Category: Military

Rein In The War Department

As long as budgets and debt is on everyone’s mind let us look at a major part of our problem, IMO….

In case you have been remiss and avoided reading IST then you do not know that I have little faith in the War Department and its contractors (read someplace there are about 50,000 of them)…..if you have read my posts then I need explain nothing (and thank you for reading).

Since Reagan more and more of the responsibilities of the Pentagon have been outsourced.

This is a report, granted an old one, that explores the growth of so-called ‘contractors’ for the Pentagon it was published by the Center for Public Integrity in 2004…..and its findings….

The Center examined more than 2.2 million contract actions totaling $900 billion in authorized expenditures over the six-year period from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal 2003 (Oct. 1, 1997-Sept. 30, 2003). Most of the research was focused on the biggest contractors, those that won at least $100 million in prime contracts over the period studied. Some 737 prime contractors, mainly but not exclusively for-profit corporations, fit that criteria, along with several thousand of their subsidiaries and affiliates.

Half of all the Defense Department’s budget goes out the door of the Pentagon to private contractors. This percentage has stayed virtually constant over the past six years; as the Pentagon’s budget has expanded with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, so have the dollars going to contractors.

The Pentagon’s contracting force is top-heavy, and growing more so. Out of a total universe numbering tens of thousands of contractors, the biggest 737 collected nearly 80 percent of the Defense Department’s procurement dollars. The 50 biggest contractors got more than half of all the money; the top 10 got 38 percent.

If you want more info (which I doubt will be used)…..

The Biggest Contractors
Competition
Cost-Plus Contracts
Joint Ventures
Foreign Contractors
Political Influence I: Campaign Contributions
Political Influence II: Lobbying
Small Business: Bigger Than You Think
What the Pentagon Buys
The Rise in Service Contracts
Accuracy in Pentagon Reporting

Like I stated it is an old report and since then the budget for the War Department grows and grows and like most government stuff the holes and the problems were given a band-aid so the money continues to flow.

Let’s look at the most recent ‘deal’….

The agreement between President Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) to raise the debt limit for two years, if approved by the House and Senate, will avert a potential economic catastrophe. Biden started off demanding a “clean” debt limit increase with no extraneous provisions. McCarthy sought deep cuts in domestic discretionary spending and large increases in military spending in exchange for raising the debt limit. 

The compromise, reached Sunday, includes a small decrease in domestic discretionary spending and a record $886 billion for defense, a 3.3% increase over the current year. The money allocated for the defense budget is exactly what Biden requested in the 2024 budget. Notably, about half of that money will go to defense contractors. 

In 2015, the United States spent $585 billion on its military. The United States has added more than $300 billion in military spending in less than a decade. (Had military spending kept pace with inflation, military spending would still be less than $700 billion annually.) Biden has added nearly $150 billion to the military budget since 2021, the last budget approved by President Trump. The budget of the Pentagon now exceeds “the budgets for the next ten largest cabinet agencies combined.”  In 2020, Lockheed Martin received $75 billion in government contracts, more than 1.5 times the budget of the entire State Department. 

Last year, the United States spent more on its military than the next 10 highest-spending countries combined…

https://popular.info/p/there-is-always-more-money-for-defense

While most domestic programs are cut to the bone…..the War Department is rolling in cash….now you tell me where the problem is now that you have read this post.  (Of course that will depend on the capability to read)

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Advertisement

Is This How They Support Our Veterans?

I personally think that this country does not give enough support to our veterans…..especially those that suffer damage because of our moronic wars.

The GOP always plays hard to the veteran and lies to them every election and when they are elected they stab the vets in the back…..almost every time.

The GOP controlled House has done that exact thing while playing the debt game…..

