Do we all really want World War 3 ?

[kscarbel2]

I'm going to preface this comment by saying it is based on the news we're presented with. My thoughts are based on that. I personally know no facts.

First, the US State Department is demanding that German companies leave Iran, including Volkswagen, after just having allowed them back in. I question whether our government has the right to make demands upon non-US companies in other sovereign countries. That's arguably a stretch that much of the world won't buy in to, and it can doesn't come across well in the PR department.

Secondly, the US yesterday announced sanctions on China for having purchased ten SU-35 fighters and S-400 surface-to-air missiles. How can we tell another sovereign country who it can and can't purchase from? The fighters were actually purchased in 2017, and nothing was said then. The S-400 missile system has also been purchased by our NATO partner Turkey......who was not sanctioned. Several other countries which the US State Department refers to as allies, including India and Saudi Arabia, are allegedly considering S-400 purchases.

Having a tariff show with China is one thing they will tolerate, but the relationship becomes chilly real fast when you sanction them.....not a good thing for two deeply intertwined countries that are attached at the hip economically.

I humbly suggest that history has proven, elbowing other countries and their companies doing business outside the US around the globe, and this business of sanctions, has rarely achieved the targeted results. I think prompt confrontation over concerns is excellent, but then it's "how" you go about it that determines a mutually agreeable outcome.

The countries of the world are never all going to be best friends. But we can learn to reasonably get along, particularly the larger ones which have the ability to lead by example. Every human being in every country is here on earth for a very short time*.....there are far better ways to using our brief existence rather than fighting. No matter where I travel around the world, I see mostly good folks who want to live in peace.

http://www.autonews.com/article/20180920/COPY01/309209976/vw-rejects-trump-envoys-take-on-iran-pullout

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-sanctions/us-sanctions-china-for-buying-russian-fighter-jets-missiles-idUSKCN1M02TP

https://www.france24.com/en/20180921-usa-sanctions-china-buying-russia-jets-missiles

Now, Moscow says Washington is "playing with fire", as Beijing demands we immediately revoke the sanctions. The Chinese and Russians don't like or trust each other. However, they will become friends of convenience. Do we really want to take actions that pair them up? Of course not. We're pushing them down a dead-end alley.....what happens next could be very ugly.

 

* The world is approximately 4.54 (± 0.05) billion years years old. Mankind has only been on earth about 200,000 years. The average age of death is about 78. Considering the earth's age versus our time here, it's like checking into a hotel for a few seconds. In essence, we're merely guests here for a very short time. Rather than fighting, spending trillions to destroy ourselves, we should unite and invest our time, money and effort in a harmonious future.

[kscarbel2]

Reuters  /  September 30, 2018

China has canceled a security meeting with U.S. Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis that had been planned for October, a senior U.S. official said on Sunday.

“The tension is escalating, and that could prove to be dangerous to both sides,” the official said.

The U.S. State Department refused to comment.

Officials at the White House refused to comment.

The Department of Defense refused to comment.

[kscarbel2]

The United States Permanent Representative to NATO, Ambassador Kay Bailey Hutchison, warned Tuesday that the US could "take out" Russian missiles that are perceived to be in violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty should Moscow continue to violate the agreement.

"We have been trying to send a message to Russia for several years that we know they are violating the treaty. We have shown Russia the evidence that we have, that they are violating the treaty," Hutchison said.

"They are building a medium-range ballistic missile in violation of the INF. That is a fact which we have proven," she added. [How about sharing that proof with your boss, the American people, before you start a war?]

Hutchison said "the countermeasures would be to take out the missiles that are in development by Russia in violation of the treaty."

"Getting them to withdraw would be our choice, of course. But I think the question was what would you do if this continues to a point where we know that they are capable of delivering. And at that point we would then be looking at a capability to take out a missile that could hit any of our countries in Europe and hit America in Alaska," she added.

Later on Tuesday, Hutchinson said she "was not talking about preemptively striking Russia" when she said the US would have to "take out" the Russian missiles [Yes, she obviously was].

"I was not talking about preemptively striking Russia [Yes, that's exactly what you indicated]. My point: (Russia) needs to return to INF Treaty compliance or we will need to match its capabilities to protect US & NATO interests. The current situation, with (Russia) in blatant violation, is untenable," said Hutchinson.

Prior to Hutchison's statement, Russia's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Hutchison behaved "aggressively and destructively" by making the comments.

"It seems as if people who make such statements do not realize the level of their responsibility and the danger of such aggressive rhetoric," Zakharova said.

"Who authorized this lady to make such statements? The American people? Do the ordinary people in the USA know what the so-called diplomats, who are getting paid with the money from [ordinary people's] pockets, behave themselves so aggressively and destructively?" Zakharova added [No, the American people don’t know].

