you may notice first the 339 Issue in the Longitude coordinate
how you should build the system of refference in this story
extremely solid and calibrated
use first my fathers birthday
23rd of November 1917
and Virgin Mary 1985 on August 15th 1985 as start of time
all of this in combination with
and intermediate steps 100 and 339
this year my father would have been 100
the title of this article
from start to end of time on March 3rd 2018 after 11888 days
3 3 9 9
3 3 9+9
there are exactly 100 days from my father 100 years anniversary birthday
so the system of refference is locked now and solid
I also spent exactly 339 nights without sleeping in a bed
check out of HOTEL on December 20th 2016
xhecked in on November 24th 2017
and the 339 document that started the penalties
because greeks put me in a mental institution
simply 17 hours only super record after I published it
Magnitude Mw 6.5
Region CENTRAL MID-ATLANTIC RIDGE
Date time 2017-11-30 06:32:50.6 UTC
Location 1.06 S ; 23.39 W
Depth 10 km
1544 km SW of Freetown, Sierra Leone / pop: 803,000 / local time: 06:32:50.6 2017-11-30
1591 km SW of Conakry, Guinea / pop: 1,768,000 / local time: 06:32:50.6 2017-11-30
1619 km SW of Monrovia, Liberia / pop: 940,000 / local time: 06:32:50.6 2017-11-30
Tonight I want to have an unpleasant talk with you about a problem that is unprecedented in our history. With the exception of preventing war, this is the greatest challenge that our country will face during our lifetime.
The energy crisis has not yet overwhelmed us, but it will if we do not act quickly. It's a problem that we will not be able to solve in the next few years, and it's likely to get progressively worse through the rest of this century.
We must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our children and our grandchildren. We simply must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources. By acting now we can control our future instead of letting the future control us.
Two days from now, I will present to the Congress my energy proposals.. Its Members will be my partners, and they have already given me a great deal of valuable advice.
Many of these proposals will be unpopular. Some will cause you to put up with inconveniences and to make sacrifices. The most important thing about these proposals is that the alternative may be a national catastrophe. Further delay can affect our strength and our power as a nation.
Our decision about energy will test the character of the American people and the ability of the President and the Congress to govern this Nation. This difficult effort will be the "moral equivalent of war," except that we will be uniting our efforts to build and not to destroy.
Now, I know that some of you may doubt that we face real energy shortages. The 1973 gas lines are gone, and with this springtime weather, our homes are warm again. But our energy problem is worse tonight than it was in 1973 or a few weeks ago in the dead of winter. It's worse because more waste has occurred and more time has passed by without our planning for the future. And it will get worse every day until we act.
The oil and natural gas that we rely on for 75 percent of our energy are simply running out. In spite of increased effort, domestic production has been dropping steadily at about 6 percent a year. Imports have doubled in the last 5 years. Our Nation's economic and political independence is becoming increasingly vulnerable. Unless profound changes are made to lower oil consumption, we now believe that early in the 1980's the world will be demanding more oil than it can produce.
The world now uses about 60 million barrels of oil a day, and demand increases each year about 5 percent. This means that just to stay even we need the production of a new Texas every year, an Alaskan North Slope every 9 months, or a new Saudi Arabia every 3 years. Obviously, this cannot continue.
We must look back into history to understand our energy problem. Twice in the last several hundred years, there has been a transition in the way people use energy.
The first was about 200 years ago, when we changed away from wood--which had provided about 90 percent of all fuel--to coal, which was much more efficient. This change became the basis of the Industrial Revolution.
The second change took. place in this century, with the growing use of oil and natural gas. They were more convenient and cheaper than coal, and the supply seemed to be almost without limit. They made possible the age of automobile and airplane travel. Nearly everyone who is alive today grew up during this period, and we have never known anything different.
Because we are now running out of gas and oil, we must prepare quickly for a third change--to strict conservation and to the renewed use of coal and to permanent renewable energy sources like solar power.
The world has not prepared for the future. During the 1950's, people used twice as much oil as during the 1940's. During the 1960's, we used twice as much as during the 1950's. And in each of those decades, more oil was consumed than in all of man's previous history combined.
World consumption of oil is still going up. If it were possible to keep it rising during the 1970's and 1980's by 5 percent a year, as it has in the past, we could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade.
I know that many of you have suspected that some supplies of oil and gas are being withheld from the market. You may be right, but suspicions about the oil companies cannot change the fact that we are running out of petroleum.
