Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
November 13, 2015

Russia Revives Long-Dead Nuclear Torpedo - Reestablishes Deterrence

Russia has a big problem with the "missile defense" shield the U.S. wants to install in Europe. Such a "defense" would give the U.S. the ability to launch a first strike nuclear attack on Russia while defeating a retaliatory strike Russia would launch in response. Alternatively the "missile defense missiles" stationed in east Europe could be used to launch a direct attack against ground targets in Russia leaving it with a insufficient warning time of only a few minutes.

This is comparable to the situation in the 1960s when Nike-Hercules air defense missile were stationed in the U.S. and in Europe. That system could kill Soviet strategic nuclear bombers and thereby endangered Soviet second strike capabilities towards the U.S. and others. (The Nike-Hercules also had a secondary ground attack capability.)

The Russian, then Soviets, problem with the Nike-Hercules was overcome by Soviet development of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) which could not be targeted by that Nike-Hercules system. The balance of deterrence was reestablished and held for the next fifty years.

Then came the new U.S. missile defense in Europe. All Russian protests and warnings against stationing such capabilities have not been able to deter the U.S. for proceeding with it. Should the missile defense project go forward Russia will have to invent new means to reintroduce a significant second strike capability. Both sides, Russia says, would be better off by not introducing these new capabilities.

To strongly send that message the Russian military scientists went back into the archives to find some old crappy idea that could overcome missile defense and be horrible enough in its effects to recreate some deterrence.

The scientists came back with an odd idea the "human rights activist" Andrej Sakharov once promoted:

At the height of the Cold War, August 12, 1953 have been produced successfully tested the new Soviet weapons of terrible destructive force - a thermonuclear bomb. One of the creators of the bomb, the newly elected member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, the 32-year-old Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov suggested as a "means of delivery" to use the developed nuclear submarines of project 627, equipping each of them a giant torpedo under the 100-megaton thermonuclear charge (approximately 6000 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima). As conceived by the young academician exploding the U.S. coast ocean, these torpedoes were to cause a tsunami of unprecedented power, the height of 300 meters, which would be simply washed off American cities, causing irreparable damage to the United States.

The planned U.S. "missile defense" systems would have some difficulties hitting such a torpedo.

Thus the Kremlin decided to reuse this old Sakharov idea to scare the U.S. off from its current "missile defense" course:

On November 10, 2015 President Putin held a regular meeting with his generals in Sochi to discuss development of the Russian strategic forces. The president used the occasion to complain again about U.S. missile defense plans and to warn that Russia will do whatever it takes to preserve the strategic balance.

The meeting was filmed (vid) by a major Russian TV station and "just by chance" the cameraman caught a power point page (also at 1:46 min in the video) one of the attending Generals was reading:

Russian television cameras caught a page in a briefing book describing the development of a new nuclear weapons system called Status-6. It’s nothing less than an underwater drone designed to carry a thermonuclear weapon into foreign ports. If detonated, Status-6 would be capable of dousing cities like New York in massive amounts of radioactive fallout.

"Massive amounts of radioactive fallout" or, in the old version, a 300 meter high tsunami - choose whatever you like better but you will probably be hit with both.

A "underwater drone" is by the way what we used to call a "torpedo". But the "drone" moniker might sound scarier so the author chose to use that one.

The U.S. analyst just quoted does not like the old and new Russian idea:

At the risk of understating things, this project is bat-shit crazy. It harkens back to the most absurd moments of the Cold War, when nuclear strategists followed the logic of deterrence over the cliff and into the abyss. For his part, Putin seems positively nostalgic.

But what is really "bat-shit crazy"?

Destroy the nuclear deterrence between world powers that had worked well for some 50 years by installing a "missile defense" shield in Europe? Or reestablish deterrence by introducing a new weapon category that the U.S. "missile defense" shield can not defend against?

You decide.

I for one think that the idea of striving for a realistic first strike capability by eliminating the possibility of a meaningful retaliation, which is what the "missile shield" is trying to achieve, is indeed "over the cliff and into the abyss." I rather prefer to be "positively nostalgic" and reestablish a stable deterrence.

If the Russian second strike capability no longer lies with ICBMs but with the threat of permanent destruction of all major U.S. ports and port cities through long range nuclear torpedoes the planned "missile defense" shield will be a completely useless investment.

Since at least 2010 the Russian President Putin has repeatedly said in many public fora that the planned U.S. "missile defense" is a dangerous way forward. The U.S. did not listen. Now Russia is putting some muscle behind Putin's words. It "leaks" the "secret" (not so much) plans to counter "missile defense" and it will make sure that everyone understands that it has the means and the will to develop such capabilities if needed.

This "unintended leak" is an offer to Obama to talk. A deal could be made that would end the U.S. "missile defense" nonsense while Russia would promise to abstain from the development of countermeasures like the harbor killer torpedo. All would spend less money on crazy new weapons and the world would be better off.

The industrial lobby that wants to make loads of money money from missile defense has so far found open ears in the U.S. Congress. But if those weapons can no longer deliver the strategic advantage they once promised Congress may be willing to stop shuffling money towards them.

Russia just made an offer to the U.S. government. It would be better for all if that offer would be accepted.

Posted by b on November 13, 2015 at 17:50 UTC | Permalink


There could be still another side to this. By poisoning a harbor with radiation, rendering it unusable, Russia may have found a way of threatening nuclear attacks without going "all in" in terms of escalation. If the material damage of such a strike could be substantial, while at the same time the number of civilian deaths remains low, this is something to think about.