When the new House majority passed its grab bag of government spending cuts last month, setting up an on-going game of chicken with the White House over any federal debt limit increase, they also directed their fire at essential services for military veterans, a constituency long courted by their own party. Included in the “Limit, Save, Grow Act of 2023,” was a proposed 22% reduction in funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

Right-wing Republicans scrambled to provide political cover for themselves by insisting that “our budget cutting plan doesn’t harm veterans.” Instead, claimed Mike Bost, a former Marine from Illinois who now chairs the House Veterans Affairs Committee, his  conservative colleagues were just trying to force a long-overdue discussion of whether VA funding is “actually helping veterans.”

Fortunately, a VA patient, elected to Congress last year, took the House floor to accuse the Republican majority of passing a “B.S. plan” that’s “an absolute betrayal and a disgrace.” As former Navy Officer Chris Deluzio (D-PA) noted, House Republicans are “threatening to blow up our economy and to push us into default unless we agree to cuts to the VA and veterans, and to so much else.  There is not a single protection, not a single one for veterans in their bill. …Millions of veterans are going to be screwed by this plan.  They won’t get the care they’ve earned, and they will have to wait longer for benefits.”

Deluzio’s fiery speech generated much media attention and set the tone for other Democrats, like Joe Biden and California Congressman Mark Takano, who have weighed in, with similar criticism of GOP hypocrisy. Democratic Party consultants and strategists are, no doubt, already sketching out the kind of attack adds—focusing on Republican support for VA benefit cuts—that will be aired to help the White House woo the “vet vote” away from right-wing candidates next year, who need to be defeated for myriad reasons.

Amid Debt Ceiling Debate: VA Cuts Passed by House Give Corporate Dems Political Cover

How f*cked up is that?

We have a Pentagon play war around the world that gets almost unlimited funds and our vets will have to deal with a possible 22% cut in need funds.

And yet this betrayal will be forgotten by 2024 vote…..now that is what is f*cked up!

Our vets deserve so much more than they get….thank you for your service is just a feel good tagline….if you really want to ‘thank them’ then make damn sure they are looked after as they should be.

On an unrelated note:  DeSantis announced Thursday that he would seek the presidency and in the first 24 hrs he has raised $8.2 million….that should scare any rational person into start looking closely at the candidates.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

AUMF–The Long Good-bye

AUMF?

For those that spend more time worrying about what Tater Swifty is doing….AUMF stands for….Authorization for the Use of Military Force…..the power for the president to go to war with consulting Congress.

The US Senate has finally shown a little spine (something I never thought they were capable of doing)….

The Senate voted Wednesday to repeal the resolution that gave a green light for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, an effort to end more than 20 years of authorization for US presidents to use force in that country and return those war powers to Congress, reports the AP. The measure would repeal the 1991 authorization that sanctioned the US-led Gulf War as well. What you need to know:

  • Background. The October 2002 votes to give George W. Bush broad authority for the Iraq invasion were a defining moment for many members of Congress as the country debated whether a military strike was warranted. The US was already at war in Afghanistan, and the Bush administration had drummed up support among members of Congress and the American public for invading Iraq by promoting what turned out to be false intelligence alleging Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Then-Sen. Joe Biden voted in favor.
  • Background II. Some lawmakers fear the Iraq war powers could be used for purposes Congress never intended. President Trump’s administration cited the 2002 Iraq war resolution as part of its legal justification for a 2020 US drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassim Soleimani, but the two war powers resolutions have otherwise rarely been used as the basis for any presidential action. A separate 2001 authorization for the global war on terror would remain in place under the bill, which President Biden has said he will support.
  • Wednesday’s vote. Senators voted 66-30 in favor of repeal. If passed by the House, the repeal would not be expected to affect any current military deployments. But lawmakers in both parties are increasingly seeking to claw back congressional powers over US military strikes and deployments.
  • Supporters. Supporters, including almost 20 Republican senators, say the repeal is crucial to prevent future abuses and to reinforce that Iraq is now a strategic partner of the United States.
  • Critics. Opponents have raised concerns about recent attacks against US troops in Syria, including a recent drone strike and rocket attack that Iranian-backed militants are thought to have been behind. Biden and his administration have argued that the repeal would not affect any response to Iran. American troops are authorized to protect themselves and respond to attacks, including under Article 2 of the Constitution, which gives the president the authority to protect troops.
  • Prospects. The repeal’s future is less certain in the House, where 49 Republicans joined with Democrats in supporting a similar bill two years ago. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has suggested he is open to supporting a repeal even though he previously opposed it, but Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas, the Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has indicated he would like to instead replace it with something else. It is unclear what that would be.
  • Congressional history. The New York Times reports that of the lawmakers who cast a vote for the 2002 Iraq war authorization, just 69 are still in Congress. Roughly half of them voted in favor of authorization. Today, all but 17 are in favor of repeal.
  • Implications. Should the repeal come to pass, “it would also be a crucial first step toward building momentum to tackle more significant and far more complicated endeavors,” such as “replacing the authorization Congress passed in 2001 to start military operations against terrorist groups in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks,” notes the Times.

