Saturday, May 30, 2009

Nuclear Powered Disputes

Sphere: Related Content

Like a slow train rumbling into a station to deliver passenger's and cargo, the arrival of new atom powered civilizations (although some are not civil) was not unexpected.

The Manhattan Project delivered our world into the era of WMD. Given the nature of humans it was simply a matter of time before our planet would be testing and targeting incredibly lethal fission and fusion warheads. What does the near future hold as unregenerate humanity continues to war against itself, internally and externally? Before you allow fear to dictate remember God is never surprised. The following excerpt from the fine folks at Stratfor is worthy of your perusal.

The North Korean Nuclear Test and Geopolitical Reality

By Nathan Hughes
courtesy of Stratfor

North Korea tested a nuclear device for the second time in two and a half years May 25. Although North Korea’s nuclear weapons program continues to be a work in progress, the event is inherently significant. North Korea has carried out the only two nuclear detonations the world has seen in the 21st century. (The most recent tests prior to that were the spate of tests by India and Pakistan in 1998.)

Details continue to emerge through the analysis of seismographic and other data, and speculation about the precise nature of the atomic device that Pyongyang may now posses carries on, making this a good moment to examine the underlying reality of nuclear weapons. Examining their history, and the lessons that can be drawn from that history, will help us understand what it will really mean if North Korea does indeed join the nuclear club.

Nuclear Weapons in the 20th Century

Even before an atomic bomb was first detonated on July 16, 1945, both the scientists and engineers of the Manhattan Project and the U.S. military struggled with the implications of the science that they pursued. But ultimately, they were driven by a profound sense of urgency to complete the program in time to affect the outcome of the war, meaning understanding the implications of the atomic bomb was largely a luxury that would have to wait. Even after World War II ended, the frantic pace of the Cold War kept pushing weapons development forward at a break-neck pace. This meant that in their early days, atomic weapons were probably more advanced than the understanding of their moral and practical utility.

But the promise of nuclear weapons was immense. If appropriate delivery systems could be designed and built, and armed with more powerful nuclear warheads, a nation could continually threaten another country’s very means of existence: its people, industry, military installations and governmental institutions. Battlefield or tactical nuclear weapons would make the massing of military formations suicidal — or so military planners once thought. What seemed clear early on was that nuclear weapons had fundamentally changed everything. War was thought to have been made obsolete, simply too dangerous and too destructive to contemplate. Some of the most brilliant minds of the Manhattan Project talked of how atomic weapons made world government necessary.

But perhaps the most surprising aspect of the advent of the nuclear age is how little actually changed. Great power competition continued apace (despite a new, bilateral dynamic). The Soviets blockaded Berlin for nearly a year starting in 1948, in defiance of what was then the world’s sole nuclear power: the United States. Likewise, the United States refused to use nuclear weapons in the Korean War (despite the pleas of Gen. Douglas MacArthur) even as Chinese divisions surged across the Yalu River, overwhelming U.S., South Korean and allied forces and driving them back south, reversing the rapid gains of late 1950.

Again and again, the situations nuclear weapons were supposed to deter occurred. The military realities they would supposedly shift simply persisted. Thus, the United States lost in Vietnam. The Syrians and the Egyptians invaded Israel in 1973 (despite knowing that the Israelis had acquired nuclear weapons by that point). The Soviet Union lost in Afghanistan. India and Pakistan went to war in 1999 — and nearly went to war twice after that. In none of these cases was it judged appropriate to risk employing nuclear weapons — nor was it clear what utility they might have.

Enduring Geopolitical Stability

Wars of immense risk are born of desperation. In World War II, both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan took immense geostrategic gambles — and lost — but knowingly took the risk because of untenable geopolitical circumstances. By comparison, the postwar United States and Soviet Union were geopolitically secure. Washington had come into its own as a global power secured by the buffer of two oceans, while Moscow enjoyed the greatest strategic depth it had ever known.

