Month: May 2019

Categories
Quick Analysis

Modernizing the U.S. Nuclear Deterrent

According to Defense Department officials, The U.S. needs to upgrade its nuclear capability now. They testified that “ while those efforts are already underway, it’ll take continued funding from lawmakers to ensure the U.S. can maintain its nuclear edge.” The New York Analysis of Policy and Government presents their plans, as delivered to Congress.

The U.S. nuclear deterrence capability relies on the “nuclear triad,” which includes ground-based nuclear weapons that launch from silos; sea-based nuclear weapons that launch from submarines; and air-based nuclear weapons that are dropped from aircraft.

Here’s what the U.S. is doing to keep its nuclear edge sharp:

1.For ground-based deterrence, the U.S. is developing the “Ground Based Strategic Deterrent,” which is expected to replace about 400 existing Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles. The Minuteman III has been around since 1970.

2.At sea, the U.S. is looking to replace about 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines with the Columbia-class submarine. Development of that sub is underway now, and the first is expected to begin construction in 2021.

3. In the air, the U.S. uses B-52H Stratofortress and B-2A Spirit bomber aircraft to deliver nuclear payloads. Eventually, it expects to replace those with the now-under-development B-21 Raider aircraft. The nuclear capability of the AGM-86B air-launched cruise missiles is also expected to be replaced by the Long Range Standoff weapon by the early 2030s.

Ellen Lord, the undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, discussed U.S. efforts to upgrade its nuclear triad yesterday during a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“The U.S. doesn’t have any wiggle room in the effort to upgrade its nuclear capability: modernization must be done now, without interruption, or the U.S. stands to lose its deterrence edge…The Russians and the Chinese are doing a fine job of upgrading their own nuclear capability and developing new delivery tools as well.

 “[America] is living now with Cold War technology. We have put off modernizing the triad for multiple decades. So now we have no margin. We need to move forward. So, any cut in funding would essentially have us unilaterally stand down in terms of our capability to have a credible nuclear deterrent.”

The deterrence capability of the U.S. nuclear triad underwrites national security, and the weapons that make up that triad are fast approaching an age where their last-century capability set may no longer be enough of a threat to keep adversaries from guessing about what the U.S. is capable of doing.

That nuclear triad includes ground-based missiles — commonly referred to as intercontinental ballistic missiles; submarine-launched ballistic missiles; and air-launched cruise missiles dropped from bomber aircraft. In all three areas the U.S. modernization effort is underway.

Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent

Lord said it no longer makes financial sense to continue to upgrade or extend the life of existing Minuteman III ICBMs. New systems must be brought online. The U.S. is pursuing the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent for that, she told lawmakers.

It is also important to keep your brain devoid of stress and avoid consumption of alcohol while consuming Super P-force. cialis sale Renowned researchers of human sexual responses have stated with the ability for making love well into old age generico cialis on line essentially which depends on not stopping. How to get cheap cialis pills ? The best way is to purchase cialis. cialis pill online During the actual menopause, increase the dose to around 4000mg each day for a period of 2-3 months, and then disappear for up to a year.

“There is no margin to do another service life extension program on Minuteman III, because not only would it be more expensive than developing GBSD, but you would not have the resiliency in the capability because you would not have the modern equipment, you would not have the actual capabilities from a functional range point of view [or] warhead capability,” Lord said. “So we need to, by 2028, start replacing [ICBMs].”

The U.S. has about 400 deployed Minuteman III ICBMs and is developing replacements through the GBSD program. The Minuteman III has been in place since 1970 and has been life extended several times. The GBSD is expected around 2028.

Sea-Based Deterrence

For sea-based nuclear deterrence, the U.S. has 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines armed with Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missiles. The subs were originally designed with a 30-year life expectancy, which has been extended now to 42 years — but further extension is not possible.

The follow-on submarine will be the Columbia-class, which is in development now. It’s expected to last until 2084. For now, the life extension of the Trident II will allow it to continue to serve aboard the upgraded Ohio-class vessels and then move on to serve, at least initially, aboard the Columbia-class. Production of the first of those ships will begin in fiscal year 2021.

Air Defense

In the air, the U.S. uses B-52H Stratofortress and B-2A Spirit bombers to deliver nuclear weapons, including the AGM-86B air-launched cruise missiles. The Air Force is now upgrading the B-52, initially introduced in 1962. The B-2A will also get upgrades. Eventually, the Air Force expects to procure 100 B-21 Raider aircraft to replace both legacy bombers. The nuclear capability of the AGM-86B ALCM is also expected to be replaced by the Long Range Standoff weapon by the early 2030s.

Plutonium Production

Lord also told lawmakers the U.S. is also standing up a new facility to develop the “nuclear pit” that is the heart of any nuclear weapon.

The U.S. can already construct this portion of weapons at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, she said. DOD wants to be able to produce as many as 30 plutonium pits a year by 2026, and produce 80 per year by 2030.

“We do not have any margin at this point, because for decades we have delayed,” Lord said.

To add resilience to that capability, she said DOD is also looking at opening a second pit-production facility at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, about 25 miles southeast of Augusta, Georgia.

Photo: Department of Defense

Categories
Quick Analysis

New Report on Chinese Military Power

The Department of Defense has released its 2019 “Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China.”  The New York Analysis of Policy and Government presents the Executive Summary.

WHAT IS CHINA’S STRATEGY?

China’s leaders have benefited from what they view as a “period of strategic opportunity” during the initial two decades of the 21st century to develop domestically and expand China’s “comprehensive national power.” Over the coming decades, they are focused on realizing a powerful and prosperous China that is equipped with a “world-class” military, securing China’s status as a great power with the aim of emerging as the preeminent power in the Indo-Pacific region.