"It is very easy to break and crush everything. It is hard to repair and restore. US diplomacy will have to do a lot in order to fix the aftermath of their mistakes. As for the essence of the matter, our military experts will give an expanded response," she added.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In absence of a war, the woman is babbling about attacking another sovereign country? She obviously doesn’t realize the ramifications of what she said. This is what happens when our government appoints totally unqualified people.

 

Who is Kay Bailey Hutchison?

Kay Bailey Hutchison is an American attorney, television correspondent, politician, and [alleged] diplomat.She was a Republican Senator for Texas from 1993 to 2013.

She has a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Texas at Austin.

Born in Galveston, Texas, Hutchison is a graduate of the University of Texas at Austin. Prior to entering politics, she was an attorney and legal correspondent at KPRC-TV in Houston.

She was a member of the Texas House of Representatives from 1972 to 1976. In 1990 when she was elected Texas State Treasurer.

In 1993, she was elected to the United States Senate. After being reelected to the Senate in 1994, 2000, and 2006, Hutchison was an unsuccessful candidate for Governor of Texas in 2010.

In 2013, she joined the law firm Bracewell & Giuliani.

On June 29, 2017, Hutchison was nominated by President Trump to be the next United States Permanent Representative to NATO.

[Mack Technician]

Perhaps no one sent Kay the memo explaining the doctrine of M.A.D.? 

[KDog Trucking]

M.A.D. no longer really applies to urban Russia, they've been fortifying and prepping for a nuclear attack since the cold war. Putin has said they could keep the 3 largest cities in Russia completely intact after a nuclear attack, with enough underground bunker space for the entire city of Moscow to run for 20 years underground. Supposedly, Putin claims the entire population of Moscow has been prepped.

Putin has been preparing for a nuclear showdown and has publicly commented on it in interviews last year. He said something to the effect of "Moscow has bunkers, and food and water for everyone in the city, does New York City? Washington?" He added, I hope we can resolve this peaceably, speaking about the U.S. in Syria, where we are already in a proxy war with Russia, but any attack against Russian forces (in Syria) would result in dire consequences for the U.S. There would be many casualties in a nuclear attack to be sure on both sides, but something tells me Russia is better prepared than the U.S. 

It only makes sense that there would be another "Cuban missile crisis" of our time or similar events, especially given Trumps bold take on things. Russia has been developing the Bomba, or super Nuke, that is about 100 times larger than the Hiroshima bomb. The U.S. air to air missile system (which intercepts missiles) could likely get about 75% of nukes launched at us. That means if Russia sent up 100, 25 would get through. Not exactly an iron dome, unless we have better tech and they're not saying?

 

[david wild]

This is like chicken little and the sky is falling, Trump is not going to bomb Russia, maybe Syria, Really who would want us, look at the American workforce, or I should say the younger workforce, you have not heard them complain about the 4 hrs they put in ??? how about the UAW you really think anyone else in the world would put up with there crap, and if half the country is liberal dumbocrat who would want them, I feel safe in knowing that no other country would want us, that's why all the losers from every place wants to come here, for the free ride.    

[Mack Technician]

7 hours ago, kamp_dogg said:

M.A.D. no longer really applies to urban Russia, they've been fortifying and prepping for a nuclear attack since the cold war. Putin has said they could keep the 3 largest cities in Russia completely intact after a nuclear attack, with enough underground bunker space for the entire city of Moscow to run for 20 years underground.

 

Kampy, I'm talking to your wife, no more letting you listen to Coast-to-Coast in the middle of the night. 

Edited October 24, 2018 by Mack Technician

[41chevy]

On 10/21/2018 at 12:15 PM, Mack Technician said:

Perhaps no one sent Kay the memo explaining the doctrine of M.A.D.? 

 

That's the Volvo Corporate  private memo right??  Macks Are Dead

[KDog Trucking]

Just fueling the flames 😂😃

I doubt Russia would launch a preemptive strike. 

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/russians-will-go-to-heaven-in-event-of-nuclear-war-vladimir-putin-1934172

 

[Mack Technician]

21 hours ago, kamp_dogg said:

Just fueling the flames 😂😃

I doubt Russia would launch a preemptive strike. 

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/russians-will-go-to-heaven-in-event-of-nuclear-war-vladimir-putin-1934172

 

Nickel media outlets.

I look at it like this....Putin is a KGB operative thug who kills his political opponents or puts them in a box in Siberia, Trump is a Hussy loving billionaire playboy with a whole new box of toys he was never allowed to played with before. If God is going to seal the deal it should happen sometime soon. As for me and mine.....not living in fear of a button in someone else's hand. I'm going to remove my shirt and scoop up the kiddos when the wave of nuclear fire comes. Lord brought us into this world poor, naked and screaming, that's how we'll leave.   

Edited October 25, 2018 by Mack Technician

[41chevy]

1 hour ago, Mack Technician said:

Nickel media outlets.

