Roberto Abraham Scaruffi

Tuesday 29 September 2015

The European Union Times


Posted: 28 Sep 2015 04:38 AM PDT

US Republican presidential candidate Ben S. Carson is playing the “Chinese aggression” card, claiming that Beijing is dreaming to overtake the US as the global hegemon and US leadership should deal with the Chinese with the gloves off, the politician insists.
US Republican presidential candidate Ben S. Carson is beating the war drum over Beijing’s unwillingness to bow before Washington: the politician claims that the US should toughen up with China, holding it “accountable” when it “misbehaves” and coercing it into submission.
“Six and a half years into the Obama presidency, Americans rightfully feel enormous angst about the rise of China. Having rocketed to the status of the world’s largest economy by purchasing power parity (America remains the largest by absolute size), China is actively challenging the US-led order in Asia,” the Republican presidential candidate wrote in his article for the National Interest.
Carson groundlessly accused China of intimidating its neighbors, launching cyber-attacks against US government entities, stealing American intellectual property, and “creating havoc in world stock indices with its ham-handed financial interventions.”
Needless to say, the Republican presidential candidate did not bother to present any credible evidence to confirm these controversial allegations.
Carson lambasted Obama’s “ineffective” and “inconsistent” foreign policies toward China, stressing that Beijing “remains undeterred.”
In his turn, the presidential candidate offered what he called “real solutions” and “better policies.”
Remarkably, “better policies” include the US buildup in the Asia Pacific region, re-establishment of the American military presence in the Philippines, the deployment of US Marines to Australia and military support to Japan.
Furthermore, Carson called for increasing military cooperation with America’s allies and China’s neighbors, such as Australia, Japan, South Korea, India, the Philippines and Vietnam.
On the other hand, the presidential candidate proposed to “challenge China’s outlandish territorial claims”:
“This includes sailing or flying by China’s artificial islands in the South China Sea with US military aircraft or vessels to make clear that America does not recognize the islands’ legitimacy under international law,” Carson elaborated.
The question remains open whether such policies could be considered “real solutions” aimed at ensuring peace and stability in the region. The measures proposed by Carson threaten to turn the Asia Pacific into a hornet’s nest.
Claiming that China is responsible for repeated hacking attacks against US government entities, Carson called for imposing harsh economic penalties against Chinese firms involved in cyber-attacks and “retaliation” against Beijing for purported “cyber espionage.”
The Republican presidential candidate is not the only American policymaker who has used the “China aggression” card. US politicians and thought leaders openly demonstrate unwillingness to treat Beijing as an equal partner. Some of them even go so far as to claim that Washington should deal with Beijing from a position of strength, not parity.
Blaming Beijing for “intimidating” its neighbors, US policymakers remain silent about Washington’s own coercive foreign policy toward both its potential rivals and longstanding allies.
Experts point out that Sino-American relations have deteriorated sharply, wondering why Washington and the American hawkish political elite are teasing the Dragon.
By humiliating China, Washington is cutting its own throat, US academic James Petras noted in one of his latest articles, pointing to the fact that the two countries are economically interconnected and a sanctions policy against Beijing would inevitably backfire at Washington.
Source
        