The best thing I can say about this issue is….It is about goddamn time!

I guess that makes me a peace-nik….

Peace campaigners cheered Wednesday’s vote by the U.S. Senate to repeal the authorizations for the 1991 and 2003 invasions of Iraq, while calling on the House of Representatives to follow suit.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/aumf-iraq

Enough Said!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

The ‘Yellow’ Menace Is Coming

If you bother to keep up with the news then you will have heard the canned predictions that if Russia does not come for us then it will be China.

The words are starting to become louder and louder as the public opinion on Ukraine is starting to crack….we need that enemy and the M-IC and the MSM will make sure we have what they want us to have.

Sadly the reports coming out after a war game that was recently held to impress China that we mean business had an unexpected side effect.

Last year, a war game simulation looked at what might happen if China launched an amphibious attack on Taiwan. China would be happy with the results: The US side ran out of long-range cruise missiles in a week, writes Michael R. Gordon in the Wall Street Journal. The reasons behind that are complex, as detailed by Gordon in a lengthy and bleak assessment of America’s military readiness in the modern era. “Five years ago, after decades fighting insurgencies in the Middle East and Central Asia, the U.S. started tackling a new era of great-power competition with China and Russia,” writes Gordon. “It isn’t yet ready, and there are major obstacles in the way.”

Among those obstacles: The US has fewer arms manufacturers because of corporate consolidation, military recruitment is down, shipyards “are struggling to produce the submarines the Navy says it needs to counter China’s larger naval fleet,” and US weapons designers lag those in Russia and China on hypersonic missiles. Yes, the US had military successes in the Mideast and Afghanistan, thanks largely to air superiority, but things would be different in a conflict with China. For one thing, our Asian bases rely on “long and potentially vulnerable supply routes.” The US has new weapons systems in the works that may be game-changers (Gordon provides details. But they won’t be operational for another decade or so, raising fears China will strike before then.) Read the full story.

But yet the cheer leading for confrontation continues….why?

I know why but do you?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Up, Up And Away My Beautiful Balloon

For at least a week the eyes of America and the media has been on the “Chinese’ balloon floating over the US….now the country can rest quietly the damn thing has been shot down.

US Air Force fighter jet on Saturday shot down a balloon launched by China that was suspected of spying as it floated over several states and inflamed tension between the nations. The balloon came down in the Atlantic Ocean, off the South Carolina coast, the AP reports. Recovery efforts began immediately. President Biden afterward praised the US forces involved. “I ordered the Pentagon to shoot it down on Wednesday as soon as possible,” he said. Military leaders decided the operation would pose the least danger to people on the ground if the balloon was shot down “when it got over water within our 12-mile limit,” Biden said, per the New York Times.

F-22 fighter jets from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia were deployed, per CNN, and fired a single AIM-9X missile at 2:39pm ET when the balloon was about 6 nautical miles from Myrtle Beach. The FAA had imposed ground stops and closed airspace over parts of the Carolinas earlier in the afternoon, saying the move was to “support the Department of Defense in a national security effort,” per the Washington Post. The Coast Guard also had told sea traffic to leave the area, anticipating debris would be scattered over a large area. The military tried to time the operation so that crews could reach the debris, projected to fall in US territorial waters, before it sinks.