I look at like this....Putin is a KGB operative thug who kills his political opponents or puts them in a box in Siberia, Trump is a Hussy loving billionaire playboy with a whole new box of toys he was never allowed to played with before. If God is going to seal the deal it should happen sometime soon. As for me and mine.....not living in fear of a button in someone else's hand. I'm going to remove my shirt and scoop up the kiddos when the wave of nuclear fire comes. Lord brought us into this world poor, naked and screaming, that's how we'll leave.   

see my generation learned it was a snap.

 

[kscarbel2]

US could be at war with China in just 15 yrs, warns ex-US army chief in Europe

RT  /  October 25, 2018

The former commander of the US Army in Europe has issued a sobering assessment of the deteriorating state of US-Chinese relations, predicting that it’s very likely the two nations will be at war in fifteen years.

Speaking at the Warsaw Security Forum on Wednesday, Retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges said that the United States will have to shift its military to the Pacific “to deal with the Chinese threat” – requiring Europe to take a more active role in its own defenses.

“The United States needs a very strong European pillar. I think in 15 years — it’s not inevitable — but it is a very strong likelihood that we will be at war with China,” Hodges warned.

Funding and training for European security will still remain a top priority for Washington, Hodges emphasized, adding that the US will also have to prepare for “the eventuality that in 10 or 15 years we’re going to be having to fight in the Pacific.”

The former commander told the Associated Press that relations between US and China were becoming “increasingly tense,” accusing Beijing of stealing technology and gaining control of strategically important infrastructure across Africa and Europe. He claimed that in Europe, China owns more than 10 percent of the ports.

Hodges served as the US Army commander in Europe from 2014 until last year. He now works for the Center for European Policy Analysis, a Washington-based research institute. The think tank receives funding from Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, as well as the US Defense Department.

[kscarbel2]

How America is preparing for a third world war

Katrina Manson, The Financial Times  /  November 16, 2018

Robot-soldiers, stealth jets and drone armies: the future of war

Couscous might not be the most obvious harbinger of World War III. But in the corner of a spartan army warehouse on the coast of Maryland, I find myself eyeballing a pallet of 48 boxes of the foodstuff more usually associated with peacenik vegans.

Jason Pusey, a mechanical engineer, thinks these dry particles, when shot through with air, will fluff up enough to approximate the conditions of water without electrocuting him in the process. That will help him in his quest to develop the perfect set of gaits for his military robot.

“I’m trying to develop the fundamental technologies, transitioning between walking to trotting to galloping to maybe bounding or to jumping,” he says. “What if I want to run through water? When a lifeguard runs out into the water, he high-steps.”

The autonomous military vehicles of the future — whether tanks, robots or drones — may have legs rather than tracks or wheels. Besides humans on the beach, Pusey avidly watches nature documentaries to help translate the speed of a cheetah, the energetic burst of a greyhound or the dexterity of a jumping lemur to one single, extraordinarily capable robot. “Our legs are very intelligent things,” he tells me.

I am in the depths of Aberdeen Proving Ground, which is home to a sprawling high-security army research base dedicated to reshaping the military 50 years into the future. “Making today’s army and the next army obsolete,” goes its tagline. Created as a bomb-testing site in the first world war, it became a hub for biochemical weapons in the 1990s. Today it hosts the US Army Research Laboratory (ARL), the sole US location for emerging tactical offensive warfare in cyber and electronics.

This is ground zero for the weaponry of World War III, a war that — if it happens — many believe will be fought by robots. At research centres such as this one, the US military machine is developing futuristic weapons to rival even the most adventurous inventions of sci-fi writers. The advance of artificial intelligence brings with it the prospect of robot-soldiers battling alongside humans — and one day eclipsing them altogether.

Other weapons under development in the US include hypersonics — missiles that travel at five times the speed of sound. Then there are electronic weapons such as the railgun, which will fire bullets with an electromagnetic force that far exceeds conventional firepower, and directed energy weapons such as lasers that travel at the speed of light and could one day zap missiles, drones, aircraft and satellites silently from a distance.

“You [could] kill multiple inbound missiles with a single laser,” says Trey Obering, former head of the Missile Defense Agency, who as a boy watched films about aliens with lasers for eyes. “The speed of warfare would be blinding.”

The war of the future will look completely different to conventional ideas of battle. Jammers could block satellites that militaries depend on for intelligence and navigation. Cyber warfare could target electricity grids, water networks, financial systems, hospitals and the families of military commanders. As attacks on infrastructure become more likely, scientists hope that quantum computing will offer the best chance of defence; in the nearer term, quantum navigation could relieve militaries of reliance on GPS satellites and space.

More than 20,000 people are based at the Aberdeen Proving Ground’s 72,000-acre complex. It is an incongruous spot for warfare, with children’s playgrounds, leisure boats and tree-lined boulevards beside the Chesapeake Bay. But with names such as Tank Street , Radar Road and Combat Drive, it is also unmistakably the martial face of research.

