Trump enters the stage

I promise man Im not in this topic for fun. If I would tell you what I know you might never sleep again. I know it cost me years of sleep and often forced me to almost bang myself unconscious to the wall. Just a sensitive kid who could never get with the dudes that were burning a doves eyes out. Like I can not get why a warm blooded mammal can be unhappy at what Trump did. I don’t want to know. I just want to celebrate the end of the torture and fight so that it won’t come back. Please join us man, drop the intellectual act and stand up for whats right. How often does it happen, that we can fight against cruelty with politics? First time in my life for damn sure.

The abstract word , the pen, causes literally monumental effects, where by little is written of.those effects, by those who would like to erase the words that caused them, if they became exposed as having caused them.

Little is said about heroes who went unnoticed because they shed.their blood for intentionally ideas which falsely promoted them.

DUDE
I was in the region I risked my life many many MANY times to get to the truth.

then I came to it, and what do you think? People went around to each others houses to tell each other to stop talking to me.

Why do you not want to talk about the torture that stopped?
Is it shame?

If it is fear of a too vivid image of the unlucky’s reality I accept that. But don’t argue from that fear.

And why do You presume I’m not familiar not only with images of.torture but of not.having seen and experienced.them?

I ask politely that you imagine how it is for someone like me, who works in dangerous areas and has no securities from society, when finally something good happens, and the whole so called civilized world comes off its ass to stop it.

Like, no one ever stood up against evil, against the great slaughters in my time. Until a USA president was elected who stands up against it, and now suddenly everyone stands up, to fight him!

The first time in my life they stand up they stand up to keep the torture going.

Please can you understand?

I didn’t use to but when you started attacking and undermining the only man who ever did anything against it, I began to wonder.

If you have experienced it and I won’t ask to verify because surely you have suffered much, then Im not so puzzled that you are afraid to touch some things and I won’t pressurize you, so Ill just stop now hoping you trust my intentions. When people suffer too much, well that is what it is all about. We need to stop that on Earth.

Maybe learning to be happy for us, who won in 2016, is a key for the left to connect back to mercy.

Right now it is just so weirdly mean. Finally we get a non-slick president who delivers promises, and well shit. It’s not allowed. We clumsy losers weren’t supposed to win.

Please just stop pushing for toppling Trump. Please just look at how many people he has made happy.
Or just look at how few people he killed halfway his first term. Obama personally launched drone strikes every Tuesday. He loved it. I was sick. Now Im sound.

Be happy for me and you will learn to understand me.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85e7GZrxKso[/youtube]

We aint perfect I know. But was that really the point?
We like to mock our leader. We like that freedom!

Its all love.

Don’t mind the title

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lrpkxl4DXtk[/youtube]

Just try to see it from my side for two minutes while watching this.

Barbarian:

I am reading You loud and clear. But my object here is not definitely pro, or con Trump. My approach is to try to define the underpinnings of what we are talking about, so that the confusion we all appear to be suffering in, be cleared up. When I claimed to appreciate torture, I meant it in a way that implies all forms of torture and that’s pretty inclusive. I did not measure the degree of intent on Your part, be it explains more, as to personal involvement or, more a general description from Your point of view. However that does not matter from the angle of trying to figure that out.

For example, some consider tortuous just to witness the torture of others. And where torture can be delineated to the point that it becomes a.personal choice, vis: what consists of real torture : such as You describe : the beheading of children, or, of seeing. mangled bodies of near adults say 15-16 years old, is only matter of conjecture. Some, witnessing that. may die of a somatic collapse, or carry such memories to the ends of.their life: which is in itself a never ending burden.

BREAKING

Former Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel warns Trump may order military action in Venezuela for political gain
Former Obama and Clinton aide Rahm Emanuel is warning that Trump could order military action in increasingly unstable Venezuela for political gain.
“We have a phrase in this country: the October surprise,” Emanuel, Obama’s first White House chief of staff, says in an interview. “I think in this situation he is looking to do anything and will do anything.”
The Trump administration has not ruled out action in the South American nation, which, under the rule of Nicolas Maduro, has descended into chaos.
John Harwood | @johnjharwood
Published 1:22 PM ET Wed, 19 Sept 2018 Updated 1:45 PM ET Wed, 19 Sept 2018
CNBC.com
Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro talks to the media after a meeting for signing an agreement on guarantees for the vote at the National Electoral Council (CNE) headquarters in Caracas, Venezuela March 2, 2018.
Marco Bello | Reuters
Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro talks to the media after a meeting for signing an agreement on guarantees for the vote at the National Electoral Council (CNE) headquarters in Caracas, Venezuela March 2, 2018.
As Nicolas Maduro’s Venezuela keeps descending into lawlessness and chaos, President Donald Trump has publicly entertained the possibility of military intervention. So far, he hasn’t acted.