Calling the operation “a lawful action” in a statement, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said China was using the balloon “to surveil strategic sites.” The balloon, which was floating at an altitude of 60,000 feet, had been spotted Saturday over Charlotte and South Carolina’s Greenville County. Jeffrey Billie of Pawleys Island, South Carolina, saw the balloon come down, per the Times. “It was two fighter jets dancing with this thing going around and around it,” he said. Next, a third jet appeared and fired the missile as the balloon moved over the water. “Then, of course, the round big white ball that we saw—all of a sudden it looked like a shriveled Kleenex,” he said. Another Chinese balloon is over Latin America, Pentagon officials said.

Can we put this to bed?

But not before I share something I read on Twitter…..

The Halfway Post
 
@HalfwayPost
 
BREAKING: 6 local conservatives in South Carolina have accidentally shot themselves in gun accidents while attempting to shoot down the Chinese balloon.
Is this a valid story?  Is this satire?
 
I suspect it is satire but knowing the idiots and their guns it has a ring of accuracy.
 
If so I cannot laugh enough on this Sunday.
 
I do not follow this site so I cannot say the accuracy of the report….but….still damn funny.
 
Can we now put this diversion to bed now?
 
I Read, I Write, You Know
 
“lego ergo scribo”

Is Trust Eroding?

In this case the trust I am referring to is the trust of the American people for our military.

The Reagan Institute wanted to find out where our military stands with the population just before the last election….their findings listed below….

Americans’ trust and confidence in the military increased slightly over the past year, but remains near a five-year low, according to a new survey by the Ronald Reagan Institute. 

Conducted in early November after the U.S. midterm elections, the study found that 48 percent of the American public trusts and has confidence in the military, up from 45 percent last year but way down from 70 percent in 2018.

“No other public institution has seen this stark of a decline as we have seen for the U.S. military,” said Rachel Hoff, the institute’s policy director. “I’ll note that it does still rank at the top of the list of the institutions we poll.”

Why the decline? The perceived over-politicization of military leaders was cited by 62 percent of respondents as the top reason for their decline in confidence. And 59 percent cited “the performance and competence of presidents, as the Commander-In-Chief.”

Also of note: 57 percent of those surveyed said the U.S. “must continue to stand with Ukraine and oppose Russian aggression.” But 33 percent said that “America has enough problems at home and cannot afford to spend more on the conflict.” More Democrats favored continued support for Ukraine (73 percent) than Republicans (51 percent). Some 76 percent of respondents said they view Ukraine as an ally, up from 49 percent one year ago. And 82 percent view Russia as an enemy, up from 65 percent last year. Recall: in 2019, one in four surveyed viewed Russia as an ally of the United States.

Some 77 percent of those surveyed said they were concerned that Russia might use a nuclear weapon, while 74 percent said they were concerned the war in Ukraine might spill over into Eastern Europe and force the U.S. to get involved. And some 70 percent said they were concerned that the war in Ukraine is distracting U.S. policymakers “from the threat posed” by China.

“To me, the way I read it, despite these very real concerns, and the survey makes the respondents aware of those concerns, there’s still this continued support for Ukraine,” said Roger Zakheim, the institute’s Washington director. 

Some 71 percent of those surveyed said they are concerned that Russian aggression “will inspire other authoritarians to invade their democratic neighbors,” Hoff said. 

Finally, 54 percent of those surveyed said that the United States does not have a clear strategy for managing its relationship with China, while 27 percent said the U.S. does have a clear strategy. And 54 percent said they support efforts to reduce the amount of trade between the United States and China. Also: “a bipartisan majority of Americans support efforts to discourage a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.”

(defenseone.com)

At the same time another survey was taken of the American people on our involvement in world affairs…..

According to a new poll, perhaps not surprisingly, many Americans across party lines would like the U.S. to have a less interventionist and meddlesome foreign policy. 

