Obama Disarming Americans, Arming Terrorists

frontpagemag

By Daniel Greenfield

F-16

While the White House was busy drafting proposals to ban assault rifles, the last of the regulations imposed on Saudi travel to the United States after September 11 were being taken apart. While some government officials were busy planning how to disarm Americans, other officials were negotiating the transfer of F-16s and Abrams tanks to Muslim Brotherhood-run Egypt.

Obama is unwilling to trust Americans with an AR-15, but is willing to trust a genocidal terrorist group with Abrams tanks and F-16 jets. The F-16’s M61 Vulcan cannon can fire 6,000 rounds a minute and the 146 lb warhead of its HARM missiles can do a lot more than put a few dents in a brick wall. The Abrams’ 120 mm cannon can penetrate 26 inches of steel armor making it a good deal more formidable than even the wildest fantasies of San Francisco liberals about the capabilities of a so-called “assault rifle.”

While Obama has not been willing to respect the Constitution of the United States and its Bill of Rights, he was willing to arm a terrorist group whose motto is, “The Koran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader, Jihad is our path and death in the name of Allah is our goal.” If a High School student wrote that on his Facebook page, he would be in police custody within the hour, but an international organization and national government that trades in such rhetoric gets devastating firepower from our government… free of charge.

Abrams tank

In addition to giving the Hezbollah-run government of Lebanon two hundred M113 Armored Personnel Carriers, Obama deliberately turned a blind eye while Al Qaeda and other Islamist rebel groups in Libya received arms shipments from Qatar. Those weapons included a good deal more firepower than anything you can buy at Wal-Mart and later made their way to Mali and Syria. More weapons made their way into the hands of Hamas terrorists in Gaza. Whether any of these weapons were used in the assault on the Benghazi mission is unknown, but entirely possible.

While the Al Qaeda attackers at Benghazi were heavily armed, with the complicity of the Obama Administration, the Americans had been forced to abide by Libyan gun control laws, because while Obama was willing to bomb a country and help arm its terrorists, he wasn’t willing to allow embassy security personnel to flout firearms law in a city ruled by terrorist militias. Instead the terrorist militia of the Muslim Brotherhood was hired to provide security for the Benghazi mission… with tragic results.

There has been a great deal of ink spilled about Nancy Lanza’s irresponsibility in keeping guns around the house; but what of Obama’s irresponsibility in sending guns to Mexican drug lords and jets and tanks to Muslim terrorists?

Based on his track record, Obama believes that it is safe to send weapons to Mexican drug lords, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda terrorists, not to mention the Muslim Brotherhood, but that it’s far too dangerous for an American to own a clip that can hold more than 10 rounds.

And that means that Obama doesn’t think much of the moral character of Americans, but thinks a great deal of Muslim terrorists.

This double standard is the defining motif of this administration. A handful of mass shootings is enough to deprive all Americans of their constitutional rights, but the worst act of mass murder of Americans is not enough to deprive Saudi Muslim students looking for a good flight school of their visas.

M113 Armored Personnel Carriers

Even while Obama and Biden are pushing more background checks for gun owners, Saudi students will undergo fewer background checks. In The Audacity of Hope, Obama vowed to stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction. But when the political winds shift in an ugly direction toward gun owners, then Obama can be found blowing on the fan.

In Obama’s America, only some people can expect the protection of the Bill of Rights. And in a crisis, there are some people’s civil rights that we violate and some people’s rights that we do not.

There is nothing in the Bill of Rights that says you cannot profile Muslim travelers in airports. To use the same argument as the gun controllers, airports and airplanes didn’t even exist during the time of the Founding Fathers; therefore they couldn’t have possibly foreseen their existence or applied any limitation to any violation of civil rights that can take place in them.

The murder of 3,000 people did not in any way make it acceptable to single out a Muslim for special attention, despite the laws of probability, logic and common sense. That would be an overreaction. It would mean punishing large numbers of people and that would be unacceptable, no matter how many lives it might save. But depriving millions of Americans of the protection of the 2^nd Amendment after several shootings carried out by mentally ill teenagers is, for some reason, not an overreaction.

