An employee of the chemical research center which was bombed by the United States, the United Kingdom, and France says that no chemicals were released during the strike that leveled the building. That’s incredibly important proof that no chemical weapons we actually there, he said.
Said Said, an engineer at the Scientific Research Center facility, told RT Arabic that the very fact that no chemicals were released during the strike should serve as evidence that no chemical weapons program was run at the site. “You can see for yourself that nothing has happened. I’ve been here since 5:00 a.m. No signs of weapons-grade chemicals,“ he said. The researcher said he had worked at the facility for decades, and it used to develop medicine and household chemicals.
The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had visited the site several times and never found any traces of banned chemicals. Since Syria joined the Chemical Weapons Convention under a deal brokered by Russia and the US in 2013, the UN chemical watchdog repeatedly confirmed its full compliance with its obligations to dismantle and remove its chemical stockpiles. In June 2014, the OPCW declared Syria free of chemical weapons.
On April 12, even US Secretary of Defense James Mattis told the House Armed Services Committee that the US government does not have any evidence that sarin or chlorine was used, that he was still looking for evidence. Yet the bombing happened anyway.
“We even provided them [OPCW] with a special place where they could collect and pack test samples taken during the inspection,”Said told RT. The inspectors would stay in the rooms on the upper floor and use the laboratory equipment, and the staff was “cooperating with them completely.”
Being a civilian research center, the staff did not believe it would be identified as the primary target for an attack. “As we work in civilian pharmaceutical and chemical research, we did not expect that we would be hit,“Said told AFP. The allegations that that Barzeh was an integral part of Syria’s chemical program were “totally incorrect,” he stressed, speaking to CBS News.
Reports by the UN’s chemical watchdog, the latest of which was filed just a month ago, suggest Said is correct, and there are no chemical weapons at the facility. The reporton the first inspection that was conducted between February 26 and March 5, 2017, says that “the inspection team did not observe any activities inconsistent with obligations under the Convention,“ noting that Damascus had provided unimpeded access to the inspectors“to all selected areas.”
The follow-up inspection, carried out in November, did not find any incriminating evidence either. The March 2018 report reiterates:“As stated in previous reports, all of the chemicals declared by the Syrian Arab Republic that were removed from its territory in 2014 have now been destroyed.”
It was a stunning announcement, stunning because of what was said and maybe equally as stunning because it was honest.
Secretary of Defense James Mattis says there is no evidence that the Syrian government used sarin gas on the its own people.
It is a narrative we have been pushing back on for years. So what does this mean for U.S. policy in Syria? And will President Trump continue to push for war in Syria, or will he return to the positions of candidate Trump who said the U.S. should stay out of it?
Let’s give it a Reality Check you won’t get anywhere else.
The statement is getting very little media coverage but it is a very big deal.
According to Defense Secretary James Mattis, there is no evidence that the Syrian government has used sarin gas on its own people.
Here is exactly what Mattis told reporters at the Pentagon:
“We have other reports from the battlefield from people who claim it’s been used.”
“We do not have evidence of it.”
“We’re looking for evidence of it, since clearly we are dealing with the Assad regime that has used denial and deceit to hide their outlaw actions.”
Mattis insists that he wasn’t refuting the claims. But in a sense, he did.
According to Newsweek, in 2017 a White House memorandum was quickly produced and then declassified to justify an American Tomahawk missile strike against the Shayrat airbase in Syria.
The justification used was that Assad had used chemical weapons on his own people. Then President Trump himself insisted that there was no doubt that Syrian President Assad had killed his own people with banned chemical weapons.
But Mattis also didn’t qualify the statement to just the Syrian airbase strike. That means that the 2013 gas attack in Ghouta also was not proven to be Assad.
At that time, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were demanding congress approve use of force against Assad. Obama said this from the rose garden as he said American destroyers armed with Tomahawk missiles were on standby in the Mediterranean Sea.
“I’m prepared to give that order, but having made my decision as commander in chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy.”
Congress did not approve that use of force, but then applauded Trump for his use.
For his part, in this latest statement, Mattis says that “aid groups and others” had provided evidence of the Syrian government using sarin.
But as I have extensively reported over the past few years, there is much evidence that the so called Syrian freedom fighters are actually ISIS and Al Qaeda fighters. And there is evidence that they have used chemical weapons.
Other problems with the claims of Assad using sarin: in the 2013 Ghouta event, the sarin came from home-made rockets, which were favored by insurgents.