All of us have heard about the large oil fields on Alaska's North Slope. In a few years, when the North Slope is producing fully, its total output will be just about equal to 2 years' increase in our own Nation's energy demand.
Each new inventory of world oil reserves has been more disturbing than the last. World oil production can probably keep going up for another 6 or 8 years. But sometime in the 1980's, it can't go up any more. Demand will overtake production. We have no choice about that.
But we do have a choice about how we will spend the next few years. Each American uses the energy equivalent of 60 barrels of oil per person each year. Ours is the most wasteful nation on Earth. We waste more energy than we import. With about the same standard of living, we use twice as much energy per person as do other countries like Germany, Japan, and Sweden.
One choice, of course, is to continue doing what we've been doing before. We can drift along for a few more years.
Our consumption of oil would keep going up every year. Our cars would continue to be too large and inefficient. Three-quarters of them would carry only one person--the driver--while our public transportation system continues to decline. We can delay insulating our homes, and they will continue to lose about 50 percent of their heat in waste. We can continue using scarce oil and natural gas to generate electricity and continue wasting two-thirds of their fuel value in the process.
If we do not act, then by 1985 we will be using 33 percent more energy than we use today.
We can't substantially increase our domestic production, so we would need to import twice as much oil as we do now. Supplies will be uncertain. The cost will keep going up. Six years ago, we paid $3.7 billion for imported oil. Last year we spent $36 billion for imported oil--nearly 10 times as much. And this year we may spend $45 billion.
Unless we act, we will spend more than $550 billion for imported oil by 1985--more than $2,500 for every man, woman, and child in America. Along with that money that we transport overseas, we will continue losing American jobs and become increasingly vulnerable to supply interruptions.
Now we have a choice. But if we wait, we will constantly live in fear of embargoes. We could endanger our freedom as a sovereign nation to act in foreign affairs. Within 10 years, we would not be able to import enough oil from any country, at any acceptable price.
If we wait and do not act, then our factories will not be able to keep our people on the job with reduced supplies of fuel.
Too few of our utility companies will have switched to coal, which is our most abundant energy source. We will not be ready to keep our transportation system running with smaller and more efficient cars and a better network of buses, trains, and public transportation.
We will feel mounting pressure to plunder the environment. We will have to have a crash program to build more nuclear plants, strip mine and bum more coal, and drill more offshore wells than if we begin to conserve right now.
Inflation will soar; production will go down; people will lose their jobs. Intense competition for oil will build up among nations and also among the different regions within our own country. This has already started.
If we fail to act soon, we will face an economic, social, and political crisis that will threaten our free institutions. But we still have another choice. We can begin to prepare right now. We can decide to act while there is still time. That is the concept of the energy policy that we will present on Wednesday.
Our national energy plan is based on 10 fundamental principles. The first principle is that we can have an effective and comprehensive energy policy only if the Government takes responsibility for it and if the people understand the seriousness of the challenge and are willing to make sacrifices.
The second principle is that healthy economic growth must continue. Only by saving energy can we maintain our standard of living and keep our people at work. An effective conservation program will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.
The third principle is that we must protect the environment. Our energy problems have the same cause as our environmental problems-wasteful use of resources. Conservation helps us solve both problems at once.
The fourth principle is that we must reduce our vulnerability to potentially devastating embargoes. We can protect ourselves from uncertain supplies by reducing our demand for oil, by making the most of our abundant resources such as coal, and by developing a strategic petroleum reserve.
The fifth principle is that we must be fair. Our solutions must ask equal sacrifices from every region, every class of people, and every interest group. Industry will have to do its part to conserve just as consumers will. The energy. producers deserve fair treatment, but we will not let the oil companies profiteer.
The sixth principle, and the cornerstone of our policy, is to reduce demand through conservation. Our emphasis on conservation is a clear difference between this plan and others which merely encouraged crash production efforts. Conservation is the quickest, cheapest, most practical source of energy. Conservation is the only way that we can buy a barrel of oil for about $2. It costs about $13 to waste it.
The seventh principle is that prices should generally reflect the true replacement cost of energy. We are only cheating ourselves if we make energy artificially cheap and use more than we can really afford.
The eighth principle is that Government policies must be predictable and certain. Both consumers and producers need policies they can count on so they can plan ahead. This is one reason that I'm working with the Congress to create a new Department of Energy to replace more than 50 different agencies that now have some control over energy.