In 2018, China continued harnessing an array of economic, foreign policy, and security tools to realize this vision. Ongoing state-led efforts, which China implements both at home and abroad and which often feature economic and diplomatic initiatives, also support China’s security and military objectives:

  • China continues to implement long-term state-directed planning, such as “Made in China 2025” and other industrial development plans, which stress the need to replace imported technology with domestically produced technology. These plans present an economic challenge to nations that export high-tech products. These plans also directly support military modernization goals by stressing proprietary mastery of advanced dual-use technologies.
  • China’s leaders seek to align civil and defense technology development to achieve greater efficiency, innovation, and growth. In recent years, China’s leaders elevated this initiative, known as CivilMilitary Integration (CMI), to a national strategy that incentivizes the civilian sector to enter the defense market. The national CMI strategy focuses on hardware modernization, education, personnel, investment, infrastructure, and logistics.
  • China’s leaders are leveraging China’s growing economic, diplomatic, and military clout to establish regional preeminence and expand the country’s international influence. China’s advancement of projects such as the “One Belt, One Road” Initiative (OBOR) will probably drive military overseas basing through a perceived need to provide security for OBOR projects.
  • China conducts influence operations against media, cultural, business, academic, and policy communities of the United States, other countries, and international institutions to achieve outcomes favorable to its security and military strategy objectives. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) seeks to condition foreign and multilateral political establishments and public opinion to accept China’s narrative surrounding its priorities like OBOR and South China Sea territorial and maritime claims. Recognizing that programs such as “Made in China 2025” and OBOR have sparked concerns about China’s intentions, China’s leaders have softened their rhetoric when promoting these programs without altering the programs’ fundamental strategic goals.
Hardy granted Audigier a license to use his work, and viagra overnight usa Ed Hardy clothing was born. These female uk viagra rehab centers are faith based rehab centers where one can find the appropriate treatment for one’s level of addiction. Generic medicine is using all http://secretworldchronicle.com/tag/mercurye/ generico levitra on line over the world successfully and with a full belief for its high performance and lower cost. In some of the cases, inhibited as well as premature ejaculation (PE) are considered 2 of the most common types of diabetes that affects millions of people worldwide. viagra no prescription online

A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO MANAGING REGIONAL DISPUTES

China seeks to secure its objectives without jeopardizing the regional stability that remains critical to the economic development that has helped the CCP maintain its monopoly on power. However, China’s leaders employ tactics short of armed conflict to pursue China’s strategic objectives through activities calculated to fall below the threshold of provoking armed conflict with the United States, its allies and partners, or others in the Indo-Pacific region. These tactics are particularly evident in China’s pursuit of its territorial and maritime claims in the South and East China Seas as well as along its borders with India and Bhutan. In 2018, China continued militarization in the South China Sea by placing anti-ship cruise missiles and longrange surface-to-air missiles on outposts in the Spratly Islands, violating a 2015 pledge by Chinese President Xi Jinping that “China does not intend to pursue militarization” of the Spratly Islands. China is also willing to employ coercive measures – both military and nonmilitary – to advance its interests and mitigate opposition from other countries.

BUILDING A MORE CAPABLE PEOPLE’S LIBERATION ARMY

In support of the goal to establish a powerful and prosperous China, China’s leaders are committed to developing military power commensurate with that of a great power. Chinese military strategy documents highlight the requirement for a People’s Liberation Army (PLA) able to fight and win wars, deter potential adversaries, and secure Chinese national interests overseas, including a growing emphasis on the importance of the maritime and information domains, offensive air operations, long-distance mobility operations, and space and cyber operations.

In 2018, the PLA published a new Outline of Training and Evaluation that emphasized realistic and joint training across all warfare domains and included missions and tasks aimed at “strong military opponents.” Training focused on war preparedness and improving the PLA’s capability to win wars through realistic combat training, featuring multi-service exercises, longdistance maneuvers and mobility operations, and the increasing use of professional “blue force” opponents. The CCP also continued vigorous efforts to root out corruption in the armed forces.

The PLA also continues to implement the most comprehensive restructure in its history to become a force capable of conducting complex joint operations. The PLA strives to be capable of fighting and winning “informatized local wars” – regional conflicts defined by real-time, data-networked command and control (C2) and precision strike. PLA modernization includes command and force structure reforms to improve operational flexibility and readiness for future deployments. As China’s global footprint and international interests have grown, its military modernization program has become more focused on investments and infrastructure to support a range of missions beyond China’s periphery, including power projection, sea lane security, counterpiracy, peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance/disaster relief, and noncombatant evacuation operations.

China’s military modernization also targets capabilities with the potential to degrade core U.S. operational and technological advantages. China uses a variety of methods to acquire foreign military and dual-use technologies, including targeted foreign direct investment, cyber theft, and exploitation of private Chinese nationals’ access to these technologies, as well as harnessing its intelligence services, computer intrusions, and other illicit approaches. In 2018, Chinese efforts to acquire sensitive, dual-use, or military-grade equipment from the United States included dynamic random access memory, aviation technologies, and antisubmarine warfare technologies.

REORGANIZING FOR OPERATIONS ALONG CHINA’S PERIPHERY

China continues to implement reforms associated with the establishment of its five theater commands, each of which is responsible for developing command strategies and joint operational plans and capabilities relevant for specific threats, as well as responding to crises and safeguarding territorial sovereignty and stability. Taiwan persistently remains the PLA’s main “strategic direction,” one of the geographic areas the leadership identifies as having strategic importance. Other strategic directions include the East China Sea, the South China Sea, and China’s borders with India and North Korea.

China’s overall strategy toward Taiwan continues to incorporate elements of both persuasion and coercion to hinder the development of political attitudes in Taiwan favoring independence. Taiwan lost three additional diplomatic partners in 2018, and some international fora continued to deny the participation of representatives from Taiwan. Although China advocates for peaceful unification with Taiwan, China has never renounced the use of military force, and continues to develop and deploy advanced military capabilities needed for a potential military campaign.