Posted by: persiflo | Nov 13 2015 18:12 utc | 1

Mutual assured destruction [MAD] has worked for over 50 years, unfortunately the US think they are an exceptional people, who think they can do an end run on it. This hilarious video has Putin laughing in the face of a journalist, when it is suggested that the Iran threat is what the anti-missile defence is aimed at.

Posted by: harry law | Nov 13 2015 18:15 utc | 2

This "unintended leak" is an offer to Obama to talk.
Obama and his masters do not want to talk. Russia and China have been offering the US a soft landing for some time. But US elites are too addicted to power to be willing to think the offer over.

A nation can be so rapacious, so obsessed with dominating others that it cannot imagine anything else, such as living peacefully among equals. Thus, when it became clear that Germany would not get to rule the Continent, Hitler felt that the German people had let him down, and wanted Germany to turn into one large Valhalla. Russia in contrast grew tired of being a superpower, and wanted to settle down to just being a regional power. But the US would not let it.

What is more, faced with the choice, US elites appear determined to go down the way of the Nazis, instead of that of the Soviets.

Posted by: Demian | Nov 13 2015 18:30 utc | 3

This is long, but well worth reading.

[If you think that (I don't) YOU SHOULD POST A LINK TO IT IN THE OPEN THREAD and not copy it into a comment here.

[long text deleted - b]

Posted by: Rg an LG | Nov 13 2015 18:33 utc | 4

i doubt the us will accept a reasonable offer.. did they offer to tell russia where the ''moderate'' terrorists were? no.. these war game plans are designed by emotional zombies with no thought regarding the end result.

again we are living in a multipolar world where one country wants it to be unipolar... what to do? meanwhile as you point out, the lockheed martins with their coterie of congress people will be pushing for it regardless.. stupidity and greed reign..

Posted by: james | Nov 13 2015 18:37 utc | 5

b you are dreaming if you think congress will ever stop shuffling money towards their paymasters.

Posted by: Dan | Nov 13 2015 18:40 utc | 6

Putin is the greatest friend the people of the US could hope for. All he does is attempt to get the US out of deep state created messes.

Missile defense is a huge scam, it barely works, but it costs an infinite amount of money. If this stops further spending, we should weave the boughs of the white house Christmas tree into a gigantic thank-you-wreath and send it to Putin's giant mansion.

Posted by: Crest | Nov 13 2015 19:05 utc | 7

The empire of chaos is working overtime to get WWIII going. The missile defense shield is a great idea to move things along in that direction. People may not realize how much of a game changer this is: being able to stop a certain percentage of a retaliatory response. Simply put, it would make the difference between launching a first strike or not. I mean the media people down play the shield, but the experts know this is the elephant in the room.

Also please note, when nukes are discussed, we talk about 60 year old technology. I mean to say we are ignoring 60 years of continuous refinement and development of nuclear bomb technology. A 2015 thermonuclear device is five generations ahead of what is discussed. We now have many more options like focusing energy, enhancing particular radiation, low residual fallout deceives, and micro / nano devices. The bottom line: we are not your father’s nuke.

So what this means is that WWIII will be a very different war that many expect. Expect lots of precision strikes with low yield, yet still very powerful, devices.

And please forgive me for the following indiscretion, but I did have the great honor of meeting Dr. Edward Teller, the father of the thermonuclear device, at Stanford University. While I strongly disagree with Dr. Teller’s views on these devices, I was very impressed with him as a person.

Also at Stanford, I heard the head of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory complain that the financial industry in New York is taking away too many of their best mathematicians. So you can see how much effort is being put into this field.

Posted by: Peter B | Nov 13 2015 19:10 utc | 8

The world dominating US empire is on top, for now, so why would it willingly sacrifice its number one position so readily ? That's not how psychopaths think.
Those evil freaks would rather destroy the world then lose its status as the hegemon.
I'm pretty sure that when some Russian leaders looks at the USA, it sees Nazis. I do too.

Putin can't do more than talk reasonably, and then if necessary, show his fangs too. Oh wait, he sold the nuclear technology to the despicable Saudis.
And the Saudis at the very same time as the deal was being done, the Sauids said they would use that Russian supplied technology to build its own nuclear weapons!!! and yet Putin still went ahead with the deal. Disgraceful.
Just because the Saudis would have gotten nuclear technology from their traditional Masters in the West anyway, that doesn't excuse Putin's actions here. So much for Putin protecting the world.

And I don't know what money has much to do with it, when the power of life and death over whole countries and even continents and the earth is a far more powerful incentive to threaten or dominate.

Posted by: tom | Nov 13 2015 19:28 utc | 9

b, thank you so much for covering this story so competently. I saw it yesterday on RT
and then an explanation of its import elsewhere, but I didn't post it because I KNEW you
would cover it and in such a thorough way. Congratulations on a great site & really
excellent coverage.

The Big Bad Wolf seems to think that by hanging a "Defense" sign on a missile
it can fool ALL the people. There are perils enough in a defense that creates
the illusion of a "victory by first strike." But surely a launcher doesn't
care whether the missile is directed at incoming missiles-- or at Moscow,
w a nuclear tip.

Posted by: Penelope | Nov 13 2015 19:45 utc | 10

With every step forward that the US threatens Russia and China they respond to the US asymmetrically to neutralize the threat.