The ninth principle is that we must conserve the fuels that are scarcest and make the most of those that are plentiful. We can't continue to use oil and gas for 75 percent of our consumption, as we do now, when they only make up 7 percent of our domestic reserves. We need to shift to plentiful coal, while taking care to protect the environment, and to apply stricter safety standards to nuclear energy.
The tenth and last principle is that we must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy that we will rely on in the next century.
Now, these 10 principles have guided the development of the policy that I will describe to you and the Congress on Wednesday night.
Our energy plan will also include a number of specific goals to measure our progress toward a stable energy system. These are the goals that we set for 1985:
--to reduce the annual growth rate in our energy demand to less than 2 percent;
--to reduce gasoline consumption by 10 percent below its. current level;
--to cut in half the portion of U.S. oil which is imported--from a potential level of 16 million barrels to 6 million barrels a day;
--to establish a strategic petroleum reserve of one billion barrels, more than a 6-months supply;
--to increase our coal production by about two-thirds to more than one billion tons a year;
--to insulate 90 percent of American homes and all new buildings;
--to use solar energy in more than 2 1/2 million houses.
We will monitor our progress toward these goals year by year. Our plan will call for strict conservation measures if we fall behind. I can't tell you that these measures will be easy, nor will they be popular. But I think most of you realize that a policy which does not ask for changes or sacrifices would not be an effective policy at this late date.
This plan is essential to protect our jobs, our environment, our standard of living, and our future. Whether this plan truly makes a difference will not be decided now here in Washington but in every town and every factory, in every home and on every highway and every farm.
I believe that this can be a positive challenge. There is something especially American in the kinds of changes that we have to make. We've always been proud, through our history, of being efficient people. We've always been proud of our ingenuity, our skill at answering questions. Now we need efficiency and ingenuity more than ever.
We've always been proud of our leadership in the world. And now we have a chance again to give the world a positive example.
We've always been proud of our vision of the future. We've always wanted to give our children and our grandchildren a world richer in possibilities than we have had ourselves. They are the ones that we must provide for now. They are the ones who will suffer most if we don't act.
I've given you some of the principles of the plan. I'm sure that each of you will find something you don't like about the specifics of our proposal. It will demand that we make sacrifices and changes in every life. To some degree, the sacrifices will be painful--but so is any meaningful sacrifice. It will lead to some higher costs and to some greater inconvenience for everyone. But the sacrifices can be gradual, realistic, and they are necessary. Above all, they will be fair. No one will gain an unfair advantage through this plan. No one will be asked to bear an unfair burden.
We will monitor the accuracy of data from the oil and natural gas companies for the first time, so that we will always know their true production, supplies, reserves, and profits. Those citizens who insist on driving large, unnecessarily powerful cars must expect to pay more for that luxury.
We can be sure that all the special interest groups in the country will attack the part of this plan that affects them directly. They will say that sacrifice is fine as long as other people do it, but that their sacrifice is unreasonable or unfair or harmful to the country. If they succeed with this approach, then the burden on the ordinary citizen, who is not organized into an interest group, would be crushing.
There should be only one test for this program--whether it will help our country. Other generations of Americans have faced and mastered great challenges. I have faith that meeting this challenge will make our own lives even richer. If you will join me so that we can work together with patriotism and courage, we will again prove that our great Nation can lead the world into an age of peace, independence, and freedom.
Thank you very much, and good night.
Note: The President spoke at 8 p.m. from the Oval Office at the White House. His remarks were broadcast live on radio and television.Citation: Jimmy Carter: "Address to the Nation on Energy," April 18, 1977. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidenc...du/ws/?pid=7369
Once again, the Arab League woke up from its deep slumber on November 19th 2017. The League was in a deep paralyzing sleep despite the urgent need for its duties to deal and to solve the issues inflicting the Arab World such as the threat of terrorist groups, the Israeli brute oppression of Palestinian Arabs and the usurping of their farm land to build Israeli colonies, the starving siege against Gaza Strip Palestinians, the Saudi/Qatari conflict, and the Saudi aggression against Yemen; all are urgent crises within the Arab World in need of resolutions.
This urgent sudden new breath of life into the League was the result of a Saudi demand. The Saudis were struck with fear by a ballistic missile hitting the Saudi capital; Riyadh. The missile, expected to be the first of many to come, was fired by Houthi Yemeni forces as an expected self-defense reaction to the Saudi three years destructive bombardment of their country.