It’s not acceptable to single out the relatively small number of Muslims in the United States to save the lives of thousands, but it is imperative that we single out tens of millions of Americans to save a smaller number of people. The public safety logic of this does not hold up according to the numbers, the ethics or the law.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s arms dealer in the White House is operating under a glaring double standard. Either an act of mass murder is a valid reason for depriving people of their civil rights or it isn’t. Either dangerous weapons should be kept out of the hands of potentially dangerous people, or they shouldn’t. But what he can’t do is what he’s trying to do, which is have it both ways, granting special privileges to Muslims abroad and at home, while depriving Americans of their basic civil rights.

If President Mohammed Morsi, who only two years ago described America as an enemy, and who has since then tortured and murdered his only people can be trusted with Abrams tanks and F-16s, then surely the American gun owner can be trusted with an AR-15 and a clip that holds more than ten rounds.

Iran to unveil home-made satellite in Feb.: report

spacewar
by Staff Writers Tehran (XNA) Dec 24, 2012

In June, the defense minister said Iran's new space center, named Imam Khomeini Space Center, would be launched in the future and the Iranian scientists and experts from the Aerospace Industry Organization of the Defense Ministry would send into orbit new generation of the Islamic republic's satellites from the center.

Iran Space Agency (ISA) has announced that it will unveil a new home-made satellite in February, Tehran Times daily reported on Sunday.
Director of ISA, Hamid Fazeli, said Saturday that a new domestically-manufactured satellite, named the Nahid, will be unveiled on Feb. 2, 2013, which is Iran's National Space Technology Day, according to the report.
"The project to complete the satellite is going well, and we hope that the satellite will be unveiled on National Space Technology Day," Fazeli said, adding that it is more likely that Fajr (Dawn) and Sharifsat satellites will be sent into space by the end of the current Iranian calendar year, which ends on March 20.
The Iranian official did not elaborate on the technology and mission of the Iranian satellites.
According to the report, the Fajr is the first Iranian satellite that will be put into orbit. It is a reconnaissance satellite powered by solar energy.
On Wednesday, Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Ahmad Vahidi said that Iran was to unveil new space achievements soon.
Vahidi told reporters that the unveiling ceremony would take place on Feb. 2, Iran's National Space Technology Day.
In June, the defense minister said Iran's new space center, named Imam Khomeini Space Center, would be launched in the future and the Iranian scientists and experts from the Aerospace Industry Organization of the Defense Ministry would send into orbit new generation of the Islamic republic's satellites from the center.
As the first step, Vahidi said, the Dawn satellite would be launched into orbit from the Imam Khomeini Space Center.
Iran, a founding member of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, launched its first domestically-made data-processing satellite, the Omid (Hope), into space in 2009.
Iran frequently says that it will push ahead with its space program in the coming years.

How many nukes until we’re safe?

Fotosearch/Getty Images - Image labeled '0.053 Sec' of the first Nuclear Test, codenamed 'Trinity', conducted by Los Alamos National Laboratory at Alamogordo, New Mexico circa 1945.

WP/ By Walter Pincus

We are rightly mourning the horrific killings in Newtown, Conn.’s Sandy Hook Elementary School and discussing the threats posed by semiautomatic rifles. On another front, the United States is moving ahead with plans to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on nuclear weapons — an even more destructive force — with no serious public discussion.
Twenty years from now, how many nuclear warheads on strategic submarines will the United States need? That’s not an abstract question. The country is engaged in a costly, ambitious modernization of its nuclear weapons complex and development of a new generation of delivery systems — new strategic submarines, bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles that will be operating more than 50 years from now.

Start with the Navy’s plan for 12 new SSBN-X strategic submarines to replace the 14 Ohio-class subs now in service. A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on the program, released Dec. 10, asks whether the Navy can stay within the cost targets for their procurement ($4.9 billion each) and whether each sub should carry 16 or 20 missiles.
But shouldn’t the questions be more basic, such as who is the enemy and how many subs would be needed to deter that enemy?
There will be at least four or five warheads on each of the 16 ICBMs carried on each of the new subs. Their destructive power will be eight to more than 20 times that of the atomic bomb that all but destroyed Hiroshima in 1945.
That bomb killed 45,000 men, women and children instantly. Another 19,000 died during the next four months, according to a 1946 study by the Manhattan Engineer District, which built the bomb. The majority of those killed were civilians, though Hiroshima was picked because planners saw it as a military target with army barracks and defense factories. But the bomb — its 12.5 kiloton explosive power [equal to 12,500 tons of TNT], its heat effects and radiation — went well beyond those military targets. Today’s nuclear weapons are 100 kilotons and above.
It’s agreed that nuclear weapons don’t deter terrorist groups. And if history is any guide, the more the United States and other nuclear-armed countries modernize their weapons, the more tempting it is for other countries to want nuclear arsenals.
So how many warheads does the United States need over the next 40 years to deter others? Keeping reading >>

N. Korea out to prove reach of its rockets

A Nov. 23 satellite image from Digital Globe shows the launch complex at North Korea's Sohae Satellite Launch Station. North Korea says it's preparing to launch a satellite from the facility later this month. 