Posted: 28 Sep 2015 04:08 AM PDT

During the 1950s, academician Andrei Sakharov offered Nikita Khrushchev to deploy tens of super powerful nuclear warheads along US maritime borders. According to Sakharov, the USSR would have been able to keep an eye on the ball without getting involved in the arms race. However, Khrushchev did not listen. Nowadays, this idea attracts attention again.
The Washington Free Beacon has recently published an article by Bill Hertz on the subject of a hypothetical Russian unmanned nuclear submarine: “Russia Building Nuclear-Armed Drone Submarine.”
Let’s go back to the beginning of the nuclear era and see what projects of nuclear weapons existed at the time.
The Germans were working hard to build a nuclear bomb, or rather, admitted the possibility of its creation. Yet, according to German scientists, a nuclear bomb would have to be built on a vessel because of its size. How could such a ship cross the Atlantic?
In the era of the Cold War, the Soviet Union developed the project of a super powerful nuclear torpedo almost 1.5 meters in diameter. The torpedo could destroy any port city or any naval base of the USA. Yet, the torpedo would have to be carried on board a submarine, although it was easier to mount such a warhead on a missile. As a result, both the USSR, the USA and then other countries developed underwater missile cruisers. The power of such warheads was limited to their size, whereas the size of missiles was limited to the size of submarines. What was the way out?
People tried to make a bomb, the explosive power of which would be unlimited. The first test of a hydrogen bomb was conducted by the United States on February 1, 1952 on the island of Elugela, Eniwetok Atoll in the Pacific Ocean. The three-storey structure was named Mike, and it was completely non-transportable. The explosion surpassed all expectations: its strength was equal to 10 million tons of TNT.
Unmanned nuclear submarines to trigger giant tsunami waves along US coasts
Shortly after the test, academician Sakharov offered Nikita Khrushchev to deploy tens of super powerful nuclear warheads with the capacity from 200 or 500 megatons along the US maritime borders. According to him, it would have been enough to push the button to explode them all near the US. The explosions would have also triggered massive tsunami waves to wash away US coastal areas into the ocean. Khrushchev refused from the offer.
Nowadays, there are reports from Western publications saying that Russian scientists are supposedly revisiting the idea. No one knows yet, whether such reports are based on factual data or plain rumors. There is no agreement that would outlaw the creation of unmanned submarines, Nor is there an agreement on the limitation of the power of nuclear weapons.
Such a submarine should be a robotic submarine capable of traveling under the water at a large depth, escape from enemy vessels and maintain combat readiness for years.
The hull of an unmanned submarine should be made of titanium. The material would ensure a diving depth of more than 1,000 meters (this depth is a guarantee of almost total invulnerability and stealth for a nuclear submarine).
The biological protection of the reactor on board an unmanned submarine can be decreased considerably. The construction will thus be lighter, whereas the warhead will be more powerful. The size of the submarine will be smaller (in comparison with manned submarines), and the walls of its hull can be thicker, thus increasing the immersion depth from 1,000 to 3,000 meters.
An unmanned submarine would thus be able to approach the coast of the United States in strategic areas and rest on the bottom of the seafloor awaiting orders. An order via deep-sea communication system will cause their simultaneous explosion and trigger giant tsunami waves along the coast.
Source
        
Posted: 28 Sep 2015 03:39 AM PDT


Prior to a meeting with Obama this week Russian President Vladimir Putin told Charlie Rose of CBS’ 60 Minutes the U.S. effort to fund, train and support jihadist rebels in Syria violates international law.
“In my opinion, provision of military support to illegal structures runs counter to the principles of modern international law and the United Nations Charter,” Putin said.
“In reality, Assad’s army is fighting against terrorist organizations,” he added.
Virtually all of the rebels in Syria have sworn allegiance to ISIS and other jihadist groups and there is not “a secular fighting force to speak of,” The New York Times reported in 2013.
Putin said the Russian response in Syria is legal and appropriate under international law.
“We act based on the United Nations Charter, i.e. the fundamental principles of modern international law, according to which this or that type of aid, including military assistance, can and must be provided exclusively to the legitimate government of one country or another, upon its consent or request, or upon the decision of the United Nations Security Council,” Putin said.
The Russian president called for an international coalition to fight ISIS in Syria.
“We have proposed cooperation to the countries in the region, we are trying to establish some kind of coordination framework,” Putin said.
“We would welcome a common platform for collective action against the terrorists,” he said.
Establishment Media: Russian Effort Amounts to Bread and Circuses
On Saturday The New York Times dismissed Putin’s effort as political theater designed to “shore up his ability to single-handedly dominate Russia, as he has for much of the past 15 years.”
The Russian effort to help the government of al-Assad fight against U.S. and Gulf Emirate funded and trained terrorism is merely a “bread and circus” stunt intended to distract Russians from the conflict in Ukraine, according to Maxim Trudolyubov, the editor at large of the newspaper Vedomosti, a Russian language business daily.
The newspaper is a joint venture between Dow Jones and the Financial Times.
Earlier this month an op-ed published by The New York Times called for a no-fly zone in Syria to prevent the Syrian military from responding to ISIS and other jihadi groups.
“The least bad option today is to create a no-fly zone in the south of Syria. This could be done on a shoestring, enforced by U.S. Navy ships in the Mediterranean firing missiles, without ground troops,” writes Nicholas Kristof.
“That would end barrel bombings. Just as important, the no-fly zone would create leverage to pressure the Syrian regime — and its Russian and Iranian backers — to negotiate.”
Source
        