But now Trump faces mounting legal and political pressures approaching midterm elections that could make his problems worse. And Rahm Emanuel, the former top aide to President Barack Obama who is now Chicago’s mayor, is publicly warning that the mercurial commander-in-chief may blow past the hesitation of national security advisors in search of a rally-around-the-flag political boost. He wants Congress to flash caution lights.

“We have a phrase in this country: the October surprise,” Emanuel, Obama’s first White House chief of staff, told me in an interview. "I think in this situation he is looking to do anything and will do anything.

“If you’re going to take military action, lay out the case,” added Emanuel, who previously advised President Bill Clinton and served in the House Democratic leadership. “The Senate should be asking serious questions now — not after the fact.”

A White House spokesman, Hogan Gidley, declined to comment.

PLAY VIDEO
This is the cost of President Trump’s ‘America first’ policy
Emanuel spoke following a New York Times report signaling U.S. interest in military action in response to the political and economic meltdown that has led more than 2 million Venezuelans to flee their country. The report said Trump administration representatives had participated in meetings with Venezuelan rebels about overthrowing Maduro, that nation’s authoritarian leader.

The administration ultimately declined to cooperate with the rebels. But it still hasn’t ruled out U.S. intervention.

As a senior advisor in the Clinton White House, Emanuel has been on the receiving end of the same kind of suspicion he now directs at Trump. In 1998, Republicans wondered aloud whether Clinton ordered air strikes against Afghanistan, Sudan and Iraq to divert attention from his affair with Monica Lewinsky and subsequent impeachment. Emanuel insisted the circumstances are not comparable because Clinton’s orders were vetted and endorsed by his national security team.

In August 2017, Trump told reporters he had a “military option” for dealing with Venezuela. The Associated Press subsequently reported that then-National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and other aides argued against it on both practical and diplomatic grounds, noting the star-crossed history of U.S. intervention in Latin America.

But Trump has made harsh attacks on Latino immigrants and warnings of more of them flooding across America’s Southern border a core political message. One of his Senate Republican allies, Marco Rubio of Florida, has publicly embraced the idea of a coup.

Asked about potential U.S. involvement in Venezuela last month, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders replied, “We’re going to keep all options on the table.”

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel speaks at a press conference where he addressed issues related to the city’s murder rate and the city’s Sanctuary City policy on January 25, 2017 in Chicago, Illinois.
Scott Olson | Getty Images
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel speaks at a press conference where he addressed issues related to the city’s murder rate and the city’s Sanctuary City policy on January 25, 2017 in Chicago, Illinois.
Foreign policy experts in both parties share Emanuel’s skepticism. Military action would pose myriad challenges: ousting Maduro, restoring order under a new government, stanching the exodus of refugees, securing the flow of Venezuelan oil.

“There’s a strong case for setting up humanitarian assistance aid across the borders, but not to intervene,” said Kori Schake, a National Security Council aide to President George W. Bush.

“What could go wrong is not the appropriate question,” added Jake Sullivan, an Obama State Department aide. “What could go right?”

But not all national security professionals dismiss the idea.

“I understand all the pitfalls of intervention, but I also understand the pitfalls of allowing this situation to unfold,” said Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and another former Bush advisor. Given the extent of suffering in Venezuela, he said the White House and Congress should consider assisting, though not leading, an intervention.

Haass acknowledged that the president’s inattention to policy and reputation for impulsivity brings “a bit of baggage” to the debate. But “just because it’s Trump,” he concluded, “it ought not to be ruled out.”