The results of a Morning Consult survey show that there continues to be substantial public support for scaling back U.S. military entanglements. Large blocs of Republicans and Democrats are in favor of less involvement in the affairs of other countries in general, and a plurality of Americans supports decreasing overseas deployments and reducing involvement in foreign conflicts. 

While there were slight fluctuations over the course of the three-month survey, there were more voters that said they wanted a decreased military presence and a reduced role in foreign wars than chose the status quo or a larger role. The disconnect between what this plurality of voters wants and what the government is doing in different parts of the world is as big as it has ever been.

Unfortunately, the survey report frames these results in the crudest terms of “isolationism” vs. engagement. Morning Consult’s pejorative framing of this sentiment as support for “greater isolationism” seems likely to reinforce policymakers’ habits of dismissing public skepticism of U.S. entanglements out of hand. Calling something “isolationism” is never merely descriptive, and it is almost always inaccurate, so whenever it is deployed it is a sign of sloppiness or hostility, or both.

Survey: Americans want to scale back military entanglements

None of this means anything for us mere mortals are not listened to or given any considerations for our concerns.

The involvements will continue until all the profits have been milked out of the situations and then move on to the next sacred cow to be milked.

Your concerns mean NOTHING!

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Where’s The Need?

This post is about the massive amounts of cash being spent on aircraft that is not needed….first it was the F-35, a plane that has doubled in price for all the fixes that are needed to repair all the problems that pop up almost daily for the last 5 years or so.

A bit of background on the F-35….

The following essay is reprinted with permission fromThe Conversation, an online publication covering the latest research.

The F-35 was billed as a fighter jet that could do almost everything the U.S. military desired, serving the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy – and even Britain’s Royal Air Force and Royal Navy – all in one aircraft design. It’s supposed to replace and improve upon several current – and aging – aircraft types with widely different missions. It’s marketed as a cost-effective, powerful multi-role fighter airplane significantly better than anything potential adversaries could build in the next two decades. But it’s turned out to be none of those things.

Officially begun in 2001, with roots extending back to the late 1980s, the F-35 program is nearly a decade behind schedule, and has failed to meet many of its original design requirements. It’s also become the most expensive defense program in world history, at around US$1.5 trillion before the fighter is phased out in 2070.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-went-wrong-with-the-f-35-lockheed-martins-joint-strike-fighter/

Now we have a new stealth bomber, the B-21, another massive spending bill for the Pentagon…..again I ask where was the need?

Consistent with today’s trend to render all defense as performance art, the unveiling of the new Northrop Grumman B-21 “Raider” bomber at the Northrop plant in Palmdale on December 2 was designed with the care and production values of a Superbowl commercial. 

The blue backlighting, the sonorous music (One Day, by Caleb Etheridge) the shiny shroud strip-teased off the partly hidden aircraft by shadowy figures, the flyover by the bombers the B-21 will allegedly replace, were military-industrial showmanship at its best, giving us not a scintilla of worthwhile information about the plane. Fittingly, its primary selling point, according to its promoters, is “stealth” – a supposed ability to remain invisible to radar and other sensors. Given that earlier systems advertised as being cloaked from radar scrutiny, such as the F-22 and F-35 fighters, have turned out to be visible after all especially to decades-old low frequency radar systems, the prospects are not hopeful. We do however know that it has the most important characteristic of stealth: invisibility to the taxpayers.

For many years the Air Force declined to release a cost figure for the B-21, claiming the figure was classified on grounds that our enemies would learn valuable secrets if they knew just how much of a wallop it was going to be on our pocketbooks. Now, thanks to Tony Capaccio of Bloomberg, we know the official estimate of the projected cost to develop, produce and operate 100 B-21s for thirty years is a cool $203 billion. However, back when the Air Force were telling us we had no right to know exactly what we were paying for, they did release the most important fact of all: the major corporations – Pratt & Whitney, BAE Systems, Orbital ATK, and others – who would be the major subcontractors in the Northrop-led program. By absolutely no coincidence at all, these turned out to be in congressional districts and states represented by senior figures on important defense committees in the congress. This is known as “political engineering” in which defense programs are rendered politically invulnerable to cancellation or funding shortfalls thanks to the salting of key constituencies with rich contracts. Brazenly, the Air Force announced at the time it was naming the prime contractors on the bomber “in a sign of transparency to gain public trust.”  