With every step forward that the US destabilizes North Africa and the Middle East the increased chaos asymmetrically threatens the EU as we now see with the massive immigration underway into the EU.

The US (including the EU) is its own worst enemy. By its actions it exponentially creates enemies and threats.

We don't have much time. The US must be defeated or exhausted soon otherwise we are kaput.

Posted by: AriusArmenian | Nov 13 2015 20:59 utc | 11

persiflo @ 1: I think that "poisoning a harbor" means killing all the people in that seaport city with radiation poisoning, not merely making the water too dangerous to swim in. Therefore, loss of life from such a weapon would be as high as with a nuclear bomb, though perhaps not as instantaneous.

The United States is a maritime nation; nuclear poisoning its harbors would destroy US by destroying US trade. Contrast that to the Russian/China plan to bypass maritime transport in favor of overland routes.

North America has long maintained its strength by being an impregnable island in the Ocean Sea. Poisoning its harbors would put it in quarantine, a sealed leper colony, unable to trade.

Posted by: Macon Richardsonn | Nov 13 2015 21:32 utc | 12

I don't think the nuclear torpedo idea is nearly as significant now as when it was first proposed. It was never adopted, presumably for sound reasons. It doesn't provide any capabilities - other than making a big wave - that can't be provided with submarine launched cruise missiles. If Russia is referring to underwater drones launched from submarines, they could be referring to launch vehicles. An underwater launch vehicle that can go 1000 km in excess of 100 km/h (potentially much more if supercavitation is used) would present major problems for any anti-submarine force.

The very capable Russian cruise missiles demonstrated in Syria have to be a cold shower for western designs on a missile shield. Precision strike weaponry increases counterforce capability while raising the nuclear threshold. Ability to take out the missile shield with non-nuclear means would be the real strategic deterrent.

Posted by: Thirdeye | Nov 13 2015 21:43 utc | 13

@8 Agree that whatever nuclear technology was available at the time that a US coast-destroying torpedo was considered is long out of date. We don't know what advanced nuclear technology exists today or if nuclear weaponry is now obsolete. So why would Russia leak information about a decades-old prospective weapons system that makes its military look so dated, especially in light of the proven effectiveness of Russia's missile defense lately?

Posted by: yellowsnapdragon | Nov 13 2015 22:07 utc | 14

Okay I've done an hour of technical research on the developing insane first strike dilemma that the U.S. is creating. Reiterating the obvious, any project that seeks to enable the U.S. to carry out a “favorable” first strike against the Russian Federation is monstrous, and also prone to be unreliable for the achievement of desired outcomes. It is guaranteed to create an intense Russian hair-trigger response policy. It could easily cause Russia to initiate its own first strike attack. This is quite unhealthy for all of us!

Basically, these issues are mostly concerned with technological choices for neutralizing the U.S. project. The potential nuclear- weaponized drone submarine, presumably based on the existence of lithium ion batteries for power really seems like a limited option to me. I have another idea.

Modern ICBMs are large and they contain multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles. Now, one simple solution would be to build small, single reentry vehicle ICBS. Perhaps a booster first stage, a second and third stage, and a hoist to rotate the rocket from the horizontal to vertical position could be bundled within a single container.

Perhaps tractor/semi-trailer trucks, intermodal freight container trucks, or railroad boxcars, or container carrying cars can transport such bundles of devices. These could be distributed all across the land.

My rather limited research has indicated that there is virtually no economy of scale for rocket delivery systems. Basically, it would cost only slightly more to to field ten small single-warhead ICBS than to deploy one large one large rocket bearing ten multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles. Yet each small rocket would have to be intercepted by an anti-missile missile, and thus ten times as many very expensive (!) and overwhelmed anti-missile missiles would be required.

Posted by: blues | Nov 13 2015 22:09 utc | 15

Hm. Russians know how to produce "Tsar Bomba", a contraption with the weight of 27 tons, length 9 meters (30 ft) and diameter 2.1 meters (7 ft) and delivering explosion of fifty megatons. The energy is mere one fifth of the earthquake that produced tsunami that devastated northern Japan few years ago, but if exploded on a proper depth in the ocean, it would not waste energy to shake the ground. Anyway, exploded on the surface, it can devastate surroundings for something like 50 miles around (or is it 100? the test detonated 2.5 miles above the ground, and broke some windows 500 miles away). While too heavy to load onto a missile, 27 tons is a piece of cake for a submarine. Incidentally, Wikipedia describes the design as "the cleanest thermonuclear bomb ever detonated", in terms of the proportion between the released energy and radiation. The initial design was actually pretty dirty and capable of hundred megaton explosion: the explosive yield can be doubled using uranium instead of lead as the layer surrounding hydrogen-lithium mixture, so after properly squashing the fusion fuel with an initial fission explosion, the fission explosion would detonate tons of "depleted" uranium. I guess a reasonable solution for a "doomsday torpedo" would be to make capable to submerge super-deeply, and let it go slowly toward the enemy shore without being detected.

From what I know, the best way of inflicting the damage is for a deepwater unmanned submarine to emerge on the surface suitably close to shore and run a pre-recorded message: that it will explode instantly if attacked, and that it will explode in 12 hours (six?), to humanely give the denizens of a selected metro area time to evacuate 100 miles away. That could cause enough mayhem to make the bomb itself an afterthought.