THE U.S.-CHINA BILATERAL DEFENSE RELATIONSHIP IN CONTEXT

The 2017 National Security Strategy, the 2018 National Defense Strategy, the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review, and the 2019 Missile Defense Review recognize the growing trend of military competition in a dynamic security environment.

The United States will compete from a position of strength while encouraging China to cooperate with the United States on security issues where U.S. and Chinese interests align.

Maintaining a constructive, results-oriented relationship with China is an important part of U.S. strategy in the Indo-Pacific region. U.S. defense contacts and exchanges with China conducted in 2018 were designed to support the long-term goal of transparency and nonaggression. U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) engagements with China seek to reduce risk and prevent misunderstanding in times of increased tension. Engagements are conducted in accordance with the statutory limitations of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, as amended.

Although DoD engages with the PLA, DoD will also continue to monitor and adapt to China’s evolving military strategy, doctrine, and force development. The United States will adapt its forces, posture, investments, and operational concepts to ensure it retains the ability to defend the homeland, deter aggression, protect our allies and partners, and preserve regional peace, prosperity, and freedom.

Special Topic: Influence Operations

The PLA has emphasized the development of its Three Warfares strategy in its operational planning since at least 2003, which is comprised of psychological warfare, public opinion warfare, and legal warfare. Consistent with this strategy, China conducts influence operations against cultural institutions, media organizations, and the business, academic, and policy communities of the United States, other countries, and internationalinstitutions to achieve outcomes favorable to its security and military strategy objectives. A cornerstone of China’s strategy includes appealing to overseas Chinese citizens or ethnic Chinese citizens of other countries to advance CCP objectives through soft power or, sometimes, coercion and blackmail. Furthermore, China harnesses academia and educational institutions, think tanks, and state-run media to advance China’s security interests. China’s foreign influence activities are predominately focused on establishing and maintaining power brokers within a foreign government to promote policies that China believes will facilitate China’s rise, despite China’s stated position of not interfering in foreign countries’ internal affairs.

Special Topic: China in the Arctic

China has increased activities and engagement in the Arctic region since gaining observer status on the Arctic Council in 2013. China published an Arctic Strategy in January 2018 that promoted a “Polar Silk Road,” self-declared China to be a “Near-Arctic State,” and identified China’s interests as access to natural resources and sea lines of communication (SLOCs), and promoting an image of a “responsible major country” in Arctic affairs. The strategy highlights China’s icebreaker vessels and research stations in Iceland and Norway as integral to its implementation. Arctic border countries have raised concerns about China’s expanding capabilities and interest in the region. Civilian research could support a strengthened Chinese military presence in the Arctic Ocean, which could include deploying submarines to the region as a deterrent against nuclear attacks.

Photo: Chinese Ministry of Defense

Categories
Quick Analysis

Pope Places Personal Politics Above Faith

Pope Francis, head of the Roman Catholic Church, is continuing his bizarre departure from his own faith and the traditions of the institution he leads. He has apparently decided to ignore Jesus’ own example and misuse the papacy to advance his personal political leanings.

The Pontiff, according to Catholic beliefs, cannot commit error in matters of religious doctrine. Pope Francis, however, has used his highly visible position to engage in temporal matters, in which he has shown little insight and a disturbing lack of knowledge.   

Vatican News reports that he has directed $500,000 be sent to migrants in Mexico from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. At first glance, this appears to be a fairly normal act of charity from an organization that has performed enormous good works across the planet. But a more careful review reveals a separate motive, and a lack of logic in the action.

An official Vatican statement noted that “In recent months, thousands of migrants have arrived in Mexico, having travelled more than 4,000 kilometres on foot and with makeshift vehicles from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala. Men and women, often with young children, flee poverty and violence, hoping for a better future in the United States. However, the US border remains closed to them…In particular, the aid is intended to assist the more than 75,000 people who arrived in Mexico in 2018, in six migrant caravans…All these people were stranded, unable to enter the United States…”

Where the agony is and how it can ruin one’s lowest price on cialis sexual life. Cuscuta Seed Extract which is a Chinese patent medicine on curing male diseases in reproductive & urinary system, The main ingredients consist of plantago seed, Dianthus superbus, talcum, earthworm, Polygonum aviculare, herba laminariae, cialis price pangolin, saffron?semen persicae?honeysuckle?lignum aquilariae, etc. Wheelchair assessment is tadalafil generic cheapest the most important aspect that should be taken when dealing with ED and also how huge savings can be made by buying ED medications via online can refer the right platforms to buy kamagra online. One can determine a dose after assessing one’s physical viagra cialis generic condition.

As the Vatican stated, these individuals fled poverty in their home nations. Through Catholic Relief Services, the Church does seek to provide assistance in those countries.  But Pope Francis attention is concentrated less on the good works performed by his institution and more on criticizing the moves by Washington to protect its own borders.  He appears less concerned with the corruption and incompetence of those Central American nations that causes the poverty and human rights violations, and more on his political dislike of capitalism, an illogical perspective considering that capitalism has provided more prosperity for more people than any other approach.

The Pontiff has soundly criticized the legitimate rights of the United States to enforce its own . laws, but has remained relatively silent on the practices of Latin American leaders who have caused the conditions that chased people out of their homelands. As Dr. Samuel Gregg wrote in The Catholic World Report, “With Venezuela imploding, many wonder why Pope Francis seems slow to condemn a left-wing populist Latin American dictatorship that’s brutalizing the population of an overwhelmingly Catholic country. If you want to see where socialism takes a country, go to today’s Venezuela. After 18 years of a left-wing populist regime committed to “21st Century Socialism,” a once-wealthy and relatively stable nation is coming apart.”