The B-21: another Air Force diva that can’t deliver?

With all the problems these models are having how does the defense industry con nations like Germany, Japan, Australia, etc into spending this type of cash on a flying brick?

How and why?

This country needs the money more for our nation than we need another stealth bomber….but lobbyists with buckets of cash will make sure this type of waste continues.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

 

Christmas Comes Early For Pentagon

The Department of Defense has gotten their gift early for Christmas…..their budget reaches damn near a $1 trillion (that is trillion with a “T”)….

The House on Thursday passed the massive $858 billion 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) in a vote of 350-80, sending the bill to the Senate, where a vote is expected to be held next week.

The $858 billion NDAA is $45 billion more than President Biden asked for, marking the second year in a row that Congress made the military budget higher than what the White House requested. The amount represents an 8% increase from the 2022 NDAA, which was finalized at $782 billion.

According to Defense News, the 2023 NDAA dropped amendments added to the House version that would have restricted weapons sales to countries accused of human rights abuses. Such provisions were included in the House version of the NDAA but didn’t make it past into the final version that was negotiated with the Senate.

Notable amendments packed into the NDAA include a measure that will give the Pentagon wartime purchasing powers by allowing non-competitive, multi-year contracts for certain arms. The authority could be used to refill US stockpiles, arm Ukraine, and assist foreign governments that have provided support for Ukraine.

The list of munitions the Pentagon is allowed to procure using the purchasing powers is extensive and includes HIMARS rocket launch systems, 155mm ammunition, Javelin anti-tank missiles, Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, Harpoon anti-ship missiles, and much more.

US weapons manufacturers will benefit greatly from the new authority, especially Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, as many of their systems are on the list. The multi-year contracts will incentivize the arms makers to significantly ramp up production.

The NDAA includes unprecedented military aid for Taiwan, including $10 billion that will be disbursed over five years and $1 billion in annual presidential drawdown authority, which will allow the US to send Taipei weapons directly from Pentagon stockpiles.

Ukraine will receive $800 million in the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative from the NDAA, a program that allows the US government to purchase weapons for Ukraine. But the vast majority of spending on the Ukraine war will come through emergency funding, and the White House is hoping Congress approves a new $37.7 billion tranche of Ukraine aid during the lame-duck period.

The NDAA includes $11.5 billion in new investments for the Pacific Deterrence Initiative, a program to build up in the Asia Pacific to confront China. The Pentagon has identified China as its main focus, and the NDAA includes investment in new technology research and development that US military leaders say is meant to counter Beijing.

(antiwar.com)

If you are interested in more information then this article may help….

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/12/08/war-industry-celebrating-christmas-early-house-passes-858-billion-ndaa

Pentagon gets a trillion and the rest of our nation gets crumbs from the Defense table.

There is something seriously wrong with this situation.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

A Change Of Guns?

The US military is always looking to improve the killing power of their weapons. Our military is always looking for the optimum rifle for our troops in the field…..we went from the M-1 to the M-14 to the M-16 to the Car-15 they use today….and now the military is thinking of changing again….but to what?

I read the other day that the US is thinking of acquiring the AK-74….not to be confused with the AK-47….

The US Army has issued a sources-sought notice for Russian-made AK-74 Kalashnikov assault rifles or any copies made in other countries.

According to the service, the rifles must have a fixed stock and approximately 16-inch barrels.

Proposals may also include four 30-round steel or polymer box magazines, one cleaning kit, one oil bottle, one shoulder sling, and a user’s manual.

Responses to the notice should include the country of original manufacture, the army said.