Emanuel sees a lot of baggage. Trump has shrugged off advice of top aides on numerous national security issues, from Russia’s attack on 2016 elections to relations with North Korea to the Iran nuclear deal. Bob Woodward’s new book describes the Trump White House as suffering a “nervous breakdown.”

That’s why Emanuel, who recently announced he won’t seek a third mayoral term next year, wants Congress to ensure any action Trump might take has a national security rather than political justification.

“He has crossed so many lines,”

The wag the dog scenario, again, rising from the ashes, just an implanted myth, to serve as a fix to nullify public suspicion by dems, or, a real possibility?

Pezer, Venezuelan, was literally BEGGING Trump to interfere.

But the concentration camp bosses you defend call it “political gain” like the cowards in England called Churchills actions against Hitler.

You do NOT read me loud and clear, if you dare to quote this NAZI THUG PROPAGANDA to me.

Why. Do. You. Lend. Yourself. To. These. TORTURERS

???

Why do you defend the cruelest and most dishonest humans Meno! What witchy power does this evil have over you?

What could make you think that a message from an institute you know has dronestruck civilians for eight years should be fueled with your power?

Again, it’s not my intention to demonstrate the rightness or wrongness of interference into Venezuela’s business, since it is a well documented documented fact that the US has interferes with other dictators when things served U.S. interests

Batista, the Shaw of Iran, and many others were supported . The point is, that at one point Chavez was in the cross hairs as well, during a previous administration
If these are to be excluded from similar targets, then don’t even bother to mention McCarthy, who tried to dissuade Eisenhower from the horrible post Malta Conference division of Europe.

No the point is, that why now? Why are the imperial designs raised at a time where too much is already on political plates everywhere? Why the urgency, at a time when patience would be better dictates by prudence?

This point may relate to Your point , certainly, nut it sea like a vehicle to advance and shift focus away from impending problems which would better serve Trump.

This issue again, may turn out well or bode otherwise, and the jury is out on it, it seems like an attempt to extend and sweet longitudinally a very literal a schism that has broken out in internal politics inside the U.S…

Of course, the literal interpretation is often outer directed, so as to avoid a trap, which may summon in a no exit situation, where people are aware of being baited and trapped.

Look at Brexit, a hotel California type set up, get in and it appears you can never leave-for those who can not afford membership , the exit cost is even higher.

This goes to the heart of this argument and borders on Trump’s economic war as well.

Think about it, the basic question. amounts to the nominal formula dealing with American power renual, and the so called -Deep State’ are very much like the great institution of power and wealth , who started to wonder , if a lesser wealthy entity could transform his lack in wealth into a power figure who could upstage even them.

There is a great fire building up even within his ranks, and that is before anyone, you, I, or anyone could really decide which poaition will be most effective.

I keep telling you I am not biased in the least, the synthetic approach drivable into the empirical- bites the bullet both ways. Its a catch, sure Brice home as double, a double edged sword, be coming really- a catch22.

Watch out. For Trump, exit is more dangerous or more, then engagement, and he knows it. Plus if you ain’t got nothing you’ve got nothing to loose, bit debts.


Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is reportedly out
This could put the future of Mueller’s Russia probe in question.
By Alex Ward on September 24, 2018 11:46 am

Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Win McNamee/Getty Images
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has reportedly resigned, throwing the future of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation into question.

The news comes three days after the New York Times reported the deputy attorney general said he wanted to record conversations with President Donald Trump last year, and also discussed using the 25th Amendment to remove the president from office. Rosenstein denied the report, and one source told the Times that the deputy attorney general had merely been joking.

But it looks like Rosenstein decided to leave his post anyway, and the White House reportedly accepted his resignation.

If true, this news is significant, since Rosenstein was the man responsible for overseeing Mueller’s investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government during the 2016 US presidential election. That’s because Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Rosenstein’s boss, recused himself from the probe after it became clear he’d provided false and misleading testimony to Congress about his own contacts with Russia.

Rosenstein has therefore spent more than a year walking a delicate tightrope.

On one hand, he was committed to protecting the investigation from conservatives inside and outside Congress who believed it was biased against the president and had urged Trump to fire the special counsel. But Rosenstein couldn’t champion the investigation too much, or he’d draw Trump’s ire.