The U.S.-Soviet competition was, of course, intense, from the nuclear arms race to the space race to countless proxy wars. Yet underlying it was a fear that the other side would engage in a war that was on its face irrational. Western Europe promised the Soviet Union immense material wealth but would likely have been impossible to subdue. (Why should a Soviet leader expect to succeed where Napoleon and Hitler had failed?) Even without nuclear weapons in the calculus, the cost to the Soviets was too great, and fears of the Soviet invasion of Europe along the North European Plain were overblown. The desperation that caused Germany to seek control over Europe twice in the first half of the 20th century simply did not characterize either the Soviet or U.S. geopolitical position even without nuclear weapons in play. It was within this context that the concept of mutually assured destruction emerged — the idea that each side would possess sufficient retaliatory capability to inflict a devastating “second strike” in the event of even a surprise nuclear attack.

Through it all, the metrics of nuclear warfare became more intricate. Throw weights and penetration rates were calculated and recalculated. Targets were assigned and reassigned. A single city would begin to have multiple target points, each with multiple strategic warheads allocated to its destruction. Theorists and strategists would talk of successful scenarios for first strikes. But only in the Cuban Missile Crisis did the two sides really threaten one another’s fundamental national interests. There were certainly other moments when the world inched toward the nuclear brink. But each time, the global system found its balance, and there was little cause or incentive for political leaders on either side of the Iron Curtain to so fundamentally alter the status quo as to risk direct military confrontation — much less nuclear war.

So through it all, the world carried on, its fundamental dynamics unchanged by the ever-present threat of nuclear war. Indeed, history has shown that once a country has acquired nuclear weapons, the weapons fail to have any real impact on the country’s regional standing or pursuit of power in the international system.

Thus, not only were nuclear weapons never used in even desperate combat situations, their acquisition failed to entail any meaningful shift in geopolitical position. Even as the United Kingdom acquired nuclear weapons in the 1950s, its colonial empire crumbled. The Soviet Union was behaving aggressively all along its periphery before it acquired nuclear weapons. And the Soviet Union had the largest nuclear arsenal in the world when it collapsed — not only despite its arsenal, but in part because the economic burden of creating and maintaining it was unsustainable. Today, nuclear-armed France and non-nuclear armed Germany vie for dominance on the Continent with no regard for France’s small nuclear arsenal.


The Middle East will likely deal with their atomic disputes soon!

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Clashing Cultures

Sphere: Related Content
In a different type of culture clash,
Americans are in the midst of a revolution.

Not the shooting kind but an ideological struggle.

Do we maintain societal norms (i.e. ideals) or to cast them off,
embracing a "laissez-faire" approach towards sexual expression.

I believe the latter would open a Pandora’s Box exposing
our children to various ‘lifestyle choices’ prior to an ability
to process or understand the ramifications of said lifestyle.

Kids observe and will ask questions to learn, but forcing this
on them in grade school makes as much sense as trying to teach
them how to drive before they mature. What’s the agenda?

It is clear we have ample gender confusion, no more is needed.

Are cars more important than their mind and body?
Simply stated, it’s an adult lifestyle choice, let kids be kids.

Given the all too typical programming on TV these 'daze', there
is more than enough exposure to sex present. This has been the norm for years with a consequence of such 'entertainment' being lust.
For children who are still working out how to socially behave and interact, this is a dangerous distraction with real potential to damage their psyche.

The push back has begun, while many gay advocates claim it's a right, I believe the majority see marriage as a privilidge licensed by the state. This 'struggle', in California, is peaking and will become an issue in coming elections.

Opponents of California prop 8 have been put on notice;
the courts will not interfere with the legislative process.

Many worried and wondered if the state judiciary would
overturn the will of the voting majority by striking down
the initiative to amend the state constitution to recognize
Only marriages between a man and a woman as legal.

Also in question was the status of same-sex couples married
prior to the election as well as those who married after it.

The court ruled that those marriages performed after it struck down state statutes limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.......
“but prior to the effective date of Proposition 8 remain valid.”