By James Oberg NBC News space analyst

HOUSTON — North Korea has two things to prove to the world when it tries once again to put a satellite into orbit, as announced over the weekend. First, engineers have to prove that they've solved the technical problems that led to an embarrassing launch failure in April. Second, officials have to prove that their intentions are as peaceful as they say they are.

As hard as the first challenge is, the second one may be harder.
Some observers have referred to this month's scheduled launch as a test for a long-range missile capable of hitting the United States, but this weekend's statement from Pyongyang was explicit: The North Koreans say they are simply trying again to put a satellite into orbit.
The mission has been portrayed as a do-over for April's launch of the Unha rocket and Kwangmyongsong satellite. The launch will once again take place at the Sohae Satellite Launch Station, where our NBC News team and other foreign journalists were given a pre-launch tour. Once again, the rocket is due to fly almost due south, putting the satellite in a polar orbit, according to warnings posted for fliers and mariners in the projected impact zone.
This time, however, the North Koreans are hoping to avoid premature impact. In April, the first stage of the three-stage Unha rocket disintegrated near the end of its two-minute thrusting phase, with the debris plunging into shallow waters west of the South Korean coastline.
Good news, bad news From the North Koreans' perspective, the good news is that the first stage worked properly on at least two earlier launches, where upper stages then failed. So the design is probably fixable.
But clues as to the nature of the failure have been scanty. Any debris that was recovered is probably in South Korean (and perhaps U.S.) hands. The available telemetry about the rocket's operating parameters probably was not extensive. More >> 

New pictures show second Chinese stealth fighter being test flown

Security Clearance

A jet fighter with stealth characteristics was test flown this week in China. (Photo from cjdby.net)

A jet fighter with stealth characteristics was test flown this week in China. (Photo from cjdby.net)

WASHINGTON (CNN) - CNN has obtained detailed photographs of a new stealth fighter being tested in China.

It is the second such stealth fighter China has tested in as many years and appears destined to become the communist nation's future aircraft carrier-based fighter jet, according to weapons analysts.

The plane, dubbed by outsiders as the J-31, was test flown Tuesday in Shenyang. According to the analysts, the two photographs obtained by CNN appear to have been leaked by officials in China.

J-31 Chinese fighter jet. (Photo cjdby.net)

"It has to be an official photographer because nobody else can get that close to the airplane," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org. "These are all publicity photos from the factory, and I could not imagine that the factory would publicize these things without somebody higher up in the food chain authorizing it."

Richard Fisher, a senior fellow in Asian military affairs at the International Assessment and Strategy Center (IASC), agrees these are not pictures sent out surreptitiously by some Chinese aviation aficionado. "The Internet censors are controlling this process, have no doubt that."

But Fisher said the reason for the release may not be as threatening as some might imagine.

"It's being done in a way to help promote pro-military nationalism in China. There's just a huge, large audience in China for this kind of information. It's kind of like NASCAR."

No matter who let the pictures go public, they won't answer all the questions surrounding China's fighter program. "They don't want to reveal anything that's truly useful to a foreign military or intelligence service," Fisher said.

In January 2011, China tested the J-20, a fighter jet with stealth characteristics, much like the American F-22.

J-20 Chinese fighter jet. (Photo from IHS/Janes)

Fisher said the J-31 appears be a lighter fighter jet similar to the American F-35.

"The J-20 is the heavy stealth fighter, (The J-31) is going to be the medium-weight stealth fighter. It's very much in the same vein as the F-22 versus the F-35, with the Raptor, the F-22 being the heavy fifth-generation fighter for the U.S. Air Force versus the medium-weight F-35."

Pike said that could be the case, but it may be that China is test flying both prototypes and will choose just one to put into production.