Rosenstein’s departure strikes at the heart of the Trump-Russia investigation because Mueller had to run major investigative decisions past the deputy attorney general. Rosenstein’s temporary replacement, Solicitor General Noel Francisco, could simply refuse to approve Mueller’s requests, effectively slowing the whole investigation to a crawl — or even fire Mueller outright if he felt there was a reason to do so.

Rosenstein had refused to do that. He instead allowed Mueller’s probe to proceed unimpeded, while Mueller indicted top members of Trump’s campaign, including former campaign chair Paul Manafort on tax, financial, and bank fraud charges. Manafort later pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy against the US and one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice and is now cooperating with the Mueller investigation.

The future of the Mueller probe, and possibly even Trump’s presidency, once depended on how well Rosenstein performed his delicate balancing act. Now, Mueller’s future rests in Francisco’s hands.

Rosenstein had to keep Trump and the Justice Department happy. That wasn’t easy.
Rosenstein’s performance during a congressional hearing last December showed how he was trying to navigate the difficult situation he was in.

Here’s what happened: On the night of December 12, mere hours before Rosenstein would testify at a House Judiciary Committee hearing, the Justice Department showed reporters some anti-Trump texts. The messages were from two FBI officials, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who had corresponded throughout the 2016 presidential election.

Strzok, a former top FBI counterintelligence official who was on Mueller’s investigative team, texted Page that Trump was an “idiot.” He also wanted Clinton to defeat Trump in the election — in another message, he wrote: "God Hillary should win 100,000,000 — 0.”

There was also a text that seemingly implied Strzok and Page were working on an “insurance policy” in case Trump won the election. But the Wall Street Journal reported on December 18 that Strzok’s text was really about the need to investigate possible Trump-Russia ties. Mueller removed Strzok from his staff last July, and the Strzok-Page exchanges remain subject to an internal investigation by the Justice Department. Still, some conservatives in and out of government think these texts show that the Mueller probe was working against the president.

It’s unclear if Rosenstein authorized the release of the texts, but some legal analysts thought the DOJ made the messages public the night before Rosenstein’s big hearing to curry favor with the anti-Mueller crowd on the House Judiciary Committee.

“It’s appalling behavior by the department,” Matthew Miller, a spokesperson for the Justice Department in the Obama administration, told Business Insider about the release of the texts at the time. “This is an ongoing investigation in which these employees have due-process rights, and the political leadership at DOJ has thrown them to the wolves so Rosenstein can get credit from House Republicans at his hearing.”

Rosenstein defended the release of the texts during the hearing, saying, "We consulted with the inspector general to determine that he had no objection to releasing the material,” in response to a question about the texts by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD). “If he had, we would not have released it,” Rosenstein said.

But he also defended Mueller in that same session. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the committee’s ranking member, asked Rosenstein the most highly anticipated question of the session: “If you were ordered today to fire Mr. Mueller, what would you do?”

“If there were good cause, I would act. If there were no good cause, I would not,” Rosenstein replied. He then went on to defend Mueller personally, saying, “It would’ve been difficult to find anyone more qualified for this job.”

These exchanges show that Rosenstein was trying to stand up for the probe while still appeasing Trump and his allies. Benjamin Wittes, an expert on national security law at the Brookings Institution, wrote on the Lawfare blog that Rosenstein may pay a price for doing both.

“Rosenstein here has, at a minimum, contributed to [the political] circus — at the expense of his own employees,” he wrote after the hearing. “The DOJ and FBI workforces will not forget that. Nor should they.”

Those 24 hours encapsulated Rosenstein’s political two-step. One minute he defended the release of texts that served as ammunition for Mueller critics and Trump allies to lambast the investigation; the next, he shielded Mueller from criticism by those same anti-Mueller conservatives and Trump allies — and put his own job at risk.

Keeping both sides happy allowed Rosenstein to say he supported his staff while also backing Trump. The deputy attorney general played a deft game, and those who had previously worked with him felt he could pull it off.

“What you have in Rod is somebody that is battle-tested,” Julie Myers Wood, a prosecutor and former colleague of Rosenstein’s, told me in an interview last December, months before Rosenstein’s ouster. “I can’t think of anyone that is more prepared to handle this situation than him.”