According to this Saudi request, the Arab Foreign Ministers in the League had totally ignored all the political and humanitarian problems spread all over the Arab World and had focused only on what they claimed to be an Iranian interference in the internal Arab affairs.
As accustomed by all the past meetings where the Arab League did not produce any real workable resolution to any problem, this meeting as well produced only a declaration openly condemning Iran and Hezbollah for what they claimed as the Iranian interference and threat to the Arab national security, demanding that Iran reconsider its foreign policies within the region, and threatening to resort to the United Nations.
Since its founding, the Arab League had never produced a decision that met the aspiration of the Arab World to resolve any issue in its issues. On the contrary, its decisions and declarations were always random and empty of real substance and unable to resolve any problem. Many of its decisions came out as obstacles to any possible solution to many of the Arab crisis starting with the Palestinian cause up to this very minute.
Rather than uniting the Arab World and to resolve its internal conflicts, the decisions of the Arab League were divisive, encouraged the aggression of some Arab countries against others, and punished other countries by revoking their membership in the League. Just to mention few examples, in 1990 when South and North Yemen united into Republic of Yemen with a unified parliament, the Arab League revoked its membership. The League had also revoked the membership of the Libyan Jamahiriya (republic) in 2011 demanding the government to secure peace when the American/Qatari armed terrorists spread havoc in the country under the guise of the Arab Spring. In the same year the League also revoked Syrian membership. Syria was one of the founding members of the League in 1945.
Many of the League’s decisions had devastating impact on the future of some Arab countries. These decisions gave false legality to some Arab leaders to wage wars against other Arab countries. Such decisions had isolated Syria and facilitated the seven-years terrorist war against the Syrian government that was faced with the most brutal terrorist attacks, yet it had defeated terror and stopped it from spreading into the region. Other decisions had also devastated Libya and turned it into a failing state impregnated with many terrorist groups. The League had also blessed what is called the Saudi coalition and its devastating war against Yemen murdering and starving besieged women and children.
Similar to what Israel has been doing to the Palestinians, Saudi Arabia and its mercenary coalition have waged war against Yemen since March 2016, and has murdered thousands of women and children and made other thousands refugees in their own country. This Saudi coalition is imposing a siege by land, air and sea causing humanitarian crisis with food and medical shortages.
Those gathered Arab foreign ministers should be ashamed of themselves when compared with the foreign -non-Arab- humanitarian organizations, who are exerting great efforts to alleviate the suffering of the Yemeni people and to lift the siege against them. Those Arab foreign ministers did not even spell one word about the Yemeni suffering and did not offer any mediation or any resolution to end this war and to resolve this conflict.
What these ministers are not aware of, or maybe they are trying to ignore, the fact that all the intra-Arab crises and wars are mere series in the Zionist Great Israel Project extending from Nile to Euphrates. This Zionist Project aims basically to divide the Arab World into small weak statelets and emptying the region from its local indigenous residents either through brutal genocides or ethnic cleansing and eviction to other countries.
Israel and the USA, and alas, with the full partnership of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain, as many evidences had proved, had created, armed, and financed terrorist groups (ISIS and its offshoots) into the terrorist Islamic Khalifate project to execute this Zionist project.
As the Arab League did not convene to defend the Palestinian Cause and to break the siege against the Gaza Strip, it did not convene either to form a united Arab military force to fight and defeat ISIS terrorist groups, who destroyed Syria, Iraq and threatened Lebanon, and who had slain their Arab brothers, raped their women and children, and sold them cheap in open slave markets. The League did not also convene when the Yemeni cities and civil infrastructures and civilians were continuously bombarded, starved, and died due to preventable diseases because of inhumane siege and lack of medical services.
When the terrorist Islamic Caliphate project failed and the Syrian, Iraqi, Hezbollah fighters supported by Iran and Russia were successful in defeating these terrorists and protected the whole region from the spread of terror, the Saudi-bribed Arab foreign ministers gathered in the League, instead of expressing gratitude, hastened to accuse Iran of threatening the regional security, and Hezbollah of terrorism. The governments of these ministers did not move one finger go fight ISIS but provided them with weapons, money and training facilities in their countries.
