Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Leaders express the interests of the owners of money. That's how capitalism works.
The problem was not in ignorance itself. The problem was in self-comforting wishful-thinking and active denying the necessarity o know anything about actual Japanese plans.Not true, not true at all.
First of all, there were never any signals sent out about the attack. Not a single one, every single order from January 1941 until the attack happened was entirely hand carried. It was never discussed on the phone, via telegraph, and certainly never by radio. The very first radio message ever sent about the attack from when the operations was conceived in January 1941 was on 7 December when the lead pilot radioed back "Tiger" three times signifying they had complete surprise. That was the first form of electronic communication sent regarding the attack.
Plus, the Japanese military in their communications not only used the codes, but a secondary sequence of code words. Even if we had somehow managed to intercept plans of an attack, they never would have said "Pearl Harbor". That is why the US had to go to such an elaborate ruse in 1942 to learn that "AF was out of water". Of course, that would be of no help as the Japanese were using IJN code JN-25, which we did not break until 1942. The only code at that time we were regularly breaking was Purple, used by the Japanese Diplomatic Service.
This was common in all militaries, not only codes but also code words. That is why in both World Wars the "Codetalkers" were so valuable. Both the Germans in WWI and the Japanese in WWII did manage to capture several of the Indians that spoke the languages used. But they were worthless, as in addition to speaking in Choctaw, Cherokee, Cheyenne, Navaho, and other languages they were also speaking in code. So even with a native speaker, the messages made absolutely no sense. Like requesting an "Eagle put a potato on a turtle" and then a series of letters. That was a request to have an SDB bomb a tank, and the letters were the coordinates. But to somebody that spoke the language but did not know the spoken code that was completely nonsensical.
What is even more important in the original message, is the words "the new ballistic trajectories" (AKA "suppressed ballistic trajectories"). The guys are making their trainings in the sudden counter-force attack.On February 22, 2024, the S-500 SAM system intercepted a hypersonic block of an intercontinental missile.
In the course of the intercept, the R-29RMU2 "Sineva" intercontinental ballistic missile was shot down. It was launched from the nuclear-powered submarine cruiser Tula in the Laptev Sea. The S-500 was at the Chizha range in the Arkhangelsk region, over which the missile was shot down. The system has proven its ability to track hypersonic targets, including advanced developments.
That is, the russians can intercept missiles that the West does not yet have. And they can't intercept missiles that the russians already have.
This is all you need to know about the arms race imposed on Russia by the West.
In the course of the intercept, the R-29RMU2 "Sineva" intercontinental ballistic missile was shot down. It was launched from the nuclear-powered submarine cruiser Tula in the Laptev Sea. The S-500 was at the Chizha range in the Arkhangelsk region, over which the missile was shot down. The system has proven its ability to track hypersonic targets, including advanced developments.
That is, the russians can intercept missiles that the West does not yet have. And they can't intercept missiles that the russians already have.
As far as I know, Trident II never used suppressed ballistic trajectory. Liquid fuel has its own advantages, one of them - it allow more sophisticated maneuvers.OK, and first of all, why exactly would the US have an R29 SLBM? Not that the R29 is anything of particular interest or note, it is essentially equivalent to the TRIDENT I that the US first deployed in 1971. SO big whoop-de-doo, the Russians have finally intercepted the equivalent of a 5 decade old SLBM. The US retired all of their TRIDENT I missiles decades ago, and uses the UGM-133 Trident II.
As far as the US tracking, targeting, and destroying hypersonic missiles, they have been doing that for over 3 decades now. So congrats, apparently Russia has finally gotten to the point the US was at during the Bush Administration.
And I am talking about the First Bush Administration, of 1991-1994.
As for the last sentence, you know that is complete gibberish, right? Exactly what missile can "the west" not shoot down? And what missiles that the West does not have are you even talking about? Yes, it is true indeed that the West has nothing like the R29. They retired all of the missiles like that over 2 decades ago.
What you think and what humans do are not one in the same.Somebody named George Santayana once said, "Only the dead have seen an end to war." In the past the U.S. has been involved in many wars. None since the Civil War have been justifiable. In WW II, we were just plain on the wrong side. We backed the Russians. Who were responsible for the greatest genocide in human history. Whom we also nearly went to nuclear war with in three different occasions. Along with their "Iron Curtain." (And now their attacking the Ukraine) Also, without the help of the communist Russians, it is unlikely that the Chinese communists would have taken over China. Who were responsible for the untimely deaths of tens of millions of Chinese. And these days, there is often talk of possible war with them. Both of them also helped out both the North Koreans and North Vietnamese in our wars with them.
Obviously, things haven't changed much since then. Look at our response to the 9-11 attacks. We attacked a country that didn't have anything to do with it. Iraq. When we should have attacked the country where nearly all the hijackers on 9-11 came from. Saudi Arabia. But instead we attacked Iraq. What did that accomplish? Handing the country over to Iran and creating ISIS. Also, what came out of our involvement in attacking one of the countries responsible. Afghanistan. After the loss and injury of many American soldiers over many years and spending trillions of dollars, all we ended up doing was arming and funding the hell out of the Taliban.
If we are going to have a war, how about doing it for a justifiable reason. Something called National Sovereignty! Right now our country is being invaded by and slowly taken over by illegals from just about every latino country there is. Only war will put a stop to it. As George Santayana said, there is going to be war no matter what. How about having a war for a justifiable reason, like I just spoke of. What do you think.
You need to get out of this Democrat and Republican mode of thinking, it's the same in the UK with the Conservatives and Labour, most of the time especially on foreign policy they are on the same page, two cheeks of the same backside.Every war in the bloody 20th century happened during a democrat administration. Woodrow Wilson (or his wife) sent Doughboys to fight for France after the Princeton professor promised American mothers that he would never send their sons to fight in a foreign war. We had to do it all over again in about 25 years under another democrat president. Democrat icon Harry Truman sent Troops to Korea under an illegal Executive order and we lost anywhere from 35,000 to 50,000 Troops in three years of a mismanaged quagmire. LBJ had a better idea. He sent Troops to Vietnam under the guise of a phony "crisis" and we won every battle and lost the freaking war. The lesson? The media will always support the agenda of a democrat and even make up a fake legacy no matter how freaking screwed up the situations gets but a republican never gets a break no matter what happens.
War is politics and politics is war. The problem for the U.K. as far as I know is that there is no concept of freedom the the press and as such the media is the propaganda arm of (usually ) liberal administrations. Here in the Colonies the media has become a willing arm of mostly democrat administrations and as such the undereducated victims of the federal education system come away with a skewed vision of history. The truth is out there in a free society but you have to look for it.You need to get out of this Democrat and Republican mode of thinking, it's the same in the UK with the Conservatives and Labour, most of the time especially on foreign policy they are on the same page, two cheeks of the same backside.