PDF of ruling is here:
The zeitgeist seeking 'education' of young children in the mechanics of sexual behavior are neither benevolent or protective. The Law may be blind but kids are not! Returning daytime TV to a G rating would be more beneficial.

Labeling those who 'dissent' as homophobic is implicitly counterproductive.

Homophobia: Noun
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language:
Fourth Edition. 2000

1) homophobia.
…Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.

Sorry but we have not been given the ability, power or right to judge anothers motives. Therefore stating their motives as facts, you declare your own contempt.

People are free to make lifestyle choices, within the law, and can expect to inherit the fallout (consequence) inherent within said choice.

I can hear you saying ‘it’s not a choice to be gay’, therein is the conundrum. People are free (independent) to ‘choose’ their ideals.

Our nation is upheld by it’s ideals in governance, philosophy etc.
When those ideals are challenged it is threatening the core of our national fabric. That is why issues such as prop 8 have been and will be rejected. It is not a personal rejection per say. It is rather a rejection of attempts to legislate national ideals into existence against a majority opinion.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

One Civilization Clashing

Sphere: Related Content

While my guitar is gently weeping, western civilization goes on sleeping.

Seemingly oblivious we are being targeted; on ethnic, political, financial, legal, and military fronts. The conquest of Britain is all but over. Immigration and birth rates make it readily apparent to all with eyes to see: the distinct lack of cultural integration screams to all with ears to hear... Islam is marching west.

Some believe there are training camps on US soil now.

Meanwhile closer than you might think, there has been an overlooked problem.

Patrick Poole A native born Hilliard resident has experienced a (non-violent) 'hometown Jihad' with a neighbor named Dr Salah Sultan president of the American Center for Islamic Research (ACIR).
(similar spelling to CAIR).

This non-profit organization is registered in Ohio and located in Hilliard. On his website, he asserts that the main purpose of the ACIR is to "serve Allah in the best way possible through the principles laid out in the Quran and Sunnah," to address misconceptions and extremism, to build bridges with non-Muslims, and to provide fatwas. Here is a charter school in Hilliard he, at times, teaches at. These groups are represented in local government.

Caroline Glick said it directly in the final paragraph of her article:

"Like it or not, it appears that the rising forces in the Islamic world perceive themselves as at war with Western civilization. They cannot be convinced to believe otherwise by either elections or apologies. And the current situation, in which only one side is willing to recognize that there is a war going on between two mutually exclusive ways of organizing human societies, will only lead us to more violent and devastating clashes in the future."

Monday, May 25, 2009

Warriors in the Conflict of Cultures

Sphere: Related Content

As a child 'Decoration Day' was much anticpated not for the correct reason of rightly honoring our nation's warriors, but rather because it heralded the coming summer break from school. As I grew and became more interested and appreciative of history, I became aware of significance in the tradition of placing small US flags to decorate graves which far exceeded my childish understanding. Liberty and Freedom are a legacy we in America have been blessed with despite our often limited realization of it's genesis. Human history illustrates that we have inherited a broken, fallen nature in conflict with itself and often at war with others. Education, while beneficial to raising standards of living, has failed to provide the means of living to a higher standard.

War has become more sophisticated but it's goal is unchanged.

At the heart of clashing cultures are warriors dedicated to their mission. Regardless of how you choose to celebrate this holiday remember our warriors.They stand and fall in service to American Ideals and the preservation of Liberty. Over the years more than forty two million American men and women have served their country in time of war. More than a million have secured this blessing of liberty with their lives, from Bunker Hill to Baghdad.

We MUST remember Freedom is not FREE.

National Battle Monuments:

WWII Vets Stories:

Saturday, May 9, 2009

The White Horse - Jihad in the Neighborhood

Sphere: Related Content

They rode in on a Trojan Horse named Heroin

by: William E. Blackburn,
copyright 2001

A river of opium has flowed through the streets of America; mountains of heroin still stand as a financial monument to terrorist activities.

