arms control – USA Gov Policy

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its report on North Korean threats

Hwang Sunghee, writing in the authoritative Spacewars site notes that “A senior US defense official said last month that the North has developed the capability to pair a nuclear warhead with a missile and launch it.” According to the report, targeting appears to be the only remaining obstacle.

The danger posed by North Korea is magnified by the deep nuclear and technological relationship it possesses with Iran, and Pyongyang’s willingness to transfer its military assets to unsavory forces throughout the world.

North Korea has been under United Nations sanctions since 2006 because of its nuclear program. It has reneged on arrangements similar to those reached with Iran by the Obama Administration.

In May, Michael Elleman and Emily Werk noted this for the Arms Control Association:

“In January 2011, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates mused that “North Korea will have developed” an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) by 2016, with the caveat that the arsenal would be small with limited operational capability. Five years later, in 2016, there still is hope that the United States and its Asian allies can prevent North Korea from developing a nuclear-capable ICBM. Pyongyang, however, is not cooperating. North Korea conducted its fourth nuclear test in January, with Kim Jong Un boasting that it had exploded a hydrogen bomb. A month later, it successfully lofted a satellite into orbit using a large, long-range rocket. Then in March, North Korea unveiled a mock-up of a miniaturized nuclear bomb and performed two separate missile-related ground tests. The first test simulated the conditions a warhead would experience during re-entry into the atmosphere to evaluate the thermal protection technologies. The other was a stationary firing of a large, solid-fueled rocket motor.”

Last March, reports Bill Gertz in the Free beacon, “North Korea ..developed a new long-range mobile intercontinental ballistic … The new missile is called the KN-14 by the Pentagon…Rick Fisher, a senior fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center who has studied the two missiles’ Chinese launchers, said Russia has estimated the KN-14 could have a range between 5,000 and 6,200 miles.

Severe pain, sometimes unexplained pain in the free prescription for levitra joint is accompanied by some other unexplained symptoms. The most viagra effects women popular medical treatment for erectile dysfunction to relief people from erectile dysfunction. even certain research is been carried out which clearly states that out of 29 men, 8 men were said to have a harder erection. Thus it doesn’t affect cheapest generic viagra browse content your budget ad also let you have more energy, slim down, in addition to eradicate health conditions. Solution for busy persons In these days, the majority in the men and women are living a busy life, juggling work, children, maybe even grandchildren, taking care of children, while allowing their partner to go out for work. cialis order online deeprootsmag.org According to a Washington Times article by former CIA chief James Woolsey James Woolsey, former and Peter Vincent Pry executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security, “The public is being misled by the White House, some so-called ‘experts’ and mainstream media casting doubt” on the extent of the North Korean threat.

Woolsey and Pry report that “defense and intelligence community officials warn North Korea probably already has nuclear armed missiles. The Defense Department’s 2016 report “Military and Security Developments Involving the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea” warns that, in addition to medium-range missiles, they have six KN-08 mobile nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) that can strike the U.S. mainland.Recently, the Pentagon warned North Korea rolled out a new longer-range ICBM, the KN-14, that can probably deliver a nuclear warhead to Chicago.

The refusal by the Obama Administration and others to acknowledge the extraordinary danger posed by North Korea has many deeply concerned. Joshua Pollack, writing in Arms Control Wonk writes: “If there’s one thing in the public discussion of proliferation that troubles me the most, it might be this: the systematic minimization of North Korea’s nuclear and missile capabilities in the American news media…News reports persistently describe North Korea’s three-stage space launcher, the Taepodong-2 (TD-2), as capable of delivering a reasonably sized warhead to Alaska or maybe to the western continental United States. But at least if we go by the official, unclassified, publicly released estimate of the U.S. government, that’s wrong! The TD-2 can range all of the USA, from sea to shining sea. Here it is in black-and-white from the National Intelligence Council’s September 1999 paper, ‘Foreign Missile Developments and the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States Through 2015:’‘A two-stage Taepo Dong-2 could deliver a several-hundred kilogram payload to Alaska and Hawaii, and a lighter payload to the western half of the United States. A three-stage Taepo Dong-2 could deliver a several-hundred kilogram payload anywhere in the United States.”

An electromagnetic pulse unleashed by even a single nuclear explosion could permanently disable all electrical and computer systems within a very wide area. The danger is clear: just one or two North Korean nuclear weapons detonated over the midsection of the United States could send America back to the 1800’s, incapacitating the nation’s infrastructure with the resulting death of the majority of the population through lack of food, water, medicine, and transportation.