On May 1, Rosenstein told a crowd that “the Department of Justice is not going to be extorted.” He continued: “We’re going to do what’s required by the rule of law, and any kind of threats that anybody makes are not going to affect the way we do our job.”

Rosenstein found himself in the middle of a major political controversy
Rosenstein was long considered an apolitical straight shooter by those who worked with him. “He has a directness about him — there’s no bullshit,” Philip Heymann, Rosenstein’s former professor at Harvard Law School and later his colleague, told me before Trump reportedly let Rosenstein go. “He says what he thinks, but he’s always fair.”

President George W. Bush appointed Rosenstein as the US attorney for Maryland in 2005. President Barack Obama kept him on, making Rosenstein only one of three US attorneys — out of a total of 93 — retained by the new administration. Rosenstein officially joined the Trump administration last April as deputy attorney general after receiving broad bipartisan support in his confirmation vote.

But Rosenstein found himself in the middle of a major political controversy just two weeks into his new job. On May 9, 2017, he co-authored a letter with Sessions making the case that Trump should fire then-FBI Director James Comey because of how Comey had handled the results of the agency’s Clinton investigation.

“Over the past year,” Rosenstein wrote, “the FBI’s reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice.”

He added: “I cannot defend the director’s handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton’s emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken.”

Trump fired Comey later that day, citing the Sessions-Rosenstein letter as his reason. Pro-Trump Republicans and conservative media applauded the decision to remove Comey, but Democrats were furious. And some of that fury extended to Rosenstein.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) told NPR shortly after the Comey firing that he had “lost any confidence I might have had” in Rosenstein, whose “first official action was putting his name on that letter, basically making what appeared to be bogus reasons [for] firing the FBI director.”

Those who know Rosenstein say he recommended firing Comey not because he wanted to please Trump, but rather because he believed Comey hurt the FBI’s reputation. “He’s guided by justice, not by politics,” Steve Levin, a former colleague of Rosenstein’s in Maryland, told me in an interview before the firing.

A week later, Rosenstein named Mueller as the special counsel, authorizing him to look into possible Trump-Russia ties as well as “any matters that arose or may arise from the investigation.”

In retrospect, it seems quite clear that Rosenstein wasn’t in Trump’s pocket. But Trump himself wondered aloud where Rosenstein’s true loyalties lay, tweeting on June 16, “I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt.”

The Trump-Russia probe could be in serious trouble
Rosenstein didn’t stop Mueller from pursuing the investigation the way he saw fit, and he made every indication that he intended to continue letting Mueller proceed with his investigation.

But Francisco could change all that, especially if Trump applies significant pressure. That said, if Francisco did fire Mueller, the investigation might not be completely undermined, as five Trump associates have pleaded guilty and prosecutors are likely to continue to follow leads from the beginning of the investigation in June 2016.

And the future is still very unclear. If Francisco doesn’t do Trump’s bidding, the president could simply fire him. That’s possibly more detrimental to the Mueller probe.

Asha Rangappa, a legal expert at Yale’s Jackson Institute for Global Affairs, wrote in a post for the Just Security blog last December that a new deputy attorney general could effectively cripple the Mueller investigation by rejecting Mueller’s requests to investigate more people, obtain new evidence, or pursue charges against additional people, for instance.

In effect, Rosenstein’s reported ouster now has put the Mueller probe in its most precarious position to date — possibly allowing Trump to escape further investigation into him, his associates, and his family.

Gaetz: If Rosenstein Doesn’t Testify on Trump ‘Wire’ Report, I Will Introduce Impeachment Proceedings
share this email
Sep 24, 2018 // 9:42pm | As seen on The Story with Martha MacCallum
Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz said Monday that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should testify before Congress regarding the report he considered wearing a wire to record President Trump.

Gaetz, a Fort Walton Beach Republican, said that if Rosenstein does not appear, that he and House Freedom Caucus Chair Mark Meadows of North Carolina will prepare articles of impeachment against him.

Gaetz said that any lawmaker may put forward articles of impeachment, and that they – by rule – must be brought up for a vote within two business days.

Last year, Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) invoked that privilege to unsuccessfully bring impeachment articles against Trump. The articles died in a motion-to-table vote of 364-58.