Also, according to Newsweek:
“In the 2013 event, the White House memorandum seemed to rely heavily on testimony from the Syrian white helmets who were filmed at the scene having contact with supposed sarin-tainted casualties and not suffering any ill effects.
“Carla del Ponte was unable to fulfill her U.N. joint investigative mechanism mandate in Syria and withdrew in protest over the United States refusing to fully investigate allegations of chemical weapons use by ‘rebels’ who are actually jihadis, allied with the American effort to oust President Assad (including the use of sarin by anti-Assad rebels).”
According to the Times of London:
“Carla del Ponte, head of the independent UN commission investigating reports of chemical weapons use in Syria, told a Swiss-Italian television station that UN investigators gleaned testimony from victims of Syria’s civil war and medical staff which indicated that rebel forces used sarin gas – a deadly nerve agent.
“‘Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated,’ del Ponte said in the interview, translated by Reuters.
‘This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities,’ she added.”
It was the involvement of those jihadis posing as Syrian rebels that made then-candidate Trump state emphatically that he wouldn’t intervene and help oust Assad as Hillary Clinton wanted to do.
Candidate Trump pushed back heavily against intervention. He warned that ISIS was likely to take over Syria if Assad were ousted, just as they have in Iraq and Libya.
And yet the U.S. is only escalating fighting.
Four Russian nationals, and perhaps dozens more, were killed in fighting between pro-government forces in eastern Syria and members of the United States-led coalition fighting the Islamic State, according to Russian and Syrian officials—that according to the New York Times.
Russia says that no members of the Russian armed forces were killed and that any Russians fighting alongside the Syrians were mercenaries.
So what you need to know is that candidate Trump was clear when he pointed to the bush policy in Iraq and the Obama/Clinton policies in Libya and Syria that have only strengthened the creation and spread of ISIS and jihadism.
Candidate Trump rightly pointed out that these policies had failed and that it was insanity to keep pursuing those policies and expecting a different outcome.
So why is President Trump now embracing those insane policies that if continued will undoubtedly leave another power vacuum in the Middle East which will be filled with jihadis?
Officers and troops across the country in the United States military are quietly preparing for a war with the hermit kingdom of North Korea. As quietly as possible, the increase in military exercises suggests a renewed focus on getting the country’s military prepared for what could be on the horizon with North Korea.
From Ft. Bragg in North Carolina, where last month a mix of 48 Apache gunships and Chinook cargo helicopters took off in an exercise that practiced moving troops and equipment under live artillery fire to assault targets; to the skies above Nevada, where 119 soldiers from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division parachuted out of C-17 military cargo planes under the cover of darkness in an exercise that simulated a foreign invasion, the military is practicing drill that could prepare them for a third world war. And this would most likely be a nuclear war.
Many have thought that this is all standard for a nation built on military might with a huge military industrial complex and a presence around the globe. But not all agree.Although Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and General Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, both argue forcefully for using diplomacy to address Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions, they still anticipate a war. A war with North Korea, Mr. Mattis said in August, would be “catastrophic.” Still, about two dozen current and former Pentagon officials and senior commanders said in interviews that the exercises largely reflected the military’s response to orders from Mr. Mattis and service chiefs to be ready for any possible military action on the Korean Peninsula.
Rhetoric between the US and Pyongyang has cooled since the high in September when president Donald Trump and North Korea’s dictator exchanged barbs. Trump vowed to “totally destroy North Korea” if it threatened the United States, and derided the rogue nation’s leader, Kim Jong-un, as “Rocket Man.” In response, Mr. Kim said he would deploy the “highest level of hard-line countermeasure in history” against the United States, and described Mr. Trump as a “mentally deranged U.S. dotard.”
At a moment of widespread acknowledgement that the short-lived Islamic State is no longer a reality, and as ISIS is about to be defeated by the Syrian Army in its last urban holdout of Abu Kamal City in eastern Syria, the US is signalling an open-ended military presence in Syria. On Monday Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told reporters at the Pentagon that the US is preparing for a long term military commitment in Syria to fight ISIS "as long as they want to fight."
Mattis indicated that even should ISIS loose all of its territory there would still be a dangerous insurgency that could morph into an "ISIS 2.0" which he said the US would seek to prevent. “The enemy hasn’t declared that they’re done with the area yet, so we’ll keep fighting as long as they want to fight,” Mattis said. “We’re not just going to walk away right now before the Geneva process has traction.”
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis stands in front of a map of Syria and Iraq.