“Weapon systems of interest are those that follow the design pattern of rifles from Romania (eg. md.86), Russia (eg. AK-74), and East Germany (eg. MPi AK74),” the notice reads. “Weapons manufactured elsewhere are also desirable provided they adhere to the AK-74 pattern.”

The US Army did not specify why it is seeking the assault rifles.

However, several defense outlets noted that the US military maintains stocks of various foreign armaments to mock enemies during simulation drills or to support research efforts.

The AK-74 Kalashnikov is a 5.45-caliber, air-cooled weapon widely used as the standard service assault rifle of the Russian military.

Based on the classic AK pattern, the rifle is designed to be reliable in adverse conditions and easy to use by military personnel with minimal training.

It has an overall length of 940 millimeters (37 inches) and a rate of fire of 600 rounds per minute.

The Kalashnikov can integrate red-dot, telescopic, and night vision sights for improved accuracy in low-light conditions.

(thedefensepost.com)

Now I would like to ask….how would this happen if Russia is heavily sanctioned?

Buying from other outlets would seem to help purchasing pirated intellectual property.

Is that not what we accuse China of doing?

An interesting article…..and many questions.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Practice Makes Perfect

All this talk about a nuke holocaust has the US doing what it does best….preparing for an all out use of nukes.

NATO military alliance will hold a training exercise, known as Steadfast Noon, in which US B-52 bombers and F-16 fighters will simulate dropping atomic bombs over Europe amid a deepening nuclear standoff with Russia.

The training exercise comes just ten days after US President Joe Biden warned of a nuclear “apocalypse,” saying the risk of nuclear war is the greatest since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

“This is the exercise that practices NATO’s nuclear strike mission with dual-capable aircraft and the B61 tactical nuclear bombs the US deploys in Europe,” wrote Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists.

The aircraft will rehearse dropping B61 “tactical” thermonuclear bombs, each of which is up to 20 times more powerful than the weapon that destroyed Hiroshima in World War II, killing as many as 126,000 civilians.

While nuclear training exercises are usually presented as routine, nonthreatening, and not targeting any specific country, this year NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg made clear that the exercise is intended as a threat to Russia.

In a speech that mentioned Russia five times, Stoltenberg announced, “Next week, NATO will hold its long-planned deterrence exercise, Steadfast Noon.” He added, “Russia knows that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”

As of 2019, the United States had 150 “tactical” nuclear warheads stationed throughout Europe as part of the NATO nuclear arsenal, including in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/10/17/lkbs-o17.html

This news should worry about this exercise….after all the US is the ONLY country to actually use a nuke on a civilian population….it is a precedent.

But wait!

There is more that concern us mere peasants….

A commander said, “this is not a training deployment, this is a combat deployment”

The White House has deployed thousands of American soldiers just miles from Ukraine to prepare for war, according to CBS News. Officers speaking with the outlet revealed they were there for combat against Russia.

Brigadier General John Lubas confirmed nearly 5,000 troops from the 101st Airborne recently joined the 100,000 American soldiers already deployed to Europe. Lubas described his troops as being on “full deployment,” and they are preparing to fight Russian soldiers in Ukraine. “This is not a training deployment, this is a combat deployment for us. We understand we need to be ready to fight tonight,” he said.

Colonel Edwin Matthaidess said his forces have been “closely watching” the Russian soldiers, “building objectives to practice against” and conducting war games that “replicate exactly what’s going on” in Ukraine.

CBS News reported, “[Russia’s] goal is to cut off all Ukrainian access to the sea, leaving the country and its military forces landlocked.” CBS News did not provide a source for that assertion. The Kremlin has publicly said its war goal is limited to eastern Ukraine.

Lubas declared the division was “ready to defend every inch of NATO soil.” However, Moscow has never threatened to invade a NATO country. Ukraine is not a NATO member. When President Zelensky said Ukraine should be allowed into the North Atlantic alliance last month, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan and NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg rejected Kiev’s proposal.

(antiwar.com)

All this sounds like someone itching for a fight and will eventually find a reason to put practice into action.

Please people PAY ATTENTION!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”