One team is testing precisely how a bullet bursts through material. “It’s a cat-and-mouse game: each time the enemy makes a better bullet, we have to make better protection,” says physicist Michael Zellner. Another is immersed in developing a mechanical frame to give soldiers a “third arm” — the world’s only known exoskeleton research project aimed at the upper body. Zachary Wingard, the mechanical engineer who co-conceived the contraption, tells me the aim is to offset the recoil and weight of tomorrow’s higher-performance weapons.

Meanwhile, in a bomb cave never before entered by journalists, scientists are testing the next generation of explosive materials. Reminiscent of an air-raid shelter, the cave has thick metal walls pitted with the marks of repeated attacks as researchers painstakingly record and assess data on potential compounds.

Back in Pusey’s warehouse, a baby robot known as the Minitaur scuttles across the floor, bending its mechanised knees with a determined stamp that evokes insect, dog and horror movie all at once. The Minitaur’s offspring may one day scout out dangerous combat zones, deploy bombs or fire weapons. Researchers here are working to deliver an autonomous system that relies on artificial intelligence so that dextrous and capable robots can execute orders based on commands from soldiers in the field.

“When we really have legged, intelligent machines operating on the battlefield, that will be a serious step . . . You can use your imagination as to what a pack of these things can do to an enemy tank,” says Alexander Kott, chief scientist at ARL. Kott, who has studied artificial intelligence for more than 30 years, says we are watching a new generation of intelligence unfold. “Robots probably will fight robots, absolutely, there’s no question about it.”

Couscous, it turns out, is playing a role in a rapidly accelerating technological arms race that will change the way wars are fought for ever. And it is a prospect that is bringing China and the US head to head.

Predictions of a third world war have been around since the conclusion of the second. In today’s imaginings, the chief enemy is China, and the US is on the back foot. Peter Singer’s 2015 novel Ghost Fleet, co-written with August Cole, envisages a war in which China strikes early, disabling sophisticated US communications in space and forcing America to rely on a near-defunct fleet of ships, while China relies on a “central nerve cell” of hackers.

Defence officials seized on the book’s central message. The authors have briefed military chiefs, the White House and special operations. Singer has seen many of his predictions come true. “August and I often have a ‘Ghost Fleet’ moment of the day — when something in the real world happens from the novel,” he says. “They’re coming pretty fast and furious now from the technological aspect.”

Over whisky at a bar near the Pentagon, a senior national security official tells me that the US has wasted years on wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan. “We’ve been occupied by fighting low-tech conflict against people who lob rockets out the back of trucks, and all along China has got savvy and crept up on us. That’s now our focus.”

Defence officials say China deliberately studied the US approach to conflict as far back as the Gulf war in the 1990s. They say Beijing determined that while it could never match American air power, it could boost its own missile capabilities and invest in technologies of the future that specifically target American vulnerabilities.

An edgy US defence establishment is now responding. Today, China has top billing in the Trump administration’s national security and defence strategies. Increasingly, the US is realising it is no longer the world’s only superpower — a humiliating climbdown that military planners have been slow to embrace.

Many believe the days of great power competition — and the prospect of full-blown war between technologically advanced and nuclear-armed states — are back. “[China] is building the most capable and well-funded military in the world, after our own,” says the US national security strategy, issued in December. The document accuses China of spreading “features of its authoritarian system” and rejects Beijing’s protestations that it has sought only a “peaceful rise”.

US defence secretary Jim Mattis warned at the launch of the national defence strategy in January that the US was losing its military edge “in every domain of warfare”, citing air, land, sea, space and cyberspace. That was in part aimed at an ultimately successful push for Congress to vote through more military spending, which at $700bn this year eclipses China’s growing defence budget by more than three to one.

But Donald Trump has also plunged his administration into an explicit and all-consuming rivalry with China. He is determined to ensure that the country of 1.4 billion people with a $14tn economy can never “be bigger than us” — pushing back on trade, intellectual property, industrial espionage and soft power as well as US reliance on Chinese chips and chemicals for its defence-industrial base.

The US is also worried that China is more effective at co-opting commercial know-how for military purposes as part of its “military-civil fusion” and for its extensive new scientific endeavours. “Twenty years ago [the state of Chinese research was] a joke,” Kevin McNesby, an army research chemist, tells me. “But all their students have been training with our professors . . . They’re no joke now.”

By 2035, some in the US assess that it may be unable to stop Beijing if it launches military operations off the Chinese mainland. China has already developed a barrage of precision-guided missiles of a range and sophistication the US has never fought before. An incoming hypersonic missile could destroy a ship or give American missile defences at home only six minutes to respond to an attack, say experts. The US has no way to defend against them yet. Worse, a hypersonic missile could theoretically carry a nuclear warhead.

“The US has never had to fight against an adversary that has been able to throw as deep and as dense as the US,” says Bob Work, former deputy defence secretary. He argues that the use of guided munitions in any future war will be so “widespread and profound” that it will make “a lot of sense to be the one to shoot first”.

The prospect of a pre-emptive attack represents a huge shift for the US war-fighting machine, which he says maintains clear superiority today only with its submarine fleet. Even then China’s fleet may overtake America’s by 2030.