It goes without saying that the dastardly attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon has caused immeasurable suffering. People from all over the world have rallied and united together to fight against this terrorism. Our nation’s law enforcement agencies have come together like never before, and while I do have some reservations regarding civil liberties and individual freedom I can’t help but appreciate the need for increased security. Perhaps as a side effect, these increased security measures will dry-up a great deal of the drug activity that has waged a ruthless war here in the streets of America. It has become quite clear that these extremists, these terrorists have financed many of their activities through a network of drug dealers that span across all the continents of the world.

For every sorrowful heroin or cocaine addict that lives on the outskirts of self-destruction, there is a small victory if not financial gain to these dark souls that rape and terrorize the spirit of humanity. Every bag of purchased heroin is a seed for these monsters to reign more terror upon the world, not to mention the diminished spirit and lost lives of our own citizens. I have seen the face of this drug beast from close up. It is cunning and powerful – it is a force of darkness that wants the heart and mind of every youth in America, if not the entire world. I saw it just yesterday, in the eyes of a teen-ager whose smile and vacant stare seems to justify an unproductive and apathetic existence. I saw the result of its’ dastardly ways in the eyes of a mother who lost her child to a drug overdose. I’ve traveled with this beast into the depths of hell where I saw many children hiding in the shadows for just one more fix, one more high that would make their world go away.

I found my way out of this hell some fifteen years ago, but for the grace of God I have not closed my eyes to many other victims who continuously fall prey to the wares of darkness. No one is safe from this drug beast, it has spread to every community in the United States – even those small farming communities who used to pride themselves as being “out of the mainstream”. Nobody, anywhere is immune to the temptation of heroin and similar drugs – especially school-age kids. The numbers of teens going into treatment for opiate addiction is staggering, but what’s worse is the numbers of teenagers who are still actively using drugs on a daily basis, and those who will never make it into treatment. One could quote government statistics to endear an argument that drugs have become the largest catastrophe of modern day, but those numbers cannot adequately portray the social consequences and personal tragedy that has besieged countless families and the loved ones affected by this beast.

Apathy in America has allowed these terrorists free reign to attack the very lifeblood of America – our youth! It is outrageous that these terrorists have financed ‘training camps of murder’ through selling drugs on our streets. I say it is now time to stand up and fight back with the same fury that any parent would display if their children were about to be murdered – because in every sense of the word, they are being murdered. If not their body, then their spirit and soul. It has become very clear that government alone cannot win this fight against foreign and domestic terror. Now is the time to say no to drugs! Now is the time to send a clear message to drug dealers. “You are no longer going to use our children to finance some third world terrorist training camp or other organization! My neighbors and I will be in your face 24/7 until you either shrivel up and go away – or grow up!” Wouldn’t it be nice to see many of these “domestic terrorists” also hightail it to the caves?

There are many (less passive) things that an individual can do to help put an end to this domestic reign of terrorism known as the drug trade. There is a mindset throughout this country that associates any citizen who speaks out against this evil, as being a “rat.” Rat’s as we are called become the target of threats, intimidation if not murder to silence opposition to the network of terror known as the drug trade. I therefore propose and rally for a “rat brigade” the likes of which have never been seen before. A Rat Brigade composed of all people who are sick and tired of being terrorized by marauding groups of vacant souls; vacant souls that work diligently to rape the heart and soul of America for sake of greenbacks. It is time to say “NO!” with as much fiery enthusiasm as a bear would give to protect her cubs.

These foreign and domestic terrorists have breached our country’s security by riding on a Trojan horse named Heroin. I say it is time to dismantle this horse once and for all! It is time for every citizen to make a strong stand; to send a strong message to drug cartels and dealers alike – we’re not going to tolerate your raping our sons and daughters with chemicals anymore than we’re going to tolerate you’re cowardly terrorists attacks against humanity. The only difference between a massive bio-chemical attack and our current problem of drug abuse is the time factor involved in killing its’ victims! The former is a relatively quick death as opposed to a more widespread torturous death. The perpetrators, as well as the end result bear the same mark of the beast.