More seriously, the consequences of USA being ready for the first strike would be rather disturbing, because the countermeasures do exist: hair-trigger retaliation. Even ballistic missiles need many minutes to reach ballistic installations in the middle of Siberia, which makes it technologically possible to retaliate before the launching sites are hit, but does not give enough time to properly wake up the president and make him issue the necessary command, instead, the response has to be automatic, and thus it can be triggered by some malfunction or a natural phenomenon. In other words, this is a very perilous type of defense, but if that would be the only type guaranteed to work, it would be enacted, without any new exotic designs. After all, removing humans from the decision chain makes thing just simpler. [I see that blues @15 already wrote about hair-trigger issue.]

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Nov 13 2015 22:21 utc | 16

I consider it possible that Putin (nominally) is herding the US in a specific direction. Or perhaps it would better be described as taking advantage of America's preferred direction and encouraging it. The long range torpedo is not all that practical or necessary; the Russians have quite a few subs that can do the job. This is potentially part of a strategy to hurry along US over-extension. The US hegemony is in its terminal phase and external efforts need to be made to turn the rest of the world against it. You do this by nudging the US into more and more blatant and desperate measures If just a few countries are the focus of enmity (China, Russia, Iran) then the rest of the world can stay in the background and keep their heads down. As more countries see that the US is dangerous to them, more damaging, a counter-weight is created that may be strong enough to diffuse what will become a US panic phase which would kill us all.

Posted by: Bakerpete | Nov 13 2015 22:23 utc | 17

I'm following the Paris shooting, 28 dead so far.

Posted by: okie farmer | Nov 13 2015 22:28 utc | 18

blues @15:

many methods of overwhelming missile defense were discussed. The demerit of single-warhead idea is that it would discard existing stock of multi-warhead missiles. A more economic alternative is to equip each multi-warhead missiles with a bunch of decoys, balloons with metallic surface, and once in vacuum, the decoy balloons can be launched and fly parallel to the real warhead. Perhaps one could simple roughly spherical design, and surround the real warhead with identically looking balloons. You modify 10 warhead missile by replacing one warhead with balloon launcher, say, for 100 balloons. One can imagine variations on the theme.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Nov 13 2015 22:36 utc | 19

Why is human rights activist in quotes? From the sounds of it he genuinely regretted his past accomplishments in later life and spoke out against them.

Posted by: Plenue | Nov 13 2015 22:55 utc | 20

WRT: Piotr Berman | Nov 13, 2015 5:36:08 PM | 19

I know of the decoy balloon method of overwhelming anti-missile missiles. Now, in an ICBM flight there is a "boost phase" (with rockets firing), a "coast phase" (vehicle coasts in nearly empty space), and "reentry phase" (heated reentry). Decoy balloons would only function during the coast phase. Since there is a bit of atmosphere even high above the earth, the very light decoys might slow a bit and become detectable.

More importantly, I have a question about the possibility of an attack during the boost phase, since it seems important to the U.S. military to get the interceptors close-in near the Russian's launch bases.

Much more importantly, small ICBMs hidden inside rail cars, containers, and trucks could not be attacked by a first strike, since their location would be unknown.

Also, the solid propellant and individual warheads could presumably be recycled to build new small ICBMs.

Posted by: blues | Nov 13 2015 23:15 utc | 21

60 deads in Paris. Those French who gloated at the Russian bodies falling from the skies can now piss and cry themselves. Wahhabist Saudi/qatari Islam, you let it in, now live with it fools.

Posted by: RussianBoy | Nov 13 2015 23:18 utc | 22

The events in Paris. Another attack of desperate Muslims.

Two problems:

1) French racism. The ethnics may have social housing, but they don't have hope.

2) France continues to join in US attacks on Muslims. Hollande continues supporting the US attacks on Da'ish, without considering the consequences.

Posted by: Laguerre | Nov 13 2015 23:22 utc | 23

@7 crest

' Putin is the greatest friend the people of the US could hope for. All he does is attempt to get the US out of deep state created messes. '

That is the effect. I'm sure he has nothing against Americans, but we can rely on him to be thinking of Russians and Russia first and foremost. The irony - I need a stronger word here - is that the Nihilist Obama's concern for the USA and its citizens is clearly less than Vladimir Putin's. Obama doesn't even have to come up with a plan of his own ... all he has to do is stop the lunatics around him from continuing to pursue theirs. He won't/can't even do that. Barack Obama is certainly the world's number 1 terrorist at this particular historical juncture. He certainly terrifies me, how about you?

Posted by: jfl | Nov 13 2015 23:24 utc | 24

It is somewhat ghastly to note that mere hours before Paris bombing, articles were describing terrorist attacks against Shia and (putatively) Russians in almost gloating terms. I am pasting some quotes from Daily Beast (contrary to its name, this site strives for real journalism, they are not whacko by purpose):

A. "If Hezbollah thought it would be protected after the Iran nuclear deal, it must think again after twin bomb strikes in Beirut."

B. "Hezbollah had already chosen war, but the U.S. nuclear deal with Iran gave them the impression that they would be allowed to intervene in Syria unchecked."

C. "ISIS has demonstrated to the Shiites and the rest of Lebanon that Hezbollah cannot protect them, and that its “tight” security plan in the southern suburbs of Beirut is a fantasy."