“No matter what the president does [to Rosenstein], the Congress has an obligation to exercise our oversight role,” Gaetz said on “The Story.” “Rod Rosenstein needs to be in the witness chair.”

Tucker: Dem ‘Folk Hero’ Hirono Invented ‘Court of Credibility’ Putting Burden of Proof on Men, The Accused

‘Incredibly Difficult’: Ashley Kavanaugh Reacts to Death Threats, Coverage of Husband’s Allegations

Article continues below

A New York Times report last week said an incensed Rosenstein made the reference in a private 2017 meeting with officials – one of whom was Andy McCabe, the acting FBI director at the time.

Some have said Rosenstein was “joking” when he allegedly spoke about wearing a wire or pressing cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove President Donald Trump from office.

“[If] he was sarcastically joking, that is [still] an inappropriate thing to do when you have subordinates… in your presence,” Gaetz said.

Gaetz said Rosenstein has additionally been “very evasive” when it comes to the demands of the Judiciary Committee on which the lawmaker sits.

“We ought to know what happened, under oath, so it’s not just speculation,” he said.

Trump spoke to Rosenstein by phone Monday, a source told Fox News. The president is set to meet with Rosenstein in Washington on Thursday.

Initial conflicting reports said Rosenstein had resigned his post or was expecting Trump to fire him earlier Monday.

Watch more above.

McConnell Blasts Dems for ‘Shameful Smear Campaign’ Against Kavanaugh

‘Ignorant and Unfunny’: Shapiro Blasts Sanders for Saying America ‘Starves Little Children’

share
tweet
email
comment
Latest from Fox News Channel
1 Gaetz: If Rosenstein Doesn’t Testify on Trump ‘Wire’ Report, I Will Introduce Impeachment Proceedings

Oops here is one that got in: scary but not real probable:

The National InterestOpen Menu
The B-2 Stealth Bomber Is Getting Ready for a Nuclear War

Share on FacebookF
Share on TwitterL
Share on LinkedInI
Subscribe to RSSR
Print
September 24, 2018 Topic: Security Blog Brand: The Buzz Tags: B-2Northrop GrummanAir Forcenuclear warWorldMilitary
The Air Force’s B-2 Stealth bomber has test-dropped an upgraded, multi-function B61-12 nuclear bomb which improves accuracy, integrates various attack options into a single bomb and changes the strategic landscape with regard to nuclear weapons mission possibilities.

by Kris Osborn
The aircraft, which entered service in the 1980s, has flown missions over Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. In fact, given its ability to fly as many as 6,000 nautical miles without need to refuel, the B-2 flew from Missouri all the way to an island off the coast of India called Diego Garcia – before launching bombing missions over Afghanistan.

The Air Force’s B-2 Stealth bomber has test-dropped an upgraded, multi-function B61-12 nuclear bomb which improves accuracy, integrates various attack options into a single bomb and changes the strategic landscape with regard to nuclear weapons mission possibilities.

(This first appeared last month.)

Earlier this summer, the Air Force dropped a B61-12 nuclear weapon from a B-2 at Nellis AFB, marking a new developmental flight test phase for the upgraded bomb, Air Force spokeswoman Capt. Hope Cronin told Warrior Maven.

“The updated weapon will include improved safety, security and reliability,” Cronin said.

The B61-12 adds substantial new levels of precision targeting and consolidates several different kinds of attack options into a single weapon. Instead of needing separate variants of the weapon for different functions, the B61-12 by itself allows for earth-penetrating attacks, low-yield strikes, high-yield attacks, above surface detonation and bunker-buster options.

Related

RIP B-2 Bomber: How America’s Most Deadly Bomber Will Eventually Lose Its Stealth

In 1999, a U.S. B-2 Bomber ‘Attacked’ China. Here’s What Happened.
A B-2 Spirit soars after a refueling mission over the Pacific Ocean on Tuesday, May 30, 2006. The B-2, from the 509th Bomb Wing at Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo., is part of a continuous bomber presence in the Asia-Pacific region.
Why 100 Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider Stealth Bombers Might Not Be Enough
The latest version of the B61 thermonuclear gravity bomb, which has origins as far back as the 1960s, is engineered as a low-to-medium yield strategic and tactical nuclear weapon, according to nuclearweaponsarchive.org, which also states the weapon has a “two-stage” radiation implosion design.