The US, for its part, has never shied away from wielding its military might. Some worry that it is America’s focus on weapons development and fear of China’s rise that could goad the world towards war rather than Beijing’s ambition. The US already has troops in 177 countries. It drops more than 20,000 bombs a year on the Middle East and has 14,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, its longest-running conflict.

Rather than accommodate China’s rise, Washington still largely believes in domination. The US remains far and away the most powerfully equipped fighting force in the world, and public martial spirit is strong. It is the only country to have detonated a nuclear bomb in wartime.

“We’ve been in an arms race for 10 years,” Dr Frank Hoffman tells me over lunch at the National Defense University in Washington DC. A retired marine officer and military strategist, he researches the future of war and helps train the next generation of generals. “There are a lot of reasons why the next 20 years are going to be a lot more unstable than the last 20 were on balance. It doesn’t mean you’ll necessarily have a war, but the likelihood is far higher than it has been in the past.”

While strategists do not expect China or the US to launch a direct attack on each other, they fear that a battle for regional hegemony — over Taiwan or the South China Sea — could trigger a wider conflict. The US is selling arms to Taiwan, a self-governing island democracy that China regards as a rogue province and a potential flashpoint between the two countries. James Fanell, a retired US navy captain and China hawk, told Congress he believes China is actively thinking about invading Taiwan by 2030 as part of a bid for regional and global supremacy.

China has taken an increasingly assertive line in public. In October last year, President Xi Jinping called for China to embrace a “ new era” and move “closer to centre stage”. He wants to build a world-class military by 2049, the centenary of Communist party rule. Last month, clad in camouflage, he told military commanders to prepare “for fighting a war”, part of his bid to build a combat mindset.

China has boosted military spending, expanded air and maritime training and increased Chinese participation in UN peacekeeping operations, exposing its soldiers to combat for the first time since the 1970s. Last year it established its first overseas military base, in Djibouti. (The Chinese Ministry of National Defence did not respond to the FT’s request to comment on its military ambitions.) Pentagon officials say in private how alarmed they are at Xi’s overhaul of the constitution in March, when he scrapped term limits, giving the president, they say, a mantle of power approaching that of “emperor”.

China has developed its own stealth fighter jets and put missiles and bombers on a string of disputed artificial islands in the South China Sea, despite a promise from Xi to Barack Obama in 2015 that China did not intend to “pursue militarisation”. Those reinforcements make it harder for US military bases in the Pacific, from Guam to Japan to Hawaii, to be confident they could mount a successful attack on the Chinese mainland so far away from home.

While America has 11 aircraft carriers to China’s two, US defence officials worry that China could use its militarised island bases as vast floating aircraft carriers, and would quickly seize the upper hand in any fight off the Chinese mainland.

Perhaps most importantly for America’s military planners, China has vowed to draw equal with the US in artificial intelligence within two years, overtake it by 2025 and become the dominant world force by 2030. This is no small ambition. “Whoever becomes the leader in this sphere will become the ruler of the world,” predicted Russian president Vladimir Putin last year.

For Jim Mattis, the question is what such technological advances will do to the very nature of war. He wonders whether, one day, AI, machine learning and robots might remove that most human of qualities from battle — fear. Mattis has studied the early 19th-century military theorist Carl von Clausewitz, who argues that the best victories come from wars fought deep inside enemy territory, and that surprise in combat is often elusive.

Like Clausewitz, Mattis sees uncertainty and fear as essential ingredients of war. But he has spent long enough contemplating the coming shift in warfare to know he cannot yet comprehend it. “I’m not there yet in my own thinking about it,” he tells me, in his first one-on-one interview with a national newspaper since he took office.

We are aboard his “doomsday” plane — so advanced it doubles as a flying nuclear bunker, so old-school it has defunct ashtrays and the 1980s upholstery to match. A retired four-star marine general who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mattis takes a thoughtful yet unforgiving approach to warfare. Known for his pithy bons mots — “Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet” — he still revels in a call sign his colleagues once gave him: Colonel Has An Outstanding Solution, aka “Chaos”. Nowadays he is often hailed as a warrior monk.

The day we speak, in early September, he is on a 22-hour flight to India to sign new military cooperation agreements that will bed down a US hope of Delhi becoming a high-tech military counterweight to Beijing. But he does not think the US is headed for war with China. “I’m not one of those who think there is automatically a conflict in the future,” he tells me, referring to former Pentagon official Graham Allison’s notion of a Thucydides trap — in which a rising power displaces an incumbent through war.

Earlier in the year, Mattis attended a banquet, topped with a late-night serenade, among military dignitaries in Beijing. “They throw me a party like you won’t believe,” he recalls. Amid the niceties, however, China declared it would not yield “even one inch” of the South China Sea.