At least Daily Beast calls it a "terror attack" and not "an action of militants", as I recall NYT describing previous bomb attacks on Shia neighborhoods in Lebanon.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Nov 13 2015 23:25 utc | 25

@23 Laguerre

I think it's the attacks on Syria and his neo-colonial stance in general, especially his role as waterboy for Obama, and his anti-Muslim rhetoric and acts - paying Hebdo's extended run after the attacks there, for instance - that's made him, among others the strange attractor for terrorists. As you point out, there is a sea in France for the fish to swim in.

When will we all just give up on our plans for death, devastation, and destruction in the Middle East? How much DD&D at home will it take before the lights go on in French, British, German ... and of course in our American brains? What goes around comes around. You reap what you sow. Killing people abroad, devastating and destroying their countries, eventually leads those people left alive abroad to bring your own inhuman treatment of them back home to you.

Non-nuclear deterrence is obvious to little children : do unto others as you would have others do unto you. We have, and they are.

Posted by: jfl | Nov 13 2015 23:37 utc | 26

What is surprising about this Paris attack and the others is how easily and quickly the Islamic State has exposed and then exploited security failures in three or four countries that should have been more prepared for these eventualities.

The response by the West to the Paris attacks will have chilling effects on civil liberties which will produce no improvement in security.

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Nov 13 2015 23:43 utc | 27

@25 PB

Your A & B examples seem surely to be hasbarista. Were they laying in wait for the attack? Or did they have a good idea it was coming? And so were prepared, like the good little scouts that they are?

Who was is said that it made no difference if Israeli intelligence failed to warn Russia of the upcoming attack on its airliner becasue the Russians would have done nothing in response anyway ... Hell, give 'em a chance!

Posted by: jfl | Nov 13 2015 23:44 utc | 28

"Engels' could, as early as 1891, point to “rivalry in conquest" as one of the most important distinguishing features of the foreign policy of the Great Powers, while the social-chauvinist scoundrels have ever since 1914, when this rivalry, many time intensified, gave rise to an imperialist war, been covering up the defence of the predatory interests of “their own" bourgeoisie with phrases about “defence of the fatherland", “defence of the republic and the revolution", etc.!"

Lenin, The State and Revolution

Who knows? Neither side is in great shape, socially a economically. As a "indispensable" nation a culture is strange either as a concept or behavior to the USA. From a nation, that "skipped some developmental stages" to paraphrase de Gaulle can not come out anything that humanity might benefited from. Only death, destruction and misery and perverted lies - so throughout its inception that the USA imposed "shock and awe" on others, which makes indispensable nation faithful follower of defeated Nazi Germany. Anything but defeated.

On the other hand I do not believe that missile shield pose threat to Russia. With Iskander, short range tactical system, that shield can be easily destroyed. Maybe Putin need "something" that will counteracts the news about his daughter-billionare and anyway not great situation in Russia which is under sanctions.

Obfuscation and shifting attention, or inability of liberal fascism to solve existential problem, is favorite method of
the West and Russia is catching up with that.

Posted by: Neretva'43 | Nov 13 2015 23:54 utc | 29

I'm somewhat surprised we haven't had more events like the one happening in Paris. I can easily see such events escalating as Christmas approaches. And if they do, Europe will become very ugly. All so the Outlaw Empire can have Full Spectrum Domination over the planet and Europeans can continue as its neocolonial vassals.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 13 2015 23:55 utc | 30

It really is about time Russia exposed exactly who is behind ISIS - things are getting serious now!

Very good timing for the G20 meeting though this latest atrocity.

Posted by: Julian | Nov 14 2015 0:00 utc | 31

Is Paris celebrating Bastille Day again? So many firecrackers....laugh more Charlie Hebdo MoFos...

Posted by: Lone Wolf | Nov 14 2015 0:01 utc | 32

I didn't think Charlie Hebdo was real. I KNOW the "shooting" of the cop
on the sidewalk wasn't real. I think the EU's refugee "crisis" was staged.

I betcha what we're seeing now in Paris is more of the same. I don't yet
know towrds what end. US wants an economic & quasi political merger w Europe.
TPP seems to take them at least half-way there if they can push it thru. Somehow
the resolution of this purposeful event in Paris is going to aid in the passage of
TPP by Europe. Until now it's been opposed by a lot of the populace.

Whatever it is that's happening, just like Charlie Hebdo the French power structure
is in on it. I guess they'll be able to outlaw demonstrations now, no?

Posted by: Penelope | Nov 14 2015 0:08 utc | 33

jfl @28: your A and B examples seems surely to be hasbarista.

Good thinking, but I doubt it: the author is Hanin Ghaddar, I assume, an Arab. As we look at the map of North Africa and West Asia colored by the level of alarm at the deal with Iran, we observe a sea of indifference and a stark red patch: the southern neighbors of the Persian Gulf (or simply "The Gulf" as they are fond to say, hoping that the context will made sure that this is not Gulf of Mexico, Gulf of Carpentaria or Gulf of Guinea (not that most large bays called Gulf have a lot of oil!). Hence, a Gulf Arab or a GCC shill.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Nov 14 2015 0:21 utc | 34

Back to nuclear deterrence ... what about the US' new!, improved! - B-61 is its name, I believe, yes - 'tactical' nuclear weapon? Germany and Turkey will soon have them. The idea is that you can dial in the amount of destructive force unleashed, if not the radiation, 0.3 to 340 kiloton yield. As small an explosion as that of a sheer. mere 300 tons of TNT.

That is a bomb built to be used.

The US/NATO drops one - or more - there. Back come two - or more - 'here'. Probably more like Hiroshima sized - about 100 times larger. One hundred thousand deaths. Dial em up and send more back 'there'! How many rounds of that before there's no one left to drop any more, even to push the buttons?