The Pope has made some comments condemning corruption in the region, but his actions indicate a lack of resolve. Martin Barillas, in a Lifesite article points out that “Twenty former presidents of Latin American nations sent an open letter on Jan. 5 to Pope Francis in which they criticized his call for “harmony” in socialist Venezuela and “reconciliation” in Nicaragua where Marxist governments have ruined these countries’ national economies and subjected citizens to torture and summary executions. Led by Nobel Prize-winner and former president of Costa Rica Oscar Arias, the letter to the pontiff said, ‘We are concerned that the call for harmony on the part of your Holiness in which, given the current context, can be understood by the victimized nations that they should come to agreement with their victimizers. In particular, in the case of Venezuela, the government has caused the flight of 3 million refugees, which the United Nations predicts will reach 5.9 million in 2019.’”

The most prominent display of the Pontiff’s apparent affection for corrupt and socialist regimes came during his 2015 visit to Cuba, in which he met not only with the island nation’s current leader but also with retired dictator Fidel Castro, who has an abysmal human rights record. The Washington Post editorial board .reflected: “How… to explain Pope Francis’s behavior in Cuba? The pope is spending four days in a country whose Communist dictatorship has remained unrelenting in its repression of free speech, political dissent and other human rights despite a warming of relations with the Vatican and the United States. Yet by the end of his third day, the pope had said or done absolutely nothing that might discomfit his official hosts.”

Writing in Reuters, Philip Pullella reports that ” A group of 19 Catholic priests and academics have urged bishops to denounce Pope Francis as a heretic.”

Photo: Official portrait of Pope Francis (Vatican)

Categories
Quick Analysis

Foreign Policy Update

VENEZUELA

The Venezuelan military, according to Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, “didn’t fracture in the way that we would hope, but it’s just a matter of time. It’s the case that Maduro may rule for a little while longer, but he’s not going to govern.” He added that structurally, there is no pathway for Maduro to stay in power. It’s time, he said, for him to leave and the United States also wants to see the Cubans and the Russians out of the country.

Washington is working to secure the southern border at the same time as trying to support democracy in South America. Pompeo said today there are 3 million migrants leaving Venezuela and heading into neighboring countries such as Colombia, Chile and Peru. They need humanitarian support including food. Helping is something, Pompeo added, that is in our nature.

CHINA

Chinese students in the United States are sending information on critical American technologies back to China and it a growing concern in Washington. The Chinese are attempting to put their systems in networks around the world and to steal Western intellectual property using advanced methods that only a few years ago were beyond the reach of the Chinese IT technologists. Washington also is concerned about large, high tech American companies going to China and inadvertently helping the communist regime in every major industry including space and weaponry and artificial intelligence.

ISIS POST-CALIPHATE

ISIS has capabilities post-caliphate and the United States needs to act, according to Pompeo. “…even apart from the Sri Lanka incident, it’s absolutely the case that the capacity for ISIS and other radical Islamic terror groups, Sunni terror groups, remains. Their ability to network – we have al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula that still has real capacity to put the United States at risk through its expertise… But this challenge, this challenge of taking down these networks, is something the United States is going to have to continue to stay right on top of.”

The mission set is very clear according to the Secretary. The US will not allow ISIS to get the caliphate back in either western Iraq or eastern Syria. Washington is applying pressure to the networks whether they are in Southeast Asia, in Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan.

According to Pompeo the United States is training Afghan security forces and has worked with the Syrian Defense Forces in Syria. He added that President trump is committed  that the US will order viagra usa It is therefore advisable to quit smoking. Moreover, high cholesterol levels impede the production of viagra online http://greyandgrey.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Gandolfo.pdf the enzyme cGMP that online medication the blood supply to the reproductive organs. There are easy levitra sample steps you can take to achieve this. If the doctor is not licensed, you tadalafil sample could be putting your health at risk. have, at the right times, the right structure and system in place to push back.

NORTH KOREA

The United States made a major mistake in earlier Administrations, according to Pompeo. He pointed out that Washington handed North Korea “a bunch of money in exchange for too little, and we’re [Trump Administration] determined not to make that mistake.” Pompeo said Washington is focused on put the right set of incentives in places to achieve its objectives. The end goal is not to overthrow the regime but to achieve denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.  He added that it “solely turns on whether Chairman Kim makes the fundamental strategic decision, the one that he has told me half a dozen times he has made, the one he’s told the President a handful of times that he has made.”

The President and Pompeo has repeatedly said that the United States will be patient to ensure good faith negotiations and real conversations. Pompeo said “…our mission set is very clear: State Department’s in the lead trying to negotiate a solution here. We have great partners in South Korea, Japan, who have been great allies and having these conversations, too. We appreciate all of the work that they’ve done. It’s in their backyard.”

IRAN

In a statement released by the State Department on Friday, May 3, he Trump administration stated that it continues to “hold the Iranian regime accountable for activities that threaten the region’s stability and harm the Iranian people.” This includes denying Iran any pathway to a nuclear weapon and continues the maximum pressure campaign.

Starting May 4, assistance to expand Iran’s Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant beyond the existing reactor unit could be sanctionable, according to the Department Spokesperson. In addition, activities to transfer enriched uranium out of Iran in exchange for natural uranium could be sanctionable. The United States is demanding Iran stop all proliferation-sensitive activities, including uranium enrichment, and the storage for Iran of heavy water it has produced in excess of current limits.

DARIA NOVAK served in the United States State Department during the Reagan Administration, and currently is on the Board of the American Analysis of News and Media Inc., which publishes usagovpolicy.com and the New York Analysis of Policy and Government.  Each Saturday, she presents key updates on U.S. foreign policy from the State Department.

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

NASA’s Budget and Earth’s Survival

If financial arguments prove unconvincing to NASA’s detractors, perhaps saving the planet from destruction may be a more powerful persuader.

NASA’s budget is relatively sparse, at less than one-half of one percent of federal spending.  It is, however, continuously attacked by those who believe its funds should be used elsewhere. The Obama Administration, for example, which devastated the manned space program, diverted NASA spending to activities intended to prop up its climate change agenda.