Mattis had earlier accused China of “intimidation and coercion”, days after he abruptly cancelled Beijing’s participation in large-scale naval exercises in the Pacific. A senior security official told me that Mattis privately warned his counterparts they would be at a disadvantage against an adversary so experienced as the US, playing on Chinese fears of combat inadequacy.

Things deteriorated fast. In October, Mattis cancelled a second trip to Beijing amid rising military tensions after a US destroyer narrowly avoided collision with a Chinese warship in the South China Sea. Last week the two sides tried again — defence minister General Wei Fenghe, who last month trotted out standard warnings of Chinese military action “at all costs” to preserve Taiwan, flew to Washington to meet Mattis.

“It just seems to me there is an anti-domination tension for both of us,” Mattis says. But he points to China’s aggressive authoritarian streak, framing the tension as a face-off between two systems with vastly different values. “[As] they come of age and they find you can’t just go in and take over other people’s harbours, collateral and stuff, there’s going to be a discipline.”

Ultimately, he says, it is critical for the two countries to “look at what kind of relationship we can develop” and — without saying explicitly that he expects China and the US to trade places — points to the fact that, when the US finally overtook the UK as global power in the early part of the 20th century, the pair managed to avoid a military showdown because they largely shared the same values.

However, none of this has stopped Mattis from preparing the US for war. He tells me of extensive efforts to determine which futuristic technologies show “the most promise or could be the biggest game-changer . . . We have truly got a rocket scientist to do the further-out stuff,” he says with pride.

Mattis means Michael Griffin, chief technical officer at the Pentagon. The former head of Nasa is tasked with bringing the US war machine into the next age. He is rushing to deliver the military hardware of the future, and wants to avoid “a man-on-man fight” with China. “That’s not the kind of fight we wish to have, and we probably can’t win that fight,” says Griffin. Instead, he is charged with delivering breakthroughs in mind-boggling new technologies — not only artificial intelligence but also hypersonics, quantum science, lasers, nuclear weapons and electronic warfare.

Outpacing China will require speeding up development cycles. At the moment, says Griffin, it takes the US on average 16 years to deliver an idea to operational capability, versus fewer than seven for China.

“This is not behaviour of which we should be proud,” Griffin tells me when we meet at the Pentagon. “The Chinese have tested several dozen hypersonic attack vehicles over the last 10 years, and most have been successful. There’s no doubt in our mind that such a capability . . . is designed to, and will, keep our carriers out of the fight.”

But all that is about to change. “We have no choice but to respond in kind,” he says. “We will be weaponising from a position of catch-up. But we will catch up, OK?”

In an anonymous colossus of reflective glass in Arlington, Virginia, scientists at a US government agency are working on the next breakthrough for military technologies. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa), part of the Department of Defense’s innovation arm, was brought to life in a hurry after the Russians came up with Sputnik, the world’s first satellite, in 1957. Dedicated to preventing and initiating strategic surprise, this “genius factory” went on to invent the precursor to the internet. “They’re focused on what is the best and most innovative thing that can be done with the physics and technology that we have,” says Griffin.

Some at Darpa work on quantum science in a bid to secure the cryptography breakthroughs of the future; others worry over new types of command and control. Jean-Charles Ledé, an engineer, is entrenched in autonomous flying systems. US-based ground controllers of drones already drop bombs and collect intelligence in Afghanistan, Somalia and beyond.

But swarms of drones, coordinated via artificial intelligence at lightning-fast speeds, could offer the prospect of mass attacks of hundreds of combat robots that can make targeting decisions as a team on the fly. Together they could theoretically overwhelm much larger fighter jets or even aircraft carriers.

In his otherwise nondescript office, Ledé is flanked by a mini-parachute and a broken propeller. “We don’t have a monopoly [on drone-swarm technology], other people will eventually get it,” he tells me. “What then? How am I going to protect myself against people who might try to use it against me?” His idea is that drones carrying nets could effectively “catch” rival drones. (Beyond the homeland, where preventing civilian casualties is paramount, lasers might be a more appropriate means of attack.)

The broken propeller serves as a reminder of quite how many failures it takes to succeed. Ledé and his team have spent years trying to develop a fast-flying autonomous reconnaissance drone that can find its way around a building without a human operator, a map or any connection to navigation systems such as GPS, which he says has now become a “major vulnerability” because of how easy it is to jam.

The availability of drones on the commercial market means he can afford to go through many cheap parts. “[We] basically don’t leave the test until all the airplanes are broken. If it works, then I say ‘Go faster; find out when it doesn’t work!’ ” The aim is for the drone to learn its environment and transmit a map back to base without human or navigational help.

“The project itself was about developing the algorithms,” he says. His team’s research, a world first, is another step on the ladder to the sort of machine learning that can underpin wars of the future. It will soon transfer to the US Army Research Lab for further testing.

In August, US satellites came under attack. Senior airmen at a base in Colorado speedily repositioned them, without moving them so far that they had to abandon their function. This time around, the attack was a simulation, played out from behind computer screens. Such exercises are common across the military, but these were the first focused on space.