The Arab League was founded to unite and to strengthen the many Arab countries politically, economically and militarily to face foreign colonization, to free Palestine and to protect the region from the Zionist Greater Israel Project. Yet, alas, the League was turned into a stumbling block against any unifying regional economic project after its decisions were highjacked and controlled by the “Zionized” Saudi oil money. Instead of spending the trillions of oil money to strengthen the regional economy the Saudi family had spent, and still spending, trillions of dollars buying many tons of weapons from Britain, France and the US (the traditional foes of the Middle East) strengthening foreign economies, and using these weapons either to fight their Arab brothers or to store them in the desert until they rust and become obsolete.
Many Arab politicians and factions within the resistance axis rejected the League’s declaration and considered its accusation of alleged Iranian interference and violation of the regional security, and the accusation of Hezbollah of terrorism and of highjacking Lebanese foreign policy, an aggressive declaration against the whole Arab World. This declaration clearly exhibits the Saudi hegemony over the decisions and policies of the Arab League, that has become subservient to the demands of the Zionist World Order, who considers Iran and Hezbollah a real obstacle against the accomplishment of the Zionist Project.
Hezbollah is an integral core part of the Lebanese population. It is the only Arab force that inflicted defeats against the alleged undefeated Israeli army. Hezbollah was able to regain Lebanese sovereignty and independence when it kicked in 2000 the Israeli forces dragging their tails out of Lebanon. It also defeated and stopped the 2006 Israeli invasion attempt of south Lebanon destroying its many tanks and sending its rockets into the major Israeli towns. It is now serving as a strong military deterrent against any possible future further Israeli attack against Lebanon.
Hezbollah has been the only Arab force, who joined the Syrian army in the fight against ISIS until victory was achieved, while the rest of Arab armies slept cowardly in their own safe bunkers, while their Arab leaders offered training facilities and arms to the terrorist groups. Hezbollah had protected Lebanon first, Syria second, and the rest of the region third from ISIS when its leaders wisely discarded the self-defeating neutrality policy and rose to help and to rescue their Arab brothers and to protect the national security. Instead of offering thanks the Arab League joined the American Administration in calling Hezbollah a terrorist group.
Hezbollah’s victories against ISIS and deterrent against Israeli aggression, and the victories of the Syrian and Iraqi forces in defeating ISIS preserving the security of their countries and the security of the whole region would not have been accomplished without the help and the support of Iran, who provided its own intelligence and necessary military advice to defeat ISIS. We should also mention the role Russia had contributed in saving the region from ISIS and its offshoots.
Despite all this success the Arab League Secretariat; Ahmed Aboul Gheit, had the audacity to boldly accuse Iran of meddling in the Arab internal affairs and to declare what could be translated as “the missiles the Houthi Yemeni use to target Saudi Arabia are Iranian made …. Providing such missiles to the Houthis Iran is sending a message that ALL Arab capitals are within the Iranian firing range”he claimed.
Saudi Arabia is seeking to instigate political chaos in the region as a first step towards waging war against Iran with the help of Arab Gulf States and paid mercenary forces, under the protection of American military bases in the Gulf, to execute another phase in the Zionist Project aiming to control the strategic Red Sea entrances.
According to an agreement with Egypt, Saudi Arabia acquired the ownership of the Tiran and Sanafir Islands at the northern entrance of the Red Sea from the Gulf of Aqaba. As a result of its aggression against Yemen the Saudis are aiming to acquire control of the strategic Perim Island at the tip of the Bab al-Mandab Strait to control the southern exit of the Red Sea into the Gulf of Aden leading to the Indian Ocean. This also includes the usurpation of Yemeni rich oil and natural resources.
The long term real and covert goal of all these Zionized Saudi games is the liquidation and termination of the Palestinian cause; the core existential cause of the Arab World, and the destruction of the Arab resistance axis and to normalize Arab Israeli relations in what has been dubbed the American “deal of the century”. This deal is a planned temporary short-term new phase in the Zionist Project whose goals are first to broker a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinian Authority with the mandate of Jordan and Egypt, and second to normalize Israeli Arab relationship that include what is called “moderate” Arab regimes; gulf States, Jordan and Egypt, as a first step to form an Arab/Israeli military alliance to oppose the “Iranian threat”.