A Federalist review of that issue outlined the challenge:

“Many people complacently ignore the threats posed by the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK]…What kind of an attack could Kim hurl at us? One that could kill between 75 percent and 90 percent of our population, relegating Americans to endangered society status and transporting those surviving back in time to the mid-1800s—if we’re lucky…We are all deeply concerned about the horrendous potential for Kim Jong Un to use just one device—one which poses a threat far more devastating than a full-on Russian nuclear attack…the DPRK isn’t interested in making several of our cities glow. They want to take us out “all at once.” After the January test came this from North Korea’s news service, KCNA: “The scientists and technicians of the DPRK are in high spirit to detonate H-bombs of hundreds of Kt (kiloton) and Mt (megaton) level capable of wiping out the whole territory of the U.S. all at once…”

According to reports in the Daily Mail, President-elect Trump has requested a special classified intelligence briefing on the issue.

In the aftermath of the New Start Treaty with Russia agreed to by President Obama, the United States for the first time in history, assumed a position of nuclear inferiority.

The numbers are clear. As noted by the Arms Control Association, Russia has 7,700 warheads to America’s 7,100. Russian sources, however, note that in one category, Moscow has an even greater lead. The Moscow Times reports that “By most estimates, the United States today deploys just between 200 and 300 tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, compared to Russia’s arsenal of between 2,000 and 3,000.”

The Kremlin’s commanding lead goes beyond mere numbers. While Russia has diligently modernized its nuclear arsenal, its U.S. counterpart is aged and deteriorating.

The Heritage Foundation notes:

“there is still an enormous disparity between U.S. efforts and those of Russia and China with respect to nuclear modernization, not to mention the difference between their force expansion and U.S. reductions in nuclear capability.

“The U.S. currently does not plan to replace the existing elements of the U.S. nuclear triad until they are 40–80 years of age. This is dangerous because a large part of the U.S. deterrent will reach this age within 15 years. It is also uncertain whether or not all elements of the existing force can survive this long and still be effective…Until 2021, there will be no procurement of modernized systems. This is clearly not the case in Russia, China, Iran, or North Korea. While the Obama Administration has apparently shifted its views about the Russian threat, the actual nuclear force modernization plans are essentially the same as those adopted in 2010–2011, a period in which the Obama Administration was in complete denial about the seriousness of the Russian nuclear threat… Moreover, planned U.S. modernization is distant and only partial.”

Generic medicine and branded drugs have similar side buy viagra cheapest effects. If a website doesn’t care about the viagra purchase uk privacy of its users, how can it be trusted? To counteract this effect (and bad reputation), make sure that a privacy statement is clearly defined when a newsletter signup form is present. This aphrodisiac is also well known for preventing numerous men from getting the medical attention order viagra viagra that they need. With homeopathy, all of the ingredients are diluted, so each india sildenafil ingredient in a homeopathic product has the letter “X” after it. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists outlines the specifics:

“Russia is modernizing its strategic and nonstrategic nuclear warheads. It currently has 4,500 nuclear warheads, of which roughly 1,780 strategic warheads are deployed on missiles and at bomber bases. Another 700 strategic warheads are in storage along with roughly 2,000 nonstrategic warheads. Russia deploys an estimated 311 ICBMs that can carry approximately 1,050 warheads. It is in the process of retiring all Soviet-era ICBMs and replacing them with new systems, a project that according to Moscow is about halfway complete. The outgoing ICBMs will be replaced by the SS-27 Mod. 1 (Topol-M), the SS-27 Mod. 2, two follow-on versions of the SS-27 which are still in development, and a new liquid-fuel “heavy” ICBM. Following technical problems, the Russian Navy is also rolling out its new Borey-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine. “

Compare Moscow’s modernization program with the dismal condition of the U.S. deterrent, described by American Progress: “Nearly every missile, submarine, aircraft, and warhead in the U.S. arsenal is nearing the end of its service life and must be replaced…these weapons systems are nearing retirement and must be replaced.”

A further complication has been caused by Moscow’s refusal to abide by long standing nuclear arms treaties, which Washington faithfully adheres to. Foreign Policy worries that: “Not only did Russia violate the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, signed by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987, it did so while negotiating with the Obama administration over New START, a 2010 arms reduction treaty. The White House was at best naïve to Russian duplicity; at worst it was complicit…The administration negotiated a new arms control treaty with the Russians before resolving the potential INF treaty violation. It is not clear why. Beyond that problem, cajoling the Russians to return to compliance with the INF treaty, even if possible, fails to get at the most important question: Why was Russia developing an INF treaty-prohibited nuclear weapon at the same time it was negotiating a new strategic nuclear arms treaty with the United States in 2009 and 2010? What did the Kremlin hope to gain militarily or strategically? …The Russian deception of negotiating a nuclear arms.”