A mind-set is subject to change! Just as a mutant rat can become a television hero to many teenagers, so a “rat-brigade” can turn the tide to wash away the flood of drugs that currently plague this country, or the world for that matter. We have the power, knowledge, and innovation to completely dismantle this Trojan horse, but do we have the will to completely eradicate this evil that seeds our country with attrition? It is time to do more than “just say no!” To paraphrase the words of one courageous American on United Airlines Flight 93 – I say, “Let’s roll!”

William E. Blackburn
Copyright: October 5th 2001

This essay highlights the nature of our enemy as well as ourself

We must wake up and fight back by ALL means necessary.....

Time is short, eternity is long, life & liberty is fragile....

We must be strong.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
{ - John Adams - 1798 - Address to the Military - }
''I do not reject peace, but I am afraid of war disguised as peace.''
{- Cicero 43 B.C. -}

"UN-acceptable Censorship"

Sphere: Related Content An ominous initiative that has been discussed many times here -- the UN's efforts to silence those who call attention to the ways in which Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify their actions and make recruits -- got attention in, of all places, the New York Daily News!!
The United Nations tries to outlaw criticism of Islam

Floyd Abrams writing for the Daily News, January 14:

Almost 500 years ago, on the wall of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany, Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses, characterizing as "madness" the notion that papal pardons could absolve individuals for their sins. As viewed from Rome, Luther had maligned, even defamed, the church. Luther was eventually excommunicated. His conduct ultimately led to the creation of a Protestant Church in Germany and a Reformation throughout Europe.

It is difficult to believe that in the 21st century anyone would seriously propose that conduct such as Luther's should be deemed illegal. But a few weeks ago, the General Assembly of the United Nations took a giant step in that direction. It adopted - for the fourth straight year - a resolution prepared by the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference calling upon all UN nations to adopt legislation banning the "defamation" of religion. Spurred by the Danish cartoons of 2005, some of which portrayed the Prophet Muhammed in a manner deemed offensive by the OIC, the resolution was opposed by the United States, most European nations, Japan, India and a number of other nations.

Nonetheless, it has now been adopted.

From the very first OIC resolution to the current one there has never been any ambiguity about its purpose: to intimidate those who might criticize Islam. As phrased in the original OIC resolution introduced by Pakistan in 1999, Islam was "frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism." But it is a fact that however one may debate about whether "Islam" bears any responsibility for acts of terrorism ranging from the murderous 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington to the more recent massacre in Mumbai, terrible acts of violence have been committed in the name of Islam. It is also the case that repeated human rights violations, including female genital mutilation, also have occurred in the name of Islam.

It is one thing to urge that all Muslims should not be criticized because of these acts. But the notion that it may or should be made a crime even to "associate" Islam with crimes too often committed in its name is inconsistent with any notion that both freedom of speech and religion should be protected. What cannot be even negotiable is the freedom, the unfettered freedom, to publish challenging books, movies and - yes - the Danish cartoons.
Many [even in our own government]
are expert at 'double-speak'....

When truth gets in the way of their 'perspective' it becomes imperative to label such speech [racist,zionist etc] in a futile attempt to discredit any negative discussion of Islam or it's Jihads.

As to Jihad:

Jihad has two possible definitions: the greater, which is the spiritual struggle of each man, against vice, passion and ignorance. This understanding of jihad has been presented by apologetics of modern times, but is an understanding of the term rarely used by Muslims themselves.

The lesser jihad is simplified to cover holy war against infidels and infidel countries, aiming at spreading Islam. This kind of jihad is described in both the Koran and in the Hadiths.

Koran sura 9: Repentance
41 March ye then, light and heavy, and fight [jāhidū] strenuously with your wealth and persons in God’s way; that is better for you if ye did but know!

44 Those who believe in God and in the last day will not beg off from fighting strenuously with their wealth and their persons; but God knows those who fear.

Their own words [not to mention deeds] speak louder than anything I could say... we must listen!