In the first step Egypt will be granted control over the Gaza Strip, Jordan will extend its mandate over parts of the West Bank, while Israel would maintain all its illegal colonies and grant Palestinians under its control some type of Israeli residency. To accomplish this the PA president; Mahmud Abbas, was summoned to Saudi Arabia where Mohammad bin Salman applied financial stick-or-carrot pressure on him to accept the deal. American president Trump had also hinted that his administration might close the PLO office in Washington if Abbas does not sit again at the negotiating table with Israel.
Delusional are those who expect Palestinians, who had been struggling against the Zionist Project for the last hundred years, would accept such a peace treaty, or that the Islamic and Arab World would accept the stupid concept that the Islamic Republic of Iran rather than the terrorist Jewish Israel is the main threat to the Middle Eastern region especially after the fact that the Islamic Republic had contributed greatly to save the region from terrorist ISIS that had been created and armed by Israel.
It is true that there might be some slight differences between the Islamic Republic and some Arabic Gulf states. Yet these differences had been artificially created by some Arab leaders with the encouragement of the American administration. Such differences could be easily resolved through peaceful negotiations. The conflict between the Arabs as a whole nation, plus the Islamic Republic, with Israel and it colonial project in the region is an existential conflict in its core and is posing a threat to the countries of the whole region without any exception.
The American administration and Israel with some of their puppet Arab leaders are no longer the main players determining the fate of the Middle Eastern region. The Zionist Greater Israel Project could no longer be easily implemented as they had planned in the past. The Arab resistance axis (Palestinian factions, Syria, Iraq, Hezbollah, Yemen, and some south African Arab countries) against the Zionist Project has grown, and gained more political and military experience, and had achieved support from main global powers (Islamic Republic of Iran, Russia, and China to a certain extent) that equals or might be stronger than World Zionist Organization and its stooges of NATO and American administration.
Finally, we should extend our sincere thanks to Saudi crown prince; Mohammad bin Salman, who had turned the Saudi regime upside down and declared without any doubt the kingdom’s betrayal to the Arab core existential cause; the Palestinian cause, an action that would, definitely, awaken many of the entranced Arab nations. And as the saying goes: “some good may come out of evil acts.”
Dr. Elias Akleh is an Arab American from a Palestinian descent. His family was evicted from Haifa, Palestine, after the 1948 Nakba when the Zionists stole his family’s property. Then the family was evicted again from the West Bank during the 1967 Naksah, after the Zionist, again, occupied the rest of Palestine.
Why North Korea’s latest ballistic missile test is worrisome
By Julie VitkovskayaNovember 30 at 6:00 PMNorth Korea’s state-run television broadcasted footage on Nov. 30 of Kim Jong Un monitoring the launch of its "breakthrough" Hwasong-15 missile.(Reuters)
In this occasional series, we will bring you up to speed on the biggest national security stories of the week.
On Wednesday, North Korea launched an intercontinental ballistic missile that may be capable of reaching the U.S. mainland. The regime is calling it the Hwasong-15, which translates to “Mars” in Korean. North Korea’s state media marked the launch by showing video images of the missile blasting off, as a newscaster proclaimed that it could carry a “super large heavy warhead.”
The missile flew 10 times higher than the International Space Station and 500 miles higher than previous missile tests of its kind. It was in the air for about 50 minutes, flying eight minutes longer than previous tests before crashing into the Sea of Japan. Analysts say that its range was more than enough to reach the United States if the missile traveled on a flatter trajectory. In general, experts agreed that the launch was a significant step forward in North Korea’s missile development.
After the launch, President Trump called China’s President Xi Jinping and vowed to impose more sanctions on Pyongyang. Yet North Korea has defied all previous rounds of sanctions, conducting 20 missile tests this year alone. On Thursday, Trump criticized the Chinese envoy to North Korea as having “no impact on Little Rocket Man” and vowed to “take care of it.” Trump has previously threatened that North Korea will be met with “fire and fury like the world has never seen.” However, North Korea experts say that any military option would result in massive casualties.
What do we know about the launch?
The test was conducted just before 3 a.m. local time on a cold night just outside the capital, an unusual time since nighttime launches are rare. Previous tests have typically occurred between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. Shea Cotton, a research associate at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, said North Korea has favored mid-mornings because “they have a full day of sun to try and collect the pieces” if something goes wrong. However, no one knows for sure how North Korea makes its decisions. Analysts say another possibility could be that North Korea wanted to show how unpredictable it can be to rattle its neighbors.
– North Korea claims the transporter erector launcher — the vehicle used to move the missile — has one more axle than the previous version. Analysts believe they are modified Chinese trucks.