Mattis was referring to the stalled peace talks in Geneva which some analysts have described as a complete failure (especially as the Geneva process unrealistically stipulates the departure of Assad), as the future of Syria has of late been increasingly decided militarily on the battlefield, with the Syrian government now controlling the vast majority of the country"s most populated centers.
Ironically just as some degree of stability and normalcy has returned to many parts of the county now under government control, Mattis coupled the idea of a permanent US military presence with the goal of allowing Syrians to return to their homes. He said, “You keep broadening them. Try to (demilitarize) one area then (demilitarize) another and just keep it going, try to do the things that will allow people to return to their homes.”
Meanwhile Turkey once again reiterated that the US has 13 bases in Syria, though the US-backed Syrian YPG has previously indicated seven US military bases in northern Syria. The Pentagon, however, would not confirm base locations or numbers - though only a year-and-a-half ago the American public was being assured that there would be "no boots on the ground" due to mission creep in Syria.
During the last year of the Obama administration, State Department spokesman John Kirby was called out multiple times by reporters for tell obvious and blatant lies concerning "boots on the ground" in Syria.
Remember this? "We are not going to be involved in a large scale combat mission on the ground in Syria. That is what the president [Obama] has long said."
Last summer, in a move that angered the US administration, Turkish state media leaked the locations of no less than ten small scale American military bases in northern Syria alone (revelations of US bases in southern Syria began surfacing as well). As another recent Pentagon press conference further acknowledged, these bases - though likely special forces forward operating bases - require a broad network of US personnel operating in various logistical roles inside Syria and likely now includes thousands of US troops deployed on the ground, instead of the Pentagon"s official (and highly dubious) "approximately 500 troops in Syria" number.
What makes even the timing of Mattis" declaration of an open ended military commitment in to supposedly fight ISIS is that it came the same day that the BBC confirmed that the US and its Kurdish SDF proxy (Syrian Democratic Forces) cut a deal with ISIS which allowed for the evacuation of possibly thousands of ISIS members and their families from Raqqa.
The BBC has uncovered details of a secret deal that let hundreds of Islamic State fighters and their families escape from Raqqa, under the gaze of the US and British-led coalition and Kurdish-led forces who control the city. A convoy included some of IS"s most notorious members and - despite reassurances - dozens of foreign fighters. Some of those have spread out across Syria, even making it as far as Turkey.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Omar fields falling into hands of SDF could well have been part of a Quid pro quo deal that allowed ISIS to leave Raqqa for allowing SDF to capture Omar oil field after ISIS attacks #SyrianArmy positions. If you read 1 article today, make sure its one by BBC below https://t.co/FFQhOIjPEC
Though it"s always good when the mainstream media belatedly gives confirmation to stories that actually broke months prior, the BBC was very late to the story. ISIS terrorists being given free passage by coalition forces to leave Raqqa was a story which we and other outlets began to report last June, and which Moon of Alabama and Al-Masdar News exposed in detail a full month prior to the BBC report.
And astoundingly, even foreign fighters who had long vowed to carry out attacks in Europe and elsewhere were part of the deal brokered under the sponsorship of the US coalition in Syria. According to the BBC report:
Disillusioned, weary of the constant fighting and fearing for his life, Abu Basir decided to leave for the safety of Idlib. He now lives in the city. He was part of an almost exclusively French group within IS, and before he left some of his fellow fighters were given a new mission.
"There are some French brothers from our group who left for France to carry out attacks in what would be called a ‘day of reckoning.’”
Much is hidden beneath the rubble of Raqqa and the lies around this deal might easily have stayed buried there too. The numbers leaving were much higher than local tribal elders admitted. At first the coalition refused to admit the extent of the deal.
So it appears that the US allowed ISIS terrorists to freely leave areas under coalition control, according to no less than the BBC, while at the same time attempting to make the case before the public that a permanent Pentagon presence is needed in case of ISIS" return. But it’s a familiar pattern by now: yesterday"s proxies become today"s terrorists, which return to being proxies again, all as part of justifying permanent US military presence on another nation"s sovereign territory.
America"s Syrian adventure went from public declarations of “we’re staying out” to “just some logistical aid to rebels” to “okay, some mere light arms to fight the evil dictator” to “well, a few anti-tank missiles wouldn’t hurt” to “we gotta bomb the new super-bad terror group that emerged!” to “ah but no boots on the ground!” to “alright kinetic strikes as a deterrent” to “but special forces aren’t really boots on the ground per se, right?” to yesterday"s Mattis declaration of an open-ended commitment. And on and on it goes.
