plan on reforming "crime", in general?

And, of course, there's his ridiculous wall idea. Seizing the remittances earned by people working here is very disagreeable to me; that's effectively a large tax on people who are, generally, low income. That combined with the fact that a wall is unlikely to meaningfully impact illegal immigration make it a really bad idea.

Oh, and how could we forget that he wants to kill the families of terrorists. Killing someone just because they're related to someone else is never okay, especially if you intentionally make a policy out of it.

He wants to put ground troops in Syria to fight ISIS. America does not need another ground war, especially one that is so politically risky.

He also pledged to crack down on internet porn. Now,

and then there's these babies:

http://nationalinterest.org/bl...

For the T-50, you dont iron out stealth issues over time. That is not how radar signature or stealth signature work. They are design time decisions. The US criticism is of cost and range. Stealth is generally considered part of the definition of 5th gen. No one has questioned if the F-35 is really 5th gen. I agree the Indian are going to continue to invest in it, mostly because the deal includes tech transfer, which they badly need. It is funny they are still threatening to drop it.

T-14 were part of Russian arms expo. Here is one of those http://sputniknews.com/militar...
It is also certainly in production, though not widely acknowledged. http://nationalinterest.org/bl...

Ahhh, the Troll mod. Sorry if it hurts the Slashdot/ISIS crowd, but this phase of the war goes back to 1979.

"What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?"

Are you going to argue with success?

And then the same man spills the beans in the very first response here. Qataris, and Saudis, and Turks! Oh my!

"And it becomes clear that not all of those rebels are all that 'democratic.'"

Gee! Understatement?

But hey, theater.. Carry on

The effort to recover radioactive material from the satellite was dubbed Operation Morning Light. Covering a total area of 124,000 square kilometres (48,000sqmi), the joint Canadian-American team swept the area by foot and air in Phase I from January 24, 1978 to April 20, 1978 and Phase II from April 21, 1978 to October 15, 1978. They were ultimately able to recover 12 large pieces of the satellite. All but two of the fragments recovered were radioactive. These pieces displayed radioactivity of up to 1.1 sieverts per hour, yet they only comprised an estimated 1% of the fuel. One fragment had a radiation level of 500 R/h, which "is sufficient to kill a person ... remaining in contact with the piece for a few hours."

source

Even "Readers Digest" had a very good story on the incident.

could not find, but good stuff

nyt, 5 Jan 1983
nyt, 24 Jan 1983
Jan, 2013
Nov, 2015
Apr, 2015"

Because Bill Clinton thought they should. Congress tried to repeal it in 2005, but the bill failed.

Seems to me like it's time to look at that again.

I'l like to see the quote on that from ballistics expert. How are you planning to have muzzle velocity high enough to get that kind of range on a ballistic weapon that has no motor and have the weapon survive the firing? And if you do manage to get it that high, how will you stabilize the weapon to have any kind of meaningful accuracy at that range?

The only source for this claim that I can find is here:
http://nationalinterest.org/co...

And it can be summarized as "wishful thinking".

No? I keep reading about how the economic recovery is creating lots of part time jobs.

http://nationalinterest.org/bl...

What you're saying is that those jobs don't pay the same as a full time job. No, obviously not, but if the things around people keep getting cheaper then it doesn't matter: they can still end up objectively more wealthy. For instance, let's say 20 years from now everyone buys books cheap via e-readers and nobody has to own a car or parking spot anymore, because all the cars drive themselves and turn up on demand. People in such a world would have objectively better lives than ours - they'd be able to read any book they desired whilst on a long journey, get drunk if they wanted to when they were there, and get back home again, all for less than what they spend today and with more convenience. If they worked part time, they'd still earn less than a full time person would in that future world, but they'd still be better off than a full time worker in today's world who doesn't have those great things even though they have full employment.

At the bottom of the first page there is a "Show Full Page" link that will display all five on the same page.

Its easy to eliminate most terrorism with a simple thing called a good education and a job. But killing people is easy, and educating them means you have to actually talk with them so don't expect a change soon.

Most terrorists are highly educated: http://nationalinterest.org/bl...

The problem is you are expecting that education is capable of changing their philosophy or world view, rather than making them more capable of engaging in acts to promote their philosophy or world view.

You might as well be trying to educate lions to eat grass so they can live side by side with antelope on the veldt.

I totally agree with you, but situation is changing, resources are getting more scarece and russia must protect those, from being wholly owned by external interests. I am sure saudis don't own any major oil fields in Unites States or have control over oil reserves. Why would russia yield to same kinds of controls from White House and friends?

have a read of this:

http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=14 036

If I am a president of the country that has ballistic capability, and can loose that, being enchained by such measures I won't be sitting on my thumbs.

The people that protested in russia, were sponsored by White House and Berezovsky. They were given permit to have their demonstration in one place, but they went elsewhere. To do so for the confrontation. Only western media was initally invited, to "document" the destruction on freedoms.

Only those who earned their status, dishonestly in russia, by theft from the state, have to worry about their legal status.
Minister of finance, Berezovsky, that was has earned his 850-odd million dollars through various schemes over 4 years, some of them coming down to purchasing non-existent items and getting money for them in the bank. And he wants more. He even sponsored Kasparov to speak up, on his behalf.

Speaking of genocide, in Estonia, being white supremacist state, they had a market where people of western descent were brining various produce. What happend? They documented them all Packed them on the trucks threw them out of the country. They were told if they ever come back they or their friends, they would be executed. Make no mistake about that.

At this time americans are attempting to place more nuclear launch pads in Germany. If thats not act of passive aggression I don't know what is.

http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=14 036

Americans don't tell other people how to live, the people who live in that country tell themselves how to live.

The global involvements of the transnational economic elites erode their sense of belonging to a national community. An early 1980s poll showed:

"The higher people's income and education . . . the more conditional the allegiance. . . . They were more likely than the poor and uneducated to say they would leave the country if they could double their income."

In the early 1990s, future Secretary of Labor Robert Reich reached a similar conclusion, noting that "America's highest income earners . . . have been seceding from the rest of the nation."5 This seceding elite is, as John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge say, "increasingly cut off from the rest of society: Its members study in foreign universities, spend a period of time working abroad and work for organizations that have a global reach. They constitute a world within a world, linked to each other by myriad global networks but insulated from the more hidebound members of their own societies. . . . They are more likely to spend their time chatting with their peers around the world--via phone or e-mail--than talking with their neighbors in the projects around the corner."

Fasinating story in the National Interest.