– The nose cone is much blunter than on previous versions, indicating that the missile was designed to slow as it flies and protect the warhead as it comes back down.
– The missiles likely carried a small payload, allowing it to fly farther. If outfitted with a more standard payload, the missile would “barely reach Seattle.”
– There were likely two additional engines that gave the missile a higher altitude.
Military, defense and security at home and abroad.
– North Korean analysts were surprised to see more advanced steering of the missile via gimbaling. “This is a sort of maneuvering which is pretty fancy. You lose the least thrust that way,” said Scott LaFoy, an imagery analyst for NK News.
What can the U.S. do about this?
The boost phase for an intercontinental ballistic missiles is about three to five minutes, allowing it to climb quickly. Missile defense systems are particularly vulnerable to its speed and the ability to travel long distances. An ICBM has a minimum range of 3,400 miles, but experts estimate that the Hwasong-15 had a maximum range of 8,100 miles. North Korea’s capital and Washington, D.C., are about 6,800 miles apart.
The United States has several options, but the main deterrent is the ground-based midcourse defense program. Trump has previously claimed that the system can knock out an ICBM “97 percent of the time” — but that’s not the case. In testing the system, the Pentagon concluded that it has only limited defense capabilities. Before it shot down a mock ICBM over the Pacific, the system failed seven times in 17 tests. It uses a five-foot-long “kill vehicle” to shoot down an incoming warhead.
The head of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency said the Pacific test proved that the system worked effectively under a “realistic” test. However, some experts have questioned the statement and pointed out that they are performed in a controlled environment.
Vladimir Putin says all big Russian businesses should be ready for war production
'Our army and navy need to have the very best equipment — better than foreign equivalents'
The Independent Online
Vladimir Putin and Syria's Assad study military plans in Sochi Kremlin
Russian business should be prepared to switch to production to military needs at any time, said Vladimir Putin on Wednesday. The Russian president was speaking at a conference of military leaders in Sochi.
“The ability of our economy to increase military production and services at a given time is one of the most important aspects of military security,” Mr Putin said. “To this end, all strategic, and simply large-scale enterprise should be ready, regardless of ownership.”
A day earlier, the president had spoken of a need to catch up and overtake the West in military technology. “Our army and navy need to have the very best equipment — better than foreign equivalents,” he said. “If we want to win, we have to be better
Russian defence minister's plane 'buzzed' by Nato jet
Since the 2008 Georgian war, which was a difficult operation, the Russian military has undergone extensive modernisation. Ageing Soviet equipment has gone. There is a new testing regime. There are new command structures. The budget has also increased exponentially.
This year, military expenses will cross 3 trillion roubles, or 3.3 per cent of GDP. This would be a record were it not for one-off costs in 2016. Over the next two years, spending is forecast to be cut back slightly, to approximately 2.8 per cent of GDP.
Though that budget remains less than 30 per cent of the combined Nato budget in Europe, many countries are increasing their military spending in response to the "Russian threat". Nato military command has also been restructured — it says in response to Russian cyber and military threats.
1 2 3 4 5
1 ETHIOPIA MID-INDIAN RIDGE SOUTHERN ITALY GREECE-TURKEY BORDER REGION CENTRAL TURKEY
2 WESTERN TURKEY STRAIT OF GIBRALTAR NEAR THE COAST OF WESTERN TURKEY PYRENEES WESTERN TURKEY
3 ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA REGION WASHINGTON SOLOMON ISLANDS ALBANIA ALBANIA
4 WESTERN UZBEKISTAN ALBANIA WESTERN TURKEY EASTERN TURKEY WESTERN TURKEY
5 SOUTHEASTERN IRAN FIJI REGION GREECE NORTHERN ITALY EASTERN TURKEY
6 CENTRAL TURKEY SOUTH OF KERMADEC ISLANDS DODECANESE ISLANDS SOUTHWESTERN SIBERIA WEST OF GIBRALTAR
7 WESTERN TURKEY CENTRAL TURKEY BIO-BIO PHILIPPINE ISLANDS REGION NEAR COAST OF CENTRAL PERU
8 PRINCE EDWARD ISLANDS REGION EASTERN TURKEY GUAM REGION SWITZERLAND CAUCASUS REGION
9 VOLCANO ISLANDS WESTERN TURKEY SWITZERLAND AEGEAN SEA CENTRAL TURKEY