The National Institute for Public Policy is concerned that, beyond numbers and modernization, an additional threat exists. Unlike other nations, Russian military doctrine does not shy away from the use of atomic weaponry.

“While western leaders, particularly in the United States and United Kingdom continue to advocate policies supporting the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons, Russia’s nuclear posture appears to be heading in the opposite direction…Russian military and civilian leaders increasingly brandish nuclear threats and declare nuclear weapons to be of growing importance to the Russian Federation. Moreover, despite a roughly 80% drop in the number of U.S. nuclear weapons and a cut of more than one-third in the U.K. nuclear stockpile since the end of the Cold War, Russia has made nuclear weapons the centerpiece of its military modernization program…Russia’s military doctrine places primacy on nuclear forces, including sanctioning their use preemptively against conventional threats…”

Quick Analysis

Green Energy Gluttony- The World is Stuck on Stupid!

According to energy experts, dispatchable generation refers to power sources that can be adjusted on demand by grid operators to match supply with electricity demand. Examples of dispatchable generation include coal-fired plants, natural gas plants, and large hydroelectric plants (all of which have targets on their back) that can quickly ramp up or down depending on the grid’s needs. Dispatchable power is the capacity of these generation resources to provide reliable electricity when needed. It plays a fundamental role in grid stability by ensuring that fluctuations in demand can be met in real-time, which is critical in maintaining uninterrupted power supply and avoiding outages. Unfortunately, for those people who want us to rely on solar and wind for all our energy needs, neither of these renewable sources are dispatchable with respect to generation or the ability to meet our needs 24/7. This has to do with the completely intermittent and unreliable power generation from wind. And the fact that solar generation during the day doesn’t meet the peak demand that occurs in the evening hour. But that is only half of the story. The LA Times recently acknowledged that the increasing oversupply (read that overkill!) of solar power in CA has created a situation where energy traders can buy our excess solar power at prices so low they become negative. What does that mean? We, read that consumers, must pay other states to take the excess energy off our hands lest it overload the grid. Either that, or the solar farms must be shut down completely (they call that “curtailment”), except in those cases when solar farm operators can count on federal subsidies ($54 million in 2023) that pay out handsomely even when the energy is not needed. Consider the following. We used tax breaks, low interest loans, mandates, and incentives of various kinds to get all this solar built and now we are paying other states to take the electricity off our hands at CA rate payer expense. Meanwhile, even more solar is being built. These are a few of the reasons that the CA Public Utility Commission slashed financial incentives for roof top solar. The LA Times reports that the State of New Mexico saved $35 million in 2022, at our expense, by taking our excess solar power. Arizona has a 24-hour trading floor looking to buy cheap or negatively priced solar power from CA- that is how much power and money we are wasting while in our zeal we seek to eliminate dispatchable sources of electricity generation. Zealots, like local supervisor Das Williams, will tell you that building industrial-scale battery plants can solve this problem. But, as the Times reports, most industrial-sized batteries can only store power for four hours (not even enough to get us through the night). In addition, battery storage effectively doubles the cost of solar. In Britain, this same phenomenon is occurring with respect to wind power. According to The Telegraph, British bill payers have spent an “absurd” £1bn (equivalent to $1.2 billion American) so far this year to temporarily switch off wind turbines as the grid struggles to cope with their excess power. Sweden’s wind energy sector is also crashing financially. In Germany, after they closed all their nuclear plants, the wind quit blowing! What to do? According to NPR, at least 20 coal-fired power plants nationwide are being resurrected or extended past their closing dates to ensure Germany has enough energy to get through the winter. Additionally, as the AP reports, Germany risks “deindustrialization” as high energy costs and government inaction on other chronic problems threaten to send new factories and high-paying jobs elsewhere. For instance, Volkswagen is projected to close three factories and lay off 10,000 workers due to electricity costs, EV mandates, and the inability to compete with Chinese EV imports. Unfortunately, here in the echo chamber we call home, our green virtue-signaling leaders believe that we can never have enough solar and wind, making us consumers gluttons for high electricity bills. The real problem, they believe, are the remaining few sources of dispatchable energy, e.g. natural gas, which they are trying to eliminate. The elimination of this vital dispatchable and ubiquitous clean energy source comes by way of prohibiting both production and consumption. Yet, natural gas is one of the only things propping up the green energy facade, while giving consumers an affordable alternative to wind and solar generated electricity. And don’t get me started about CA’s shutdown of oil production which is leading to the closure of our gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuel refineries which is going to cause a similar energy death spiral with respect to our transportation sector. Andy Caldwell is the Executive Director of COLAB Santa Barbara County Photo: Pixabay