While these are both fifth-generation fighter jets, that doesn't put them on par with America's two newest fighters.

For example, Pike said China's jet engines just don't come close to American engines. "This is a sucking chest wound of Chinese military aviation."

Pike said the primary Chinese military jet engine is based on an American design. "We started development of this engine back in the '60s. Then they commercialized it in the 1970s. Then the Chinese got a hold of it 20 years ago and it's still no good. It's a half century-old design that they've been working on for two decades, and it's still no good."

Fisher has a higher opinion of that engine. "It's not entirely true that China is currently facing massive problems. They've actually had some measure of success."

And Fisher said China appears to be developing a brand new engine for the J-31. "The engines that will likely power the J-31 we do know a bit more about. Those engines were actually revealed at the Zhuhai show in 2008," Fisher said referring to an annual China air show. He believes the new J-31 engine is undergoing preliminary testing.

Another problem is the stealth characteristics of the plane.

The J-31 is designed to have a stealthy shape. "From the side profile, it really looks like a 75% (scale) F-22 from the bottom, and the top profile it very much looks like an F-35."

The J-31 may have the stealth coatings that help it absorb radar signals instead of letting them bounce off and give away its position.  More >>

The shifting U.S.-China nuclear balance

Shadow Government/ Tom Mahnken

bbc.co.uk

I read Jeffrey Lewis' FP blog post with interest because he highlights the nuclear balance between the United States and China, a topic that deserves greater attention than it has gotten.
Recent years have seen growing attention to China's fielding of so-called anti-access/area denial systems, including an increasing number of accurate conventional ballistic missiles to strike airbases and other facilities in the Western Pacific and anti-ship ballistic missiles to target mobile power projection forces like carrier strike groups. To date, however, the nuclear dimension of Chinese military modernization has received less attention. Still, in recent months, China's military has reportedly tested a new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), the DF-41, which is reportedly equipped with multiple, independently-targeted re-entry vehicles, or MIRVs, as well as its new JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM). China's nuclear buildup remains unconstrained by strategic arms limitation agreements, such as the Russo-American New START Treaty, as well as arms control affecting ballistic and cruise missiles, such as the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.
In Lewis' view, the path to stability is predicated on the United States and China accepting mutual nuclear vulnerability. Indeed, his discussion of the Sino-American nuclear balance takes mutual vulnerability as its starting point. He goes on to argue that "Our refusal to recognize that vulnerability is simply a fact of life essentially blocks a productive dialogue with Chinese leaders."
There is, however, plenty of room to question whether Chinese political or military leaders share our perspective. Indeed, official publications of the People's Liberation Army such as the Science of Second Artillery Campaigns show that the Chinese military views nuclear weapons much differently than American strategic thinkers. Other books, such as Coercive Deterrence Warfare, portray launching missiles in close proximity to enemy forces as a form of deterrence.  In other words, official literature espouses some very different -- and potentially very dangerous -- notions.
Writing in the latest issue of The Journal of Strategic Studies (which, in the interest of full disclosure, I edit) Tom Christensen of Princeton University argues that Chinese leaders believe that they are only now acquiring a secure second-strike capability. As a result, he raises the possibility that China will become bolder as the quantity and quality of its nuclear force increases. China's nuclear modernization program may thus have greater consequences for China's behavior than is commonly believed.
On the other side, as Dana Priest recently described in the Washington Post, the United States has an aging nuclear arsenal. The newest weapon in the U.S. nuclear force was designed and deployed in 1991. U.S. nuclear weapons, all of which are at least 20 years old, were designed for an expected operational life of 10-15 years. You can count the number of U.S. weapons laboratory employees who have actually designed a nuclear weapon on one hand -- and the number will only get smaller over time.
The Obama administration is committed to the elimination of nuclear weapons and has reportedly been conducting internal studies envisioning massive cuts in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. A number of policy makers with whom I've spoken in recent weeks tell me that if Obama is re-elected, he will seek to slash unilaterally the size of the U.S. nuclear stockpile. Such a move could grant China nuclear parity with the United States, or at least put it in reach. Such a move would give China greater nuclear leverage not through an expensive buildup on their side, but through disarmament on ours.
Although there is much in Jeffrey Lewis' piece with which I disagree, I do believe that the United States and China should enter into more serious discussions about nuclear weapons. Indeed, I believe that the United States should refuse to enter into future nuclear arms limitation talks without the participation of the Chinese. A failure to do so could jeopardize the nuclear balance that has underpinned American and allied security since the end of World War II.