The criticism ignores the massive return on space investment.  One study notes that “For less than half a percent of the federal budget, NASA is immersed in some of the greatest challenges in science and technology, learning from the past and planning decades into the future… NASA [has a] critical role in the national economy, creating employment, developing cutting-edge technology, supporting business growth, advancing space-related industries, promoting partnership among nations, expanding the scientific knowledge base…” A Balance analysis found that every dollar spent on the space agency adds $10 to the national economy.

To those unmoved by fiscal matters, survival of the species should prove a more effective substantial logic.

It has long been understood that Earth remains vulnerable to impacts from space capable of eliminating most planetary life. National Geographic has described the collision that killed off the dinosaurs: “… an asteroid slams into Earth with an explosive yield estimated at over 100 trillion tons of TNT. The impact penetrates Earth’s crust to a depth of several miles, gouging a crater more than 115 miles (185 kilometers) across and vaporizing thousands of cubic miles of rock. The event sets off a chain of global catastrophes that wipe out 80 percent of life on Earth—including most of the dinosaurs.”

To prevent a future catastrophe from rendering a similar fate to humanity, NASA is building procedures to defend the planet.

It all depends and vary from one person here viagra wholesale uk to another, depending on your condition and your health. Kamagra, the generic version of viagra sale , contains the same active ingredient, Sildenafil Citrate, as the popular medication for sexual dysfunction. Urologists Urologists treat kidney related disorders, urinary track problems cialis 10mg and reproductive system problems in men and women. Kamagra, obviously, is presently the most well known option to brand name buy viagra overnight.

The space agency’s JPL lab describes the task, and some of the steps being taken to respond to the very real danger:


“The Earth has been getting hit by asteroids and comets for its whole life.  The Spaceguard Survey is an attempt to locate and track as many near-Earth objects (NEOs) as possible…To lead to a global catastrophe, an asteroid or comet only has to be big enough to launch large amounts of dust in to the atmosphere. That leads to the abrupt change in climate that wipes out species.”

Previously, JPL reported that a working group estimated that there are some 2,100 such asteroids larger than 1 kilometer. An impact by an asteroid larger than 1-2 kilometers could degrade the global climate, leading to widespread crop failure and loss of life. A still larger impact by an object larger than about 5 kilometers is damaging enough to cause mass extinctions. There are many comets in the 1-10 kilometer class, 15 of them in short-period orbits that pass inside the Earth’s orbit, and an unknown number of long-period comets. NASA believes that “Virtually any short-period comet among the 100 or so not currently coming near the Earth could become dangerous after a close passage by Jupiter.”

This week, the space agency is engaging in a table-top exercise on how to response to a potential killer-asteroid strike.“These exercises have really helped us in the planetary defense community to understand what our colleagues on the disaster management side need to know,” said Lindley Johnson, NASA’s Planetary Defense Officer. ‘This exercise will help us develop more effective communications with each other and with our governments.’ This type of exercise is also specifically identified as part of the National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy and Action Plan developed over a two-year period and published by the White House in June 2018.”

Long the subject of science fiction films and novels, NASA is developing plans on how to deflect planet-killer asteroids towards a path that leaves Earth untouched.

Illustration: NASA-JPL

Categories
Quick Analysis

Testimony of Attorney General William Barr

MAY 1, 2019 10:00 am

Statement of Attorney General William P. Barr Before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate May 1, 2019

Good morning, Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss the conclusion of the investigation into Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III, and the confidential report he submitted to me, which I recently released to the public after applying necessary redactions.

When I appeared before this Committee just a few months ago for my confirmation hearing, Senators asked for two commitments concerning the Special Counsel’s investigation: first, that I would allow the Special Counsel to finish his investigation without interference; and second, that I would release his report to Congress and to the American public. I believe that the record speaks for itself. The Special Counsel completed his investigation as he saw fit. As I informed Congress on March 22, 2019, at no point did I, or anyone at the Department of Justice, overrule the Special Counsel on any proposed action. In addition, immediately upon receiving his confidential report to me, we began working with the Special Counsel to prepare it for public release and, on April 18, 2019, I released a public version subject only to limited redactions that were necessary to comply with the law and to protect important governmental interests.

Preparation for Public Release As I explained in my letter of April 18, 2019, the redactions in the public report fall into four categories: (1) grand-jury information, the disclosure of which is prohibited by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e); (2) investigative techniques, which reflect material identified by the intelligence and law enforcement communities as potentially compromising sensitive sources, methods, or techniques, as well as information that could harm ongoing intelligence or law enforcement activities; (3) information that, if released, could harm ongoing law enforcement matters, including charged cases where court rules and orders bar public disclosure by the parties of case information; and (4) information that would unduly infringe upon the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties, which includes deliberation about decisions not to recommend prosecution of such parties. I have also made available to a bipartisan group of leaders in Congress, including Chairman Graham and Ranking Member Feinstein, a minimally redacted version that includes everything other than the grand-jury material, which by law cannot be disclosed. We made every effort to ensure that the redactions were as limited as possible. According to one analysis, just eight percent of the public report was redacted. And my understanding is that less than two percent has been withheld in the minimally redacted version made available to Congressional leaders. While the Deputy Attorney General and I selected the categories of redactions, the redactions themselves were made by Department of Justice attorneys working closely with attorneys from the Special Counsel’s Office. These lawyers consulted with the prosecutors handling ongoing matters and with members of the intelligence community who reviewed selected portions of the report to advise on redactions. The Deputy Attorney General and I did not overrule any of the redaction decisions, nor did we request that any additional material be redacted.

1

We also permitted the Office of the White House Counsel and the President’s personal counsel to review the redacted report prior to its release, but neither played any role in the redaction process. Review by the Office of White House Counsel allowed them to advise the President on executive privilege, consistent with long-standing Executive Branch practice. As I have explained, the President made the determination not to withhold any information based on executive privilege. Review by the President’s personal counsel was a matter of fairness in light of my decision to make public what would otherwise have been a confidential report, and it was consistent with the practice followed for years under the now-expired Ethics in Government Act.