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
{ - John Adams - 1798 - Address to the Military - }
''I do not reject peace, but I am afraid of war disguised as peace.''
{- Cicero 43 B.C. -}

Jihadism 2009 and Beyond

Sphere: Related Content

By: Fred Burton and Scott Stewart
courtesy of Stratfor:

For the past several years, we have published an annual forecast for al Qaeda and the jihadist movement. Since the January 2006 forecast, we have focused heavily on the devolution of jihadism from a phenomenon focused primarily on al Qaeda the group to one based primarily on al Qaeda the movement. Last year, we argued that al Qaeda was struggling to remain relevant and that al Qaeda prime had been marginalized in the physical battlefield. This marginalization of al Qaeda prime had caused that group to forfeit its position at the vanguard of the physical jihad, though it remained deeply involved in the leadership of the ideological battle.

As a quick reminder, Stratfor views what most people refer to as “al Qaeda” as a global jihadist network rather than a monolithic entity. This network consists of three distinct entities. The first is a core vanguard, which we frequently refer to as al Qaeda prime, comprising Osama bin Laden and his trusted associates. The second is composed of al Qaeda franchise groups such as al Qaeda in Iraq, and the third comprises the grassroots jihadist movement inspired by al Qaeda prime and the franchise groups.

As indicated by the title of this forecast, we believe that the trends we have discussed in previous years will continue, and that al Qaeda prime has become marginalized on the physical battlefield to the extent that we have not even mentioned their name in the title. The regional jihadist franchises and grassroots operatives pose a much more significant threat in terms of security concerns, though it is important to note that those concerns will remain tactical and not rise to the level of a strategic threat. In our view, the sort of strategic challenge that al Qaeda prime posed with the 9/11 attacks simply cannot be replicated without a major change in geopolitical alignments — a change we do not anticipate in 2009.

The Year Ahead

We anticipate that we will see the United States continue its campaign of decapitation strikes against al Qaeda leadership. While this campaign has not managed to get bin Laden or al-Zawahiri, it has proved quite successful at causing the al Qaeda apex leadership to lie low and become marginalized from the physical jihad. The campaign also has killed a long list of key al Qaeda operational commanders and trainers. As noted above, we believe the core leadership is very concerned about the ideological battle being waged against it — the only real way the theology of jihadism can be defeated — and will continue to focus their efforts on that battlespace.

As long as the ideology of jihadism survives (it has been around since the late 1980s), the jihadists’ war against the world will continue. It will continue to oscillate between periods of high and low intensity. In the coming year, we believe the bulk of physical attacks will continue to be conducted by regional jihadist franchise groups, and to a lesser extent by grassroots jihadists.

With the lack of regional franchises in North America, we do not see a strategic threat to the United States. However, as seen by the recent convictions in the Fort Dix plot trial, or even in the late October case where a U.S. citizen apparently committed a suicide bombing on behalf of al-Shabab in Somalia, the threat of simple attacks against soft targets in the United States remains. We were again surprised that no jihadist attacks occurred in the United States in 2008.

Given the vulnerabilities that exist in an open society and the ease of attack,
we cannot rule out an attack in 2009.

In Europe, where AQIM and other jihadist franchises have a greater presence and infrastructure, there is a greater threat that these franchises will commit sophisticated attacks. It must be recognized, though, that they will have a far harder time acquiring weapons and explosives to conduct such attacks in the United Kingdom or France than they would in Algeria or Pakistan. Because of this, we anticipate that they will continue to focus on soft targets in Europe. Due to differences between the Muslim communities in the United States and Europe, the grassroots operatives have been more active in Europe than they are in the United States. The May 22, 2008, attempted bombing at the Giraffe Cafe by a Muslim convert in Exeter serves as a good reminder of this.

Rest of the Story:
Topical posts dealing with Jihadism are encouraged from any perspective. In dialogue and presentation we may learn much about our own postions and discover insights concerning opposing viewpoints.

Perhaps we may even learn more about ourselves.
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
{ - John Adams - 1798 - Address to the Military - }
''I do not reject peace, but I am afraid of war disguised as peace.''
{- Cicero 43 B.C. -}