 

[Mack Technician]

Never visualized the death toll of WW2 until recently reading that 1 in every 34 people on Earth died from the war. That’s without counting fatalities from disease, famine, etc caused by conflict. Unfathomable destruction, now days they measure homicide/accidental death/ in 4-8 per 10,000. 

[theakerstwo]

The Bible tells us the big war will kill one third of the people.I think it is coming sooner than we may think.

Edited November 23, 2018 by theakerstwo

[41chevy]

The Chinese are set on having a Moon Base in 10 years, after that there will not be a spot on earth without a bullseye on it.

https://spacenews.com/pentagon-report-chinas-space-program-continues-to-mature-rapidly/

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/06/outer-space-war-defense-russia-china-463067

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/24/the-democrats-nuclear-options-966502

Edited November 25, 2018 by 41chevy

[kscarbel2]

If mankind wasn't perpetually side-tracked with power, greed and violence, we could be in high gear developing the technology to ensure the survival and defense of our planet, and developing the means for advanced means of space travel (we may in fact already be there).

[Mack Technician]

2 hours ago, 41chevy said:

The Chinese are set on having a Moon Base in 10 years, after that there will not be a spot on earth without a bullseye on it.

https://spacenews.com/pentagon-report-chinas-space-program-continues-to-mature-rapidly/

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/06/outer-space-war-defense-russia-china-463067

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/24/the-democrats-nuclear-options-966502

General Tsu’s Chicken served daily at the Sea of Traquillity Bar and Wok?

It’s not practical to keep humans in space for extended periods, but, I’d guess, when A.I. is perfected space property is going to be in high demand for military and natural resource. Put a solar panel on the little Creton’s forehead and he can open pit mine all day long on Mars without Labor Union representation. Think robots are going to get to do and see all the things humans dreamed about, so far as deep extended  space travels. 

Edited November 25, 2018 by Mack Technician

[41chevy]

25 minutes ago, Mack Technician said:

General Tsu’s Chicken served daily at the Sea of Traquillity Bar and Wok?

It’s not practical to keep humans in space for extended periods, but, I’d guess, when A.I. is perfected space property is going to be in high demand for military and natural resource. Put a solar panel on the little Creton’s forehead and he can open pit mine all day long on Mars without Labor Union representation. Think robots are going to get to do and see all the things humans dreamed about, so far as deep extended  space travels. 

Haven't you  heard to the AFL-CIO-A.I.International Labor Movement,  Alexa is already holding the Ring Doorbell and the Smart Fridge hostage until SEIU represents her. My Windows 10 says BYTE ME. Only a matter of time before the Autonomous cars join the Teamsters.

Edited November 25, 2018 by 41chevy

[kscarbel2]

On 9/21/2018 at 10:13 AM, kscarbel2 said:

I'm going to preface this comment by saying it is based on the news we're presented with. My thoughts are based on that. I personally know no facts.

First, the US State Department is demanding that German companies leave Iran, including Volkswagen, after just having allowed them back in. I question whether our government has the right to make demands upon non-US companies in other sovereign countries. That's arguably a stretch that much of the world won't buy in to, and it can doesn't come across well in the PR department.

Secondly, the US yesterday announced sanctions on China for having purchased ten SU-35 fighters and S-400 surface-to-air missiles. How can we tell another sovereign country who it can and can't purchase from? The fighters were actually purchased in 2017, and nothing was said then. The S-400 missile system has also been purchased by our NATO partner Turkey......who was not sanctioned. Several other countries which the US State Department refers to as allies, including India and Saudi Arabia, are allegedly considering S-400 purchases.

Having a tariff show with China is one thing they will tolerate, but the relationship becomes chilly real fast when you sanction them.....not a good thing for two deeply intertwined countries that are attached at the hip economically.

I humbly suggest that history has proven, elbowing other countries and their companies doing business outside the US around the globe, and this business of sanctions, has rarely achieved the targeted results. I think prompt confrontation over concerns is excellent, but then it's "how" you go about it that determines a mutually agreeable outcome.

The countries of the world are never all going to be best friends. But we can learn to reasonably get along, particularly the larger ones which have the ability to lead by example. Every human being in every country is here on earth for a very short time*.....there are far better ways to using our brief existence rather than fighting. No matter where I travel around the world, I see mostly good folks who want to live in peace.

http://www.autonews.com/article/20180920/COPY01/309209976/vw-rejects-trump-envoys-take-on-iran-pullout

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-sanctions/us-sanctions-china-for-buying-russian-fighter-jets-missiles-idUSKCN1M02TP

https://www.france24.com/en/20180921-usa-sanctions-china-buying-russia-jets-missiles

Now, Moscow says Washington is "playing with fire", as Beijing demands we immediately revoke the sanctions. The Chinese and Russians don't like or trust each other. However, they will become friends of convenience. Do we really want to take actions that pair them up? Of course not. We're pushing them down a dead-end alley.....what happens next could be very ugly.