Bottom-Line Conclusions After the Special Counsel submitted the confidential report on March 22, I determined that it was in the public interest for the Department to announce the investigation’s bottom-line conclusions—that is, the determination whether a provable crime has been committed or not. I did so in my March 24 letter. I did not believe that it was in the public interest to release additional portions of the report in piecemeal fashion, leading to public debate over incomplete information. My main focus was the prompt release of a public version of the report so that Congress and the American people could read it for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

The Department’s principal responsibility in conducting this investigation was to determine whether the conduct reviewed constituted a crime that the Department could prove beyond a reasonable doubt. As Attorney General, I serve as the chief law-enforcement officer of the United States, and it is my responsibility to ensure that the Department carries out its law- enforcement functions appropriately. The Special Counsel’s investigation was no exception. The Special Counsel was, after all, a federal prosecutor in the Department of Justice charged with making prosecution or declination decisions.

The role of the federal prosecutor and the purpose of a criminal investigation are well- defined. Federal prosecutors work with grand juries to collect evidence to determine whether a crime has been committed. Once a prosecutor has exhausted his investigation into the facts of a case, he or she faces a binary choice: either to commence or to decline prosecution. To commence prosecution, the prosecutor must apply the principles of federal prosecution and conclude both that the conduct at issue constitutes a federal offense and that the admissible evidence would probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a guilty verdict by an unbiased trier of fact. These principles govern the conduct of all prosecutions by the Department and are codified in the Justice Manual.

The appointment of a Special Counsel and the investigation of the conduct of the President of the United States do not change these rules. To the contrary, they make it all the more important for the Department to follow them. The appointment of a Special Counsel calls for particular care since it poses the risk of what Attorney General Robert Jackson called “the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted.” By definition, a Special Counsel is charged with investigating particular potential crimes, not all potential crimes wherever they may be found. Including a democratically elected politician as a subject in a criminal investigation likewise calls for special care. As Attorney General Jackson admonished his United States Attorneys, politically sensitive cases demand that federal prosecutors be “dispassionate and courageous” in It is extremely surprising that every man at one or another stage of his life experience the ill effects of ahead of schedule discharge issue it is essential to take appropriate medicine. cialis online cialis http://deeprootsmag.org/2013/11/29/the-mythic-weight-of-phil-spectors-christmas-gift-a-semicentennial-reflection/ seems to be the best for those who feel exhausted while performing or satisfying their partner in the love-game. This fruit acts in the male generic cialis no rx body after supporting the cyclic GMP and inhibiting PDE 5 enzymes. What’s brand viagra Professional? levitra is one of the most women have been taken care of with levitra samples; a lover got inactive placebo pills. Prior to the bill going into effect, the standard industry practice was to hike rates on consumers immediately after an infraction, such as a late payment. cialis sale order to “protect the spirit as well as the letter of our civil liberties.”

The core civil liberty that underpins our American criminal justice system is the presumption of innocence. Every person enjoys this presumption long before the commencement

2

of any investigation or official proceeding. A federal prosecutor’s task is to decide whether the admissible evidence is sufficient to overcome that presumption and establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If so, he seeks an indictment; if not, he does not. The Special Counsel’s report demonstrates that there are many subsidiary considerations informing that prosecutorial judgment—including whether particular legal theories would extend to the facts of the case and whether the evidence is sufficient to prove one or another element of a crime. But at the end of the day, the federal prosecutor must decide yes or no. That is what I sought to address in my March 24 letter.

Russian Interference The Special Counsel inherited an ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign, and whether any individuals affiliated with President Trump’s campaign colluded in those efforts. In Volume I of the report, the Special Counsel found that several provable crimes were committed by Russian nationals related to two distinct schemes. First, the report details efforts by the Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Russian company with close ties to the Russian government, to sow social discord among American voters through disinformation and social media operations. Second, the report details efforts by Russian military officials associated with the GRU to hack into computers and steal documents and emails from individuals affiliated with the Democratic Party and the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton for the purpose of eventually publicizing those emails. Following a thorough investigation, the Special Counsel brought charges against several Russian nationals and entities in connection with each scheme.

The Special Counsel also looked at whether any member or affiliate of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump participated in these crimes. With respect to the disinformation scheme, the Special Counsel found no evidence that any Americans—including anyone associated with the Trump campaign—conspired or coordinated with the Russian government or the IRA. Likewise, with respect to hacking, the Special Counsel found no evidence that anyone associated with the Trump campaign, nor any other American, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its hacking operations. Moreover, the Special Counsel did not find that any Americans committed a crime in connection with the dissemination of the hacked materials in part because a defendant could not be charged for dissemination without proof of his involvement in the underlying hacking conspiracy.

Finally, the Special Counsel investigated a number of “links” or “contacts” between Trump Campaign officials and individuals connected with the Russian government during the 2016 presidential campaign. The Special Counsel did not find any conspiracy with the Russian government to violate U.S. law involving Russia-linked persons and any persons associated with the Trump campaign.

Thus, as to the original question of conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, the Special Counsel did not find that any crimes were committed by the campaign or its affiliates.

Obstruction of Justice In Volume II of the report, the Special Counsel considered whether certain actions of the President could amount to obstruction of justice. The Special Counsel decided not to reach a conclusion, however, about whether the President committed an obstruction offense. Instead, the

3

report recounts ten episodes and discusses potential legal theories for connecting the President’s actions to the elements of an obstruction offense. After carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the report, and in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other Department lawyers, the Deputy Attorney General and I concluded that, under the principles of federal prosecution, the evidence developed by the Special Counsel would not be sufficient to charge the President with an obstruction-of-justice offense.