In Monday testimony before Senate Foreign Relations Committee members, they urged congressional authorization for unlimited warmaking anywhere worldwide – a shocking indictment of a rogue state threatening humanity’s survival, risking eventual catastrophic nuclear war.
Fact: Security Council members alone may authorize one nation attacking others – only in self-defense, never preemptively.
The September 14, 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) flagrantly breached international law. Neither Congress or presidents can legally wage war without SC authorization.
Throughout its post-WW II history, America raped and destroyed one nation after another preemptively and illegally without just cause.
It remains unaccountable for high crimes of war, against humanity and genocide. The Trump administration is conspiring with Congress to continue waging naked US aggression against any designated adversary – extrajudicially.
Tillerson lied saying the AUMF authorizes US force against the Taliban, al-Qaeda, ISIS and “associated forces,” citing their so-called terrorist threat when none exists.
In the 1980s, America created Afghanistan’s mujahideen fighters, today’s Taliban. It created and supports al-Qaeda, ISIS and other terrorist groups, using them as imperial foot soldiers, mostly as pretexts to wage endless wars of aggression against sovereign nations threatening no one.
Tillerson: the Trump administration “should not be time constrained” and “must not be geographically restricted.” Any congressional limitations on warmaking “embolden(s) our enemies” – invented ones because real ones don’t exist, he failed to explain.
No new AUMF is needed, he said, unjustifiably claiming “the President has the power under Article II of the Constitution to use military force in certain circumstances to advance important US national interests, including to defend the United States against terrorist attacks.”
Mattis expressed support for the same endless aggression policy, saying “we must recognize that we are in an era of frequent skirmishing, and we are more likely to end this fight sooner if we don’t tell our adversary the day we intend to stop fighting.”
“Any new congressional expression of unity, whether or not an AUMF, would present a strong statement to the world of America’s determination” – to wage endless wars of aggression, he failed to explain.
The so-called global war on terror is the greatest hoax in modern times – created by Washington to wage endless wars of aggression against sovereign independent nations, wanting pro-Western governance ruling them, their resources looted, their people exploited as serfs.
That’s what America’s geopolitical agenda is all about, the 9/11 mother of all state-sponsored false flags launching war on humanity, enlisting other rogue states as partners to wage it, using ISIS and other terrorist groups to do its fighting and dying.
America’s phony war on terror is being waged covertly worldwide, US special forces infesting most countries, nearly all African ones, Niger the tip of the continent’s iceberg.
Nothing is reported except when incidents like the killing of four US special forces in Niger are revealed. Even then, covert missions abroad aren’t explained, Congress and likely Trump kept uninformed.
Straightaway in office, he was co-opted by America’s military/industrial complex, becoming the latest in a long line of US warrior presidents.
He’s continuing Bush/Cheney/Obama wars, escalating them, threatening new conflicts.
North Korea and Iran are prime targets, perhaps Russia and China later on, eliminating their sovereign independence key to unchallenged US global dominance.
It’s the end goal Washington seeks, no matter the human toll or threat to humanity’s survival.
Despite credible information easily accessed online from reliable sources, the vast majority of Americans are ignorant and/or dismissive about what’s going on – unaware of the grave danger posed by Washington’s permanent war agenda.
If not curbed, the chickens will surely come home to roost, perhaps when one or more US cities are immolated by thermonuclear detonations – when it’s too late to matter.
North Korea claims that president Donald Trump has “lit the wick of war,” and has issued a threat. The tyrannical regime says that it will unleash a “hail of fire” on the United States.
Tensions are not even close to cooling especially when it comes to the rhetoric between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-Un. Ri Yong Ho, Pyongyang’s foreign minister, verbally lashed out at the US President and said that the red-hot tensions will not be settled with words. “With his bellicose and insane statement at the United Nations, Trump, you can say, has lit the wick of a war against us. We need to settle the final score, only with a hail of fire, not words,” Ri said.
President Trump has repeatedly hinted that conflict and war are in the near future with recent tweets suggesting that military action is still considered an option. With World War 3 perhaps just around the corner, Trump took to Twitter to raise tensions even higher. On Saturday he tweeted: “Presidents and their administrations have been talking to North Korea for 25 years, agreements made and massive amounts of money paid hasn’t worked, agreements violated before the ink was dry, makings fools of U.S. negotiators. Sorry, but only one thing will work!”