India has officially selected Russian firm Rosoboronexport as the winner for Indian Army’s $1.5 billion Very-Short-Range Air Defence (VSHORAD) program.

India's Ministry of Defense said the VSHORAD contract will Russia will have no impact of U.S. sanctions on Russia under the Countering America’s Adversaries through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) because India will make payment in Indian rupees.

The Indian Army floated a restricted global tender in 2010, with requests for bids from Saab of Sweden, Rafael of Israel, MBDA and Thales of France, Raytheon of United States, Rosoboronexport of Russia and LIG Nex 1 of South Korea. Rafael, Thales and LIG Nex 1 did not qualify the technical evaluation while Raytheon did not participate in the competition. Following a technical evaluation in 2012, MBDA, Rosoboronexport and Saab were selected for trials.

In a Nov. 19 meeting with the three finalists — Rosoboronexport, MBDA of France and Saab of Sweden — officials from India declared the Russian firm’s Igla-S system the winner.

[other dog]

On 10/25/2018 at 3:35 PM, Mack Technician said:

Nickel media outlets.

I look at it like this....Putin is a KGB operative thug who kills his political opponents or puts them in a box in Siberia, Trump is a Hussy loving billionaire playboy with a whole new box of toys he was never allowed to played with before. If God is going to seal the deal it should happen sometime soon. As for me and mine.....not living in fear of a button in someone else's hand. I'm going to remove my shirt and scoop up the kiddos when the wave of nuclear fire comes. Lord brought us into this world poor, naked and screaming, that's how we'll leave.   

I'm out, but-

 

[41chevy]

On 10/25/2018 at 3:35 PM, Mack Technician said:

Nickel media outlets.

I look at it like this....Putin is a KGB operative thug who kills his political opponents or puts them in a box in Siberia, Trump is a Hussy loving billionaire playboy with a whole new box of toys he was never allowed to played with before. If God is going to seal the deal it should happen sometime soon. As for me and mine.....not living in fear of a button in someone else's hand. I'm going to remove my shirt and scoop up the kiddos when the wave of nuclear fire comes. Lord brought us into this world poor, naked and screaming, that's how we'll leave.   

I do hope there isn't going to be a lot of yelling this time. It takes all the enjoyment out if a good shock wave and heat blast.

Waa Waa Waa!   It's too windy,  it's too hot,  the lights to bright...

Edited December 2, 2018 by 41chevy

[Mack Technician]

4 hours ago, 41chevy said:

I do hope there isn't going to be a lot of yelling this time. It takes all the enjoyment out if a good shock wave and heat blast.

Waa Waa Waa!   It's too windy,  it's too hot,  the lights to bright...

No dude, just think of the last time you were cooking up your world famous long pork. Sizzle and serve.....

[kscarbel2]

China is getting closer to equipping its warships with electromagnetic railguns, state media reports -- which means its fleet could soon boast some of the most advanced weapons technology on the planet.

Citing CCTV, the state-run Global Times on Thursday reported the underlying railgun technology -- which utilizes electrical power rather than explosives to launch projectiles -- was based on "fully independent intellectual property," rather than copied from other countries.

 

Unconfirmed sightings of a Chinese landing ship apparently equipped with a test railgun in an undisclosed location have circulated around the internet this week.

Carl Schuster, former director of operations at the US Pacific Command's Joint Intelligence Center, said it was significant that China appeared to be transitioning from copying foreign weapon designs to "developing their own" technology.

"It also tells you (that China) is no longer 10-15 years behind (the US)... They are now approaching parity with the west in terms of weapons development," he added.

[grayhair]

56 minutes ago, kscarbel2 said:

China is getting closer to equipping its warships with electromagnetic railguns, state media reports -- which means its fleet could soon boast some of the most advanced weapons technology on the planet.

Citing CCTV, the state-run Global Times on Thursday reported the underlying railgun technology -- which utilizes electrical power rather than explosives to launch projectiles -- was based on "fully independent intellectual property," rather than copied from other countries.

 

Unconfirmed sightings of a Chinese landing ship apparently equipped with a test railgun in an undisclosed location have circulated around the internet this week.

Carl Schuster, former director of operations at the US Pacific Command's Joint Intelligence Center, said it was significant that China appeared to be transitioning from copying foreign weapon designs to "developing their own" technology.

"It also tells you (that China) is no longer 10-15 years behind (the US)... They are now approaching parity with the west in terms of weapons development," he added.

I call BS on Carl Schuster.  "fully independent intellectual property."   I don't think so.   The Chinese didn't suddenly, independently have a miraculous "vision" of projectiles propelled by plasma.  Rail gun technology has been around for quite a few years.  I dunno, I'm guessing at least 25 years.  Here's an articlre from sevral years ago and it wasn't new then. 

https://www.wired.com/2014/04/electromagnetic-railgun-launcher

Edited January 5, 2019 by grayhair