This is madness. Barack Obama is worldwide terrorist #1. This bomb is built to be used.

You need a Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize under your belt to rise that high, and stay there, year after year. Maybe they could take it back? No one would die. It might be an act that is noticed. What's the downside? The dawn of sanity? Some of us might be less terrified?

Posted by: jfl | Nov 14 2015 0:24 utc | 35

"With every step forward that the US threatens Russia and China they respond to the US asymmetrically to neutralize the threat."

As a US citizen, I see so many miserable aspects to this dynamic. First and foremost, of course, is the danger that this great power saber rattling puts us in - and for dubious benefit (if there's any benefit at all). Second, and no small matter considering the state of the US economy, is the price tag all of this nonsense comes with. I'm certain that for every $1B the US pours into its corrupt military industrial complex the Russian/Chinese response doesn't cost a fraction of a fraction of the US outlay.

So what are we getting for these military bragging rights? We're taking on an impossible debt for what exactly - the chance to get set aflame and then drowned in a pool of radioactive salt water and sewage?

I guess its all worth it - SO LONG AS I KNOW THE RUSSIANS GOT THE SAME.

Posted by: guest77 | Nov 14 2015 0:25 utc | 36

@33 PB

That's interesting ... double down on the advance notice. No spying necessary ... straight from the horses's mouth. No question of warning from the complicit.

Posted by: jfl | Nov 14 2015 0:28 utc | 37

@35 guest 'We're taking on an impossible debt for what exactly ...'

The debt itself is what for ... well, cash would do as well, if there were any. The only people left making a buck in the USA are building bombs of one sort or another ... nuclear, drone-delivered, environmental, financial ... it's just business ...

Posted by: jfl | Nov 14 2015 0:33 utc | 38

@37 - Its business alright. Its fucking.... monkey business.

Posted by: guest77 | Nov 14 2015 0:36 utc | 39

@38. Big business. It employs thousands of ordinary people who presumably never feel qualms of guilt.

Posted by: dh | Nov 14 2015 0:51 utc | 40


"So what are we getting....."

We? Who are we? Ah yes, you are Amerikan citizen, you are "indispensable" Consent of the Governed So let see, you are getting cheap oil and cheap money from the FED, credit cards, you can buy new car with no down payment and low interest. And that's it.

On downside what's the rest of world is getting for free or is part of "social contract" is health care, education, no police oppression and terror.

U.S. maternal mortality rate is twice that of Canada: U.N

Now when you are not "getting" anything or enough the problem emerges. Surprise, surprise a serfs and slaves have started to think. A serf and slaves have discovered they have a brain.

Posted by: Neretva'43 | Nov 14 2015 1:06 utc | 41

@40 Neretva'43 'Ah yes, you are Amerikan citizen, you are "indispensable" '

There it is. Couldn't go on like this if we didn't allow it to.

Posted by: jfl | Nov 14 2015 1:14 utc | 42

Jacques Chirac refused the follow the US down the rabbit hole in Iraq.
Hollande: 118 morts.
Hollande is a fool.

Posted by: okie farmer | Nov 14 2015 1:22 utc | 43

@okie farmer #42:

Yeah, I thought of Chirac when I heard about this.

I've looked at various blogs just now, and not once did the term "blowback" appear. Same as with 9/11.

I even went to my haunt of a long time ago, dailyKos. The comments there are as dumb as one would expect at Fox News. I don't know what I would do without b and MoA. Really, most Western political news junkies are just as much sheep as the average Joe.

Posted by: Demian | Nov 14 2015 1:31 utc | 44

WRT: Neretva'43 | Nov 13, 2015 8:06:17 PM | 40

Consent of the Governed...

WRT: jfl | Nov 13, 2015 8:14:12 PM | 41
There it is. Couldn't go on like this if we didn't allow it to.

Strategic simple score voting is denied to you.

Your "consent" was rendered null and void by the political science "voting Systems" game theorists centuries ago.

Relax and enjoy it. It's inevitable.

Will you protest? I do!

Posted by: blues | Nov 14 2015 1:41 utc | 45

As Paris is burning after tonight's terror attacks leaving over 140 dead:

  • Hollande was the last man standing with Obama to bomb the hell out of the Syrians
  • Hollande was ordered by NATO allies to cancel two Navy carriers build for those mean Russians
  • Hollande was the good guy for the Israelis to take the toughest stance in nuclear negotiations with the evil empire of Iran
  • Hollande always breaks ranks with humanity when France can deliver Mirage fighter craft or arms like to the Saudi Wahhabist empire

VIVA LA FRANCE :: and the French people pay the ptice ...

In revenge for the Paris attacks, the refugee village – called the jungle - at Calais has been torched!

As a result, the people of Paris will revolt, Hollande gets sacked and populist Marine Le Pen will become
the next President of the Parisians! Viva la France, viva la Republique!

Marine Le Pen depicted as Jeanne D'arc

Posted by: Oui | Nov 14 2015 1:56 utc | 46

OT, but highly relevant. Massive blowback in Paris.
My sincerest condolences to the citizens of Paris for their losses.
The empire, and her minions, have enabled these religious wackos for many years now.
Starting with OBL in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, and more.
Using these insane monsters to effect "regime change", they too, share the guilt.