Construye Venezuela su primer drone

Russia tests missile designed to counter US defense shield

By Msnbc.com staff and wire/

Russia has successfully tested an intercontinental ballistic missile – designed to counter a U.S. defense shield being set up in Europe - firing it from one end of the country to the other, according to reports.

News channel Russia Today’s website said that the missile was launched Wednesday from a facility at Plesetsk in northwestern Russia and hit the Kura target range on the Kamchatka Peninsula on the Pacific coast in the country’s east.

Retired Col.-General Viktor Yesin told Russia Today that the missile was "one of the military-technical measures, which Russia’s military-political leadership is taking in response to the deployment of a global anti-missile defense system by the Americans."    More >>

Meet Joshua Kucera: The Caspian Arm Race, Navy Build-Up

PulitzerCenter

Russia threatens preemptive strike over planned US missile shield

Read >>

Japan calls for China to explain aircraft carrier

Military Space News

Japan's defence minister called on China Friday to explain why it needs an aircraft carrier, after Beijing sparked increased concerns over its military expansion by starting sea trials for the vessel.
"As an aircraft carrier, it is of a highly maneuverable and offensive nature. We want China to explain the reasons why it needs it," Toshimi Kitazawa told reporters.
"There is no doubt that it will have a big impact on the region," he added.
China put the revamped Soviet-built aircraft carrier Varyag to sea on Wednesday, prompting the United States to call for an explanation.
Beijing has sought to play down the vessel's capability, saying it will mainly be used for training and "research".
In its annual defence report last week, Japan expressed concern over China's growing assertiveness and widening naval reach in nearby waters and the Pacific and over what it called the "opaqueness" of Beijing's military budget.
China criticised the report as "irresponsible", insisting its drive to modernise its forces was entirely defensive.

Russia air defense: Death In A Small Box

Air Defense: Death In A Small Box

February 23, 2011: Russia is now offering for export an updated anti-aircraft missiles system that uses small (as in usually shoulder-fired) missiles in containers (four or eight cells) that can be mounted on vehicles. This Strelets system has been around for years, but the latest version uses an Igla-S (9K338/SA-24) with a proximity fuze. This enables the missile to detonate if it comes close (and the proximity fuze detects that the missile is now moving away from the target). Older versions of Strelets carry the SA-18 missile, which is a few kilograms lighter than the SA-24, has a lower ceiling (three kilometers) and lacks the proximity fuze. Russia has been offering its SA-18/24 (Igla) portable surface-to-air missile to foreign customers for most of the past decade. The 19 kg (42 pound) system has a missile with a 2.5 kg (5.5 pound) warhead, a range of six kilometers, a max ceiling of six kilometers (20,000 feet) and a seeker that can detect and ignore many types of flares.
The Russians claim the SA-18 is twice as effective as the U.S. Stinger, and much cheaper (at about $30,000 each.) There's no proof the SA-18 is better, or even as good as, Stinger. Sales have been slow since September 11, 2001, because these make excellent terrorist weapons for use against airliners and the U.S. protests any sales that might end up arming terrorists.
The Strelets consists of an 80 kg (176 pound) box like structure that contains four SA-18/24 missiles. The fire control system is mounted elsewhere in the vehicle, and the launcher fires the missile when the operator of the fire control system gets a signal that the SA-18/24 heat seeker has detected a target. There is also a 120 kg (264 pound) version, that carries eight missiles. The Strelets can be mounted in any vehicle that has space for it, and can support the weight of the launcher.
Strelets has already been sold to the Russian army and several foreign customers. Helicopters are the primary target of the SA-18/24 missile, as most American jets (except the A-10) fly too high to be hit.

Man had loaded gun in bag at Miami airport

Police: Man had loaded gun in bag at Miami airport - Florida AP - MiamiHerald.com

Rusia prueba con exito su nuevo cohete intercontinental

Rusia prueba con éxito su misil intercontinental Bulavá

Armamentismo hoy

Mientras China suspende los intercambios militares con EE UU por la venta de armas a Taiwán , Rusia firma contrato de 1.300 millones de dólares en armas para Libia

Rusia prueba un nuevo caza tipo stealth

La nueva arma rusa para surcar los cielos