The Deputy Attorney General and I knew that we had to make this assessment because, as I previously explained, the prosecutorial judgment whether a crime has been established is an integral part of the Department’s criminal process. The Special Counsel regulations provide for the report to remain confidential. Given the extraordinary public interest in this investigation, however, I determined that it was necessary to make as much of it public as I could and committed the Department to being as transparent as possible. But it would not have been appropriate for me simply to release Volume II of the report without making a prosecutorial judgment.

The Deputy Attorney General and I therefore conducted a careful review of the report, looking at the facts found and the legal theories set forth by the Special Counsel. Although we disagreed with some of the Special Counsel’s legal theories and felt that some of the episodes examined did not amount to obstruction as a matter of law, we accepted the Special Counsel’s legal framework for purposes of our analysis and evaluated the evidence as presented by the Special Counsel in reaching our conclusion. We concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.

* * *

The responsibility of the Department of Justice, when it comes to law enforcement, is to determine whether crimes have been committed and to prosecute those crimes under the principles of federal prosecution. With the completion of the Special Counsel’s investigation and the resulting prosecutorial decisions, the Department’s work on this matter is at its end aside from completing the cases that have been referred to other offices. From here on, the exercise of responding and reacting to the report is a matter for the American people and the political process. As I am sure you agree, it is vitally important for the Department of Justice to stand apart from the political process and not to become an adjunct of it.

Photo: Attorney General William Barr (DOJ)

Categories
Quick Analysis

The United States Coast Guard Vision for the Arctic Region

As the New York Analysis of Policy and Government reported last September, Russia has moved unprecedented amounts of armed forces into the Arctic region.  It has near total military supremacy on the top of the planet, and it is continuing to add to its domination. Russian sources quoted the Kremlin’s Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu boasting that during the spring, Russia’s Northern Fleet accepted the Ilya Muromets icebreaker,  the Elbrus supply ship, the Admiral Gorshkov frigate and the Ivan Gren landing ship. State tests of the Academician Pashin fuel tanker are currently under way, all of which add to Moscow’s growing supremacy of the Arctic. Shoigu stated that in addition “…before the end of the year the North Fleet would receive five combat ships, five supply ships, 15 aircraft and 62 radar stations and missile-radar complexes. As a result, 56.7 percent of all of the North Fleet’s weapons and equipment will be the most modern models.” RT added that “Russia has continued construction of military bases in Arctic regions and conducted exercises in extreme conditions to boost the combat readiness of military personnel.” Russia has 42 icebreakers, the U.S., only 1 in the region.

The U.S. Coast Guard has just released its “Vision” for the Arctic Region.  We present its Executive Summary:

The United States Coast Guard Vision for the Arctic Region

The United States is an Arctic Nation, and the United States Coast Guard has served as the lead federal agency for homeland security, safety, and environmental stewardship in the Arctic region for over 150 years. Since Revenue Cutters first sailed to Alaska in 1867 to establish U.S. sovereignty, the Service’s role has expanded, including representing American interests as a leader in the international bodies governing navigation, search and rescue, vessel safety, fisheries enforcement, and pollution response across the entire Arctic. As the region continues to open and strategic competition drives more actors to look to the Arctic for economic and geopolitical advantages, the demand for Coast Guard leadership and presence will continue to grow.

Since the release of the Coast Guard Arctic Strategy in 2013, the resurgence of nation-state competition has coincided with dramatic changes in the physical environment of the Arctic, which has elevated the region’s prominence as a strategically competitive space. America’s two nearest-peer powers, Russia and China, have both declared the region a national priority and made corresponding investments in capability and capacity to expand their influence in the region. Russia and China’s persistent challenges to the rules-based international order around the globe cause concern of similar infringement to the continued peaceful stability of the Arctic region. As the only U.S. Service that combines both military and civil authorities, the Coast Guard is uniquely suited to address the interjurisdictional challenges of today’s strategic environment by modeling acceptable behavior, building regional capacity, and strengthening organizations that foster transparency and good governance across the Arctic.

The Arctic’s role in geostrategic competition is growing, in large part because reductions in permanent sea ice have exposed coastal borders and facilitated increased human and economic activity. The warming of the Arctic has led to longer and larger windows of reduced ice conditions. From 2006 to 2018, satellite imagery observed the 12 lowest Arctic ice extents on record.1 This has led to greater access through Arctic shipping routes. While the near-term future of these routes is uncertain, a polar route has the potential to reduce transit times of traditional shipping routes by up to two weeks. Russia’s establishment of a Northern Sea Route Administration, along with the use of high ice-class Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) tankers built specifically to export natural gas from its Yamal LNG facility, have contributed significantly to the increase in commercial shipping traffic in the Arctic. In addition, opportunities for potential resource extraction and expanding Arctic tourism offer new prospects for some of the Nation’s most isolated communities and broader benefits to America. However, changing terrain and subsistence food patterns, as well as the impacts of increasingly frequent and intense winter storms, continue to challenge the communities and increase risk in the maritime domain.

The Coast Guard will adhere to the following principles as it manages these risks and seizes the opportunities created by these changes:

Partnership. The Arctic is an exceptional place that demands collaboration across national boundaries. The Coast Guard will partner with the Arctic Nations, as well as partners and allies with Arctic interests, to contribute to keeping the Arctic a conflict-free region. The Service will continue to dedicate resources to forums, such as the Arctic Council, and to combined operations and exercises to safeguard and secure the Arctic domain.

The unique and valuable relationship the Coast Guard has established with tribal entities builds mutual trust and improves mission capacity and readiness. We will continue to incorporate lessons-learned from engagements with Alaska Native communities, as well as industry and other Arctic residents, in the development and implementation of policy and strategy.

Unity of Effort. The Coast Guard will advance the Nation’s strategic goals and priorities in the Arctic and exercise leadership across the Arctic community of federal, state, and local agencies. As a military Service, the Coast Guard will strengthen interoperability with the Department of Defense and complement the capabilities of the other military services to support the National Security Strategy and the National Military Strategy.