Posted by: ben | Nov 14 2015 2:04 utc | 47

a brand new super bomber coming up !
dont whine children, the nation's security is under the twin threat of china and russia, cant u see ?

Posted by: denk | Nov 14 2015 2:05 utc | 48

The West needs to get serious and boycott the funders of ISIS - Saudi Arabia & Qatar. Stop buying their oil & gas until they stop their infatuation with terrorists. #boycottqatar #boycottqatar2022 #boycottsaudiarabia

Post this on any friends posts about this latest atrocity in Paris. At least direct responsibility in the right direction. The funders of terrorism.

Ok ok, the story is deeper than just Saudi Arabia & Qatar - we all know that - but this is a start for anyone who knows nothing about what's really going on. At least if these two blatant funders of terrorism are properly exposed the whole edifice is more likely to come crashing down.

Posted by: Julian | Nov 14 2015 2:22 utc | 49

Julian 48

*boycottqatar #boycottqatar2022 #boycottsaudiarabia*

what happens to that *mother of all terrorism* that all the above take their
order from ?
or do i need to spell it out ?

Posted by: denk | Nov 14 2015 2:32 utc | 50

Another installment on Hollande's reward for being Obama's poodle ... US judge fines France’s Alstom $772.3 million.

Posted by: jfl | Nov 14 2015 2:34 utc | 51

Posted by: Oui | Nov 13, 2015 8:56:52 PM | 45

Sounds like they attacked Friday night and hedonistic youth culture. I would keep an open mind.

Posted by: somebody | Nov 14 2015 2:44 utc | 52

The Sakarov nuclear torpedo idea may have worked for the Zionauts with their new submarine fleet at Fukushima, after the Japanese said they would sell enriched uranium to Iran, since no Japanese earthquake monitors reported a severe quake at that time, and no monitoring cameras reported severe motion at that time, and no buildings fell. It was only later that Western powers issued a synthetic earthquake report based not on accelerometers, but on a reverse-engineered 'it must have been that strong' estimate. And if that distinct and real possibility is unacceptable to your hobbled mind, one word: MH-17 and WTC7. Sorry, .. two words.

Welcome to the Wonderful World of Ziontogeny, the word we never spoke, and I was never here. You may now return to your Paris false-flag handkerchef-gnawing.

Posted by: Chipnik | Nov 14 2015 3:12 utc | 53

Denk @ 49.

Low hanging fruit. Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. Winning hearts and minds. Divide and conquer. Watch the rats start squealing about their accomplices when the pressure is brought to bear on them.

That is the point. Don't you think they will finger their accomplices? I do.

Posted by: Julian | Nov 14 2015 3:40 utc | 54

Calais refugee camps on intense fire

Posted by: RussianBoy | Nov 14 2015 3:41 utc | 55

My heart goes out to those who were killed and injured.

But it appears to me that US-led coalition - including France - now has the justification it needs to deploy troops to Syriaqistan as hinted at in this ZH article: US Airforce calls for Ground Troops to Occupy and Govern Iraq and Syria.

If that were to happen, it would seem likely that the 'Sunni areas' of eastern Syria and western Iraq would be denied to the Russian-Iran coalition and ISIL would probably "melt away". Wonder where they would show up next? Those who have been paying attention (like MoA readers) can no-doubt make educated guesses.

Alternatively, the Paris attack could be used to reign in support for ISIS from "allies" like Turkey and the Gulf States. But I am very skeptical that this would happen.


PS Is it strange that MoA just wrote about a (long-time coming!) serious effort by US-led coalition against ISIS? How convenient that they showed themselves to be serious just before these attacks which could be used to justify a troop deployment. Am I too cynical?

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 14 2015 4:11 utc | 56

So, no doubt many observers of the Islamic and Russian worlds will wait with baited breath for the next sicko "Charlie H." cartoon to rub it into the French faces ... my guess is there won't be one for this little 'blow back' event -- for obvious reasons.

Posted by: doveman | Nov 14 2015 4:34 utc | 57

Even though I suspect that Russia & Putin are merely indulging in an LOL-fest with the Yankee Exceptionalists, there's a lot to like about the potential headaches arising from the (sudden) need to keep the Homeland safe from Nuke torpedoes.

Where would one begin?
Beefed up shark nets closing every port and harbour in the US?
24/7 air and sea patrols, and SONAR buoys, allocated to every port and harbour?

Surely it would be easier and cheaper, for anyone wanting to Nuke a Yankee port, to simply slip one into a shipping container, load the container on to a ship, and send it off (Freight Paid) to the port(s) of one's choosing. Only about 3% of newly-arrived containers are thoroughly checked...

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 14 2015 4:46 utc | 58

Security failures? Gangs attack each other on drugs stories with heavy weaponry in French suburbs, that's no secret
KSA can export terrorists just to avoid dealing with them at home -and getting into tribal quagmires- but France tried, and thought it would just be of matter of starting killing them after grouping them in Syria, but that doesn't work in an open country. Hollande and Fabius should just quit, they have fed these guys, paid them training camps in Syria, and are now surprised that they disagree when being bombed by a "coalition"?

Posted by: Mina | Nov 14 2015 5:40 utc | 59

Chirac?? He is the guy who brought Hariri into French business. And he is not ashame of living in the appartment of Hariri's son with a view on the Louvre for free until now...

Posted by: Mina | Nov 14 2015 5:45 utc | 60

@ Mina

And it is Chirac who started the badmouthing of bashar al-Assad ( yep Assad was responsible for Hariri's death and the telcom network owned by the Israeli is proof-mon oeil)

Posted by: Yul | Nov 14 2015 5:52 utc | 61

Indeed. That was my point.