Posted: 28 Sep 2015 03:09 AM PDT

US House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner’s sudden resignation under intense pressure has set off a leadership battle in Congress that may be critical for Republican lawmakers.
The Republican from Ohio told colleagues in a closed-door gathering Friday that he would leave at the end of October, sending shockwaves through Capitol Hill.
Even as Boehner’s colleagues were still absorbing the news, the speculation over who would succeed him had already begun.
The resignation of Boehner, who has served as speaker of the House since 2011, creates an opening for the more conservative wing of the House caucus.
One person who is naturally next in line is House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a US representative for California’s 23rd District.
But McCarthy is expected to face a challenge for the speakership, though it’s unclear how serious that fight will be.
During his press conference Friday afternoon, Boehner effectively endorsed McCarthy.
“I am not going to be here to vote on the next Speaker. But that’s up to the next members. But having said that, I think that Kevin McCarthy would make an excellent Speaker,” Boehner said.
The speaker of the House is second in the US presidential line of succession, after the vice president.
Boehner, 65, has long faced intense pressure from his conservative colleagues to take a tougher stance against Democrats on divisive issues like Obamacare and defunding Planned Parenthood.
Boehner presented his decision to resign as a way to spare Congress a fresh round of Republican infighting and prevent another government shutdown.
Planned Parenthood provides reproductive health as well as maternal and child health services. The organization has been under fire over allegations that it has improperly used fetal tissue from abortions.
Conservatives demand Congress must punish Planned Parenthood over the abortion controversy by denying it federal funding. The brinksmanship has prevented lawmakers from passing a budget for the 2016 fiscal year.
Source
        
Posted: 28 Sep 2015 02:29 AM PDT
Fighters from Al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate Al-Nusra Front drive in the northern Syrian city of Aleppo.
A spokesman for the Pentagon has confirmed that Syrian rebel fighters trained by the United States provided ammunition and equipment to an al-Qaeda-linked group.
Syrian rebel fighters trained by the United States provided ammunition and equipment to an al-Qaeda-linked group this week, a spokesman for the Pentagon has confirmed.
The US Central Command (CENTCOM) said on Wednesday around 70 participants of the US train-and-equip program returned to Syria from a training camp in Turkey over the weekend. The group that operates as the New Syrian Force (NSF) was later thought to have defected to the Nusra Front.
“Today the NSF unit contacted Coalition representatives and informed us that on Sept. 21-22 they gave six pick-up trucks and a portion of their ammunition to a suspected Nusra Front intermediary,” Navy Capt. Jeff Davis said as quoted by The Blaze.
Refuting the initial claims of defections among NSF fighters on Thursday, Davis previously said all coalition-issued weapons and equipment were “under the positive control” of the NSF.
Accounts allegedly associated with the Nusra Front tweeted photographs of US-made rifles on Wednesday. It was claimed the rifles belonged to the NSF.
First reports of so-called moderate Syrian fighters, which were trained to fight militant groups like the Nusra Front and the notorious ISIL jihadist group, claimed the NSF had given up arms in exchange for safe passage.
Davis said the Pentagon believed the reports that NSF fighters gave up weapons to the Nusra Front were false at the time and that the published photograph was an old “repurposed” image.
Earlier this month, the Pentagon admitted that only five out of the over 5,000 fighters trained in the $500-million US program were actually fighting on the ground. The figure was later revised to nine.
Source
        
Posted by Roberto Abraham Scaruffi at 08:49