A Culture of Continuous Innovation. The Coast Guard cannot meet the challenges of tomorrow’s Arctic with today’s paradigms. Rapid technological advancements within the maritime industry, combined with robust investments by strategic competitors, have raised the stakes. The Service must take this opportunity to leverage transformative technology and lead the employment of innovative policies to solve complex problems.

While the strategic context has changed, Coast Guard missions in the Arctic are enduring. The Coast Guard will protect the Nation’s vital interests by upholding the rules-based order in the maritime domain while cooperating to reduce conflict and risk. We will help safeguard the Nation’s Arctic communities, environment, and economy. The Service will pursue these ends through three complementary lines of effort:

Line of Effort 1: Enhance Capability to Operate Effectively in a Dynamic Arctic

 In order to prosecute its missions in the Arctic, the Coast Guard must fully understand and operate freely in this vast and unforgiving environment. Effective capability requires sufficient heavy icebreaking vessels, reliable high-latitude communications, and comprehensive Maritime Domain Awareness. In order to respond to crises in the Arctic, our Nation must also muster adequate personnel, aviation, and logistics resources in the region. The Coast Guard is the sole provider and operator of the U.S. polar capable fleet but currently does not have the capability or capacity to assure access in the high latitudes. Closing the gap requires persistent investment in capabilities and capacity for polar operations, including the Polar Security Cutter. The Coast Guard will pursue this line of effort through three sub-objectives.

• Fill Gaps in the Coast Guard’s Arctic Operational Capability and Capacity

• Establish Persistent Awareness and Understanding of the Arctic Domain

• Close the Critical Communications Gap in the Arctic

Line of Effort 2: Strengthen the Rules-Based Order

Actions by strategic competitors will challenge the long-standing norms that have made the Arctic an area of peace and low tension. The institutions contributing to a conflict-free Arctic will face new challenges requiring active and committed American leadership. The Coast Guard is uniquely positioned to provide this leadership in the maritime domain. The Coast Guard is dedicated to strengthening institutions–such as the Arctic Council, the Arctic Coast Guard Forum (ACGF), and the International Maritime Organization (IMO)–and partnerships which reinforce the rules-based order and foster transparency.

Rules and norms endure when nations demonstrate a commitment to upholding them. Working closely with allies and partners, the Coast Guard will deter threats to international maritime norms and America’s national interests by conducting operations and exercises along the full spectrum of competition. Working in partnership with the Department of Defense, the Coast Guard will continue to support to the Nation’s defense priorities in the Arctic. The Coast Guard will work closely with joint and international partners to build capability and demonstrate resolve in the Arctic. The Coast Guard will pursue this line of effort through two sub-objectives.

• Strengthen Partnerships and Lead International Forums

• Counter Challenges to the International Rules-Based Order in the Maritime Domain

Line of Effort 3: Innovate and Adapt to Promote Resilience and Prosperity

The tyranny of distance and the harsh Arctic climate pose significant challenges to agencies charged with providing maritime safety and security to all Americans, including the hundreds of villages and thousands of seasonal workers in the U.S. Arctic. Search and rescue, law enforcement, marine safety, waterways management, and other Coast Guard missions are complicated by the Arctic’s dynamic and remote operating environment. The Coast Guard will collaborate with stakeholders to develop new practices and technology to serve the maritime community and manage risk in the region.

As the Nation’s maritime first responder, the Coast Guard will lead and participate in planning and exercises that include federal, state, tribal, local, international, non-governmental and industry partners to test preparedness and adaptability. During a crisis in the Arctic’s maritime domain, the Service will lead an effective, unified response. The Coast Guard will pursue this line of effort through three sub-objectives:

  • Support Regional Resilience and Lead in Crisis Response
  • • Address Emerging Demands in the Maritime Law Enforcement Mission
  • • Advance and Modernize the Arctic Marine Transportation System
Several rehabilitation centers offer specialized treatment programs that can help solve this condition of erectile dysfunction and a doctor hold the key to revealing which medication is the best for this problem? The medicine which should be taken for it should be chosen carefully as such generic cialis icks.org diseases can be harmful if any wrong medication or procedure is followed for it. Example – Drink – Drinked (Wrong) Drink – Drank (correct) It seems a bit tricky, but constant practice can make you a master of art degree in counseling psychology and counselor education from the University of viagra pill for sale Colorado in Denver. You will get the secure delivery of the viagra online store medicine made the medicine cheap. Do levitra online no prescription watch a sexy movie, be more adventurous.

Conclusion

Increased accessibility and activity will create more demand for Coast Guard services in the Arctic maritime domain. While long-term trends point to a more consistently navigable and competitive region, other environmental and economic factors make it difficult to predict the scope and pace of change. Near-term variability in the physical environment exposes mariners and communities to unpredictable levels of risk. As the region attracts increasing attention from both partner and competitor states, America’s economic and security interests will become even more closely tied to the Arctic. Each development is significant on its own, but in combination, these trends create a new risk landscape for the Nation and the Coast Guard. This updated strategic outlook reflects a recognition of these realities and outlines the Service’s lines of effort to succeed in the new Arctic.

Arctic Region Background Information:

 The United States is an Arctic Nation, and as America’s maritime presence the Coast Guard maintains an enduring responsibility for the national security and economic prosperity of the Arctic.

China. While not an Arctic nation, China has made the Arctic a strategic priority, declaring themselves a “Near-Arctic State.”

Importance to U.S. 1,000,000 Square miles of U.S. Territorial Waters and Exclusive Economic Zone are in the Arctic. $3 Billion Economic impact of Alaska’s Arctic seafood industry. 90 Billion Barrels of undiscovered oil reserves in the Arctic and an estimated 30 percent of the world’s undiscovered natural gas. $1 Trillion Value of the Arctic’s rare earth minerals, such as zinc, nickel, and lead.

Russia.  Russia continues to invest heavily in military facilities, with 6 bases built since 2013.

Photo:  USCGC ICEBREAKER  MACKINAW (USCG)