Presidents and their administrations have been talking to North Korea for 25 years, agreements made and massive amounts of money paid……
Yesterday, US bombers flew over the Korean peninsula in a show of force aimed at North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un which resulted in more threats from the rogue regime. The B-1B bombers from Guam staged a simulated air-to-ground missile-firing drill with two South Korean F-15K fighters over the East Sea. Japan also sent two military aircraft as tensions mount in the region.
The pair’s phone call came just hours after Donald Trump’s most senior general, James Mattis, told the US Army to “stand ready” for war with North Korea. General James ‘Mad dog’ Mattis warned it is impossible to tell what the future holds for the crisis, but urged US troops to be prepared for a confrontation with Kim Jong-un. Although Mattis said Trump is looking for a diplomatic solution, the military should still be prepared for an actual war.
“It is right now a diplomatically led, economic-sanction buttressed effort to try to turn North Korea off this path. Now what does the future hold? Neither you nor I can say, so there is one thing the US Army can do. And that is you have got to be ready to ensure that we have military options that our President can employ if needed,” General Mattis said.
Click here to subscribe: Join over one million monthly readers and receive breaking news, strategies, ideas and commentary.
Please Spread The Word And Share This Post
Author: Mac Slavo Views: Read by 2 people Date: October 12th, 2017 Website:www.SHTFplan.com
Copyright Information: Copyright SHTFplan and Mac Slavo. This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to www.shtfplan.com. Please contact us for permission to reproduce this content in other media formats.
Here is what not to do when addressing your student population at a time when tensions with a nuclear-armed adversary are running at fever pitch: send an email to the student population with the subject title "in the event of a nuclear attack." Unfortunately for hundreds of students at the Aloha State school, that is precisely what they got in the inboxes on Monday, and as the NY Daily News notes, the message sent Cold War-style shivers down the spines of those not accustomed to the "duck and cover" drills of the 1950s, which in this day and age of pervasive snowflakyness, would be pretty much everyone.
"In light of concerns about North Korea missile tests, state and federal agencies are providing information about nuclear threats and what to do in the unlikely event of a nuclear attack and radiation emergency," says the email obtained by Hawaii News Now.
The email also told students and faculty to be aware of emergency sirens and to follow instructions on "sheltering in place."
For Hawaii, which is far closer to North Korea than the US West Coast, the threat of a nuclear attack by Pyongyang is far more tangible. Furthermore, the American military has recently practiced missile defense tests off of Hawaii, because despite international efforts for a peaceful solution, Kim and President Trump have continued to fire insults at each other, with the commander-in-chief"s jabs suggesting that words could soon be replaced by "fire and fury."
The ominous email also came as the president indicated that diplomatic efforts have stalled.
Adding fuel to the fire, the Army Times reports that on Monday Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis said that America’s relationship with North Korea remains a diplomatic one, but he urged members of the military to be ready for war in case the situation breaks down. Mattis also used his keynote speech at the annual AUSA conference in Washington, D.C., to thank allies who have stood with the U.S. through the ages.
“It is right now a diplomatically, economic-sanctions-buttressed effort to try and turn North Korea off of this path,” Mattis told the audience. “What does the future hold? Neither you nor I can say.”
In contrast to some of the president’s tweets, Mattis’ comments represent a fairly regular baseline of the North Korea situation — that diplomacy has the lead, with the military ready to back it up.
“There is one thing the U.S. Army can do, and that is you have to be ready to ensure we have military options that our president can deploy if needed,” Mattis said. “The international community has spoken, but that means the U.S. Army must stand ready.“
“So if you’re ready, that’s your duty at this point and time, and I know the Army will always do its duty.”
Readiness for a major conflict was a theme throughout the secretary’s speech, which burrowed into the Army’s history and came with a series of book recommendations. The big takeaway, Mattis emphasized, was that the Army needs to be ready to go at a moment’s notice because if diplomacy fails, the military must be deployable right away.
“What we want to do is be so ready and be very much aware that we fight the way we come, that everybody in the world wants to deal with Secretary Tillerson and the Department of State, not the Department of Defense and the United States Army,” Mattis told the audience to applause.
Fast forward to Tuesday afternoon, when Trump met in the White House"s Situation Room with his top defense officials, including Mattis, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Dunfort for a briefing and discussion on options to respond to any North Korean aggression or if necessary to prevent Pyongyang from threatening the United States and its allies with nuclear weapons, the White House said in a statement.
It is not yet known what was discussed during today"s meeting, but comes after Trump warned the world is in the "calm before the storm". Spokeswoman for the US State Department Heather Nauert confirmed the Situation Room meeