This hysteria over supposedly Russian-generated cyber-warfare is part and parcel of the new cold war campaign being waged by a coalition of neoconservatives and Clinton “progressives.” Hillary, in her last foreign policy speech, took it so far as to threaten military action against the Russians in retaliation for these supposedly Russian cyber-attacks. Think about what this means: we could be engaged in a nuclear standoff with the Russians on the basis of “intelligence” that makes the “intel” cooked up by the neocons to lie us into the Iraq war look rock solid.
This underscores the utter recklessness of Hillary Clinton’s quest for power: she is willing to risk World War III with the Russians in order to facilitate her road to the White House. Whether she actually believes her own rhetoric is an open question: if she really thinks the Kremlin is out to block her route to power, her victory at the polls would give scope to her legendary vindictiveness.
This debate defined the parameters of the election, and showed us the stakes. On one side is a somewhat inconsistent yet sincere advocate of a fundamental change in our foreign policy of global intervention. Trump’s chief concern is with “making America great again” – within its own borders. Hillary Clinton wants more of the same old imperialistic nonsense that has cost us so much and driven us to the brink of bankruptcy. She wants to make the American empire great again – pushing into Syria, confronting the Russians, and letting our “allies” drain us of our life’s blood.
Russia tests ‘unrivaled’ new radio-electronic weapon – producer Russia has developed and successfully tested radio-electronic weapons systems unmatched anywhere in the world, RIA Novosti reports, citing the manufacturer. Real prototypes of such weapons have already been created and they have proven their efficiency,”Includes armaments that employ physical processes and phenomena not generally used in modern weapons. Laser and sonic weapons are among other examples of such technology.
“This is a completely new type of weapon, which has no analogues in our country, and I daresay, in the world.” The state-of-the-art system is capable of disabling various types of targets without using the traditional rounds or shells. Instead, the weapon uses ‘directed energy.’
“It conducts indirect physical impact on the on-board equipment of aircraft or drones and neutralizes precision-guided weapons,”
“Russia has invested a lot in electronic warfare because they know we are a connected and precise force and they need to disconnect us to make us imprecise,”
The US is working on numerous projects of non-conventional weapons, including radio, electronic, infrared and laser ones.
“We have electronic warfare capability – we probably do not have the capacity we need now,” In April this year, Russia’s Radio-Electronic Technologies Concern (KRET) announced it has started trials of a tactical electromagnetic combat complex fully integrated with the latest air-defense systems.
The system is designed to suppress any existing and prospective airborne electronic equipment, making it impossible for the aircraft and satellites to proceed with their missions.
The most important issue of our time, or any time – nuclear weapons and the looming possibility of nuclear war:
“The single greatest problem the world has is nuclear armament, nuclear weapons, not global warming, like you think and your — your president thinks. Nuclear is the single greatest threat….
“I would like everybody to end it, just get rid of it. But I would certainly not do first strike. I think that once the nuclear alternative happens, it’s over.”
This is the most under-noticed – and most significant – moment of the debate. Although, to be sure, it was immediately noted by the folks over at The Intercept, who opined:
“That may seem like common sense, but it’s actually a commitment that President Obama has been reluctant to make. The Pentagon argues that unless the U.S. is prepared to threaten a nuclear strike, it is less likely to deter Russian and Chinese aggression.
“Arms control advocates have been pushing President Obama to vow ‘no first use,’
Another first in this debate was Trump’s denunciation of the Saudis, long a bipartisan sacred cow:
“I mean, can you imagine, we’re defending Saudi Arabia? And with all of the money they have, we’re defending them, and they’re not paying?”
As Michael Tracey put it in the New York Daily News: “This may well be the first instance of a candidate criticizing the Saudi government in the heat of a nationally-televised presidential debate — a clear departure from bipartisan norms. (The Clinton Foundation has taken as much as $25 million from despotic Saudi royalists.
We have no information from any official source as to why this is taking place. We are endeavoring to find out more. . .
Please check back.
In the event that we actually ARE attacked , the video below may save your life.