Suicidal tendencies in KSA?

Posted by: Mina | Nov 14 2015 6:01 utc | 62

I'm looking forward to seeing Charlie Hebdo's devastating satire over the Paris attacks just like they did with the Russian airliner and the slaughter of demonstrators in Egypt.

Posted by: Thirdeye | Nov 14 2015 7:40 utc | 63

I wrote it before, the Status 6 nuclear torpedo aka Kanyon best known as "The Kraken" makes ABM shield a 21st century Maginot line [of defense]

Posted by: Sun Tzu | Nov 14 2015 11:29 utc | 64

They also mentioned one strike non nuke, just balistic at Yellow stone, and goodnight.

Posted by: Kevin | Nov 14 2015 12:37 utc | 65

The USA ABM system is not designed to be effective against Russia's or China's ICBM fleet. Hell, it can't even hit a pre-planned known target. The USA ABM system is simply a boondoggle to enrich the executive suite of the military industrial complex at the expense of the USA taxpayer.

The USA, Russia & China all employ extensive counter measures (metallic shards, flares, re-entry vehicles that "dance" into the atmosphere on their way to the target, etc.) in their respective ICBM fleets. The ability of all these countries to retaliate remains. Perhaps one day we will all get the opportunity to watch the ruble jump in all of these countries. If you witness a "meteor" dancing in the sky, bend over & kiss your ass goodbye.

Posted by: Peter Pan | Nov 14 2015 16:15 utc | 66

I fully agree, we're pretty good in Russian in writing sci-fi and we recently even learned how to use PhotoShop. The migration of these skills into our security services was a bit slow due to their natural conservatism, but they finally catched up. We're not so good at engineering actual stuff yet, this is why we had an Armata tank ridiculed on parade in Moscow, so that's why we're resorting to these "secret" TV leaks. Fortunately, we don't really need to try too hard as we have plenty of shit-eaters in the West who will happily amplify any bullshit our agitprop divisions come up with.

Posted by: Captain | Nov 14 2015 20:57 utc | 67

"Russia has a big problem with the "missile defense" shield the U.S. wants to install in Europe. Such a "defense" would give the U.S. the ability to launch a first strike nuclear attack on Russia while defeating a retaliatory strike Russia would launch in response."

Delusional. The U.S. could (theoretically) destroy some missiles based in western Russia. Russia has other deterrents including sub based missiles, cruise missiles and supersonic bombers. But it might encourage an increasingly deranged and off-the-farm Pentagon military complex to try,which would be effectively the same thing. No one is going to survive a nuclear war as a functional state. The degree of global devastation is only trivially debatable.

Posted by: psakiwacky | Nov 14 2015 21:15 utc | 68

@peter pan @ 66

"Reentry vehicles that dance "..It is only possible to attempt to destroy a ballistia missile as it takes off..Once the war head is re entering from space its a done deal..its bye bye.

Posted by: psakiwacky | Nov 14 2015 21:18 utc | 69

“The meeting was filmed (vid) by a major Russian TV station and ‘just by chance’ the cameraman caught a power point page...”

Why is “just by chance” in scare quotes? Aside from MSM innuendo,
is there any evidence that casts doubt on the claim?

I shouldn't be surprised that all of the hyperventilating reporters
who've covered this story fail to mention the US's own
secret submarine drones.

"The Pentagon’s research arm, DARPA, is developing robot pods that can
sit at the bottom of the ocean for long stretches of time,
waiting to release airborne and water-based drones to the surface
upon an attack command."

Posted by: dsfsd | Nov 15 2015 13:11 utc | 70

@70 The quotes are there because the author perfectly understands that everything in Russian television is so carefully staged and controlled that nothing happens 'just by chance'. The fact that no one got fired, sent to prison or even seriously reprimended is another important clue. Prompt and quite relaxed statements by Putin and other officials that "we need to improve the process" are another one. And immediate picking up of the story by English-speaking agents of influence and presenting its correct interpretation is the ultimate proof.

Posted by: Captain | Nov 15 2015 19:08 utc | 71

Captain @71

I do not think that Putin's regime is that heavy handed. Instead, think about journalist in an American major network who would record a state secret like weapon plans by accident. From what we know, management would check with DoD if this is a true secret or a leak. And of course, the military person whose shoulder is seen should know very well if this page can be shown to TV cameras or not.

As it is, the leak drove the usual suspects to most amusing conniptions. For sure, the goal of showing such plans is not to go ahead with them, but to avoid it. The arms race between American pursuit of "first strike capability" and Russian designers of surviving second strikes can go on, but this is a total waste of money on both sides. In the meantime, money can be spend on more practical weapons, or even on some civilian causes. This week I have read that in 1930s a marvelous system was implemented in NYC subways to automatically prevent trains from crashing into each other, and this invention, corroding and crumbling, is still necessary of half of NYC subway lines because the city cannot afford to replace it. The trains between Washington D.C. and NYC achieve speeds that were obtain back in Communist Poland about 40 years ago (between the current and the former capital cities, Warsaw and Cracow). Except that poor people can afford those trains in Poland, and they are a bit too expensive for the middle class in USA. Should USA survive as a hodgepodge of modernity and backwardness?

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Nov 17 2015 1:39 utc | 72

The comments to this entry are closed.