“The main advantage of the B61-12 is that it packs all the gravity bomb capabilities against all the targeting scenarios into one bomb. That spans from very low-yield tactical “clean” use with low fallout to more dirty attacks against underground targets,” Hans Kristensen, Director of the Nuclear Information Project, Federation of American Scientists, told Warrior Maven.

Air Force officials describe this, in part, by referring to the upgraded B61-12 as having an “All Up Round.”

“The flight test accomplished dedicated B61-12 developmental test requirements and “All Up Round” system level integration testing on the B-2,” Cronin said.

The B61 Mod 12 is engineered with a special “Tail Subassembly” to give the bomb increased accuracy, giving a new level of precision targeting using Inertial Navigation Systems, Kristensen said.

“Right now the B-2 carries only B61-7 (10-360 kt), B61-11(400 kt, earth-penetrator), and B83-1 (high-yield bunker-buster). The B61-12 covers all of those missions, with less radioactive fallout, plus very low-yield attacks,” he added.

The evidence that the B61-12 can penetrate below the surface has significant implications for the types of targets that can be held at risk with the bomb.

By bringing an “earth-penetrating” component, the B61-12 vastly increases the target scope or envelope of attack. It can enable more narrowly targeted or pinpointed strikes at high-value targets underground - without causing anywhere near the same level of devastation above ground or across a wider area.
Recommended: Imagine a U.S. Air Force That Never Built the B-52 Bomber

Recommended: Russia’s Next Big Military Sale - To Mexico?

Recommended: Would China Really Invade Taiwan?

“A nuclear weapon that detonates after penetrating the earth more efficiently transmits its explosive energy to the ground, thus is more effective at destroying deeply buried targets for a given nuclear yield. A detonation above ground, in contrast, results in a larger fraction of the explosive energy bouncing off the surface,” Kristensen explained.

Massive B-2 Upgrade:

The testing and integration of the B61-12 is one piece of a massive, fleet-wide B-2 upgrade designed to sustain the bomber into coming years, until large numbers of the emerging B-21 Raider are available. A range of technical modifications are also intended to prepare the 1980s-era bomber for very sophisticated, high-end modern threats.

The B-2 is getting improved digital weapons integration, new computer processing power reported to be 1,000-times faster than existing systems and next-generation sensors designed to help the aircraft avoid enemy air defenses.

One of the effort’s key modifications is designed to improve what’s called the bomber’s Defensive Management System, a technology designed to help the B-2 recognize and elude enemy air defenses, using various antennas, receivers and display processors.

The Defensive Management System is to detect signals or “signatures” emitting from ground-based anti-aircraft weapons, Air Force officials have said. Current improvements to the technology are described by Air Force developers as “the most extensive modification effort that the B-2 has attempted.”

The modernized system, called a B-2 “DMS-M” unit, consists of a replacement of legacy DMS subsystems so that the aircraft can be effective against the newest and most lethal enemy air defenses. The upgraded system integrates a suite of antennas, receivers, and displays that provide real-time intelligence information to aircrew, service officials said.

Upgrades consist of improved antennas with advanced digital electronic support measures, or ESMs along with software components designed to integrate new technologies with existing B-2 avionics, according to an Operational Test & Evaluation report from the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

1

2
Nex

China lashed against U.S. trade war against it, Chinese president declaring that Chinese policy is dictated now from the perspective of saving the world from the U.S…

How keen is Trump and commendable, here, where China has for years literally stole intellectual property and taken huge profits by using unfair trade practices against the U.S., while it was still affordable.

Now things have changed, and the fiscal conservatism makes sense.

However , things have become clouded politically. Human nature what it is, once free meals have no come acceptable policy, a mitigation of such, is non acceptable for the tecepuents of such liberality.

Now this: to show how the opposite opinion shows:

An audience of world leaders at the United Nations laughed on Tuesday when President Trump boasted of his achievements during his time in office.

“In less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country,” Trump said, opening his address to the U.N. General Assembly.

Audience members then began chuckling and the laughs grew louder when Trump said “so true.”

Trump smiled and paused, then responded: “I didn’t expect that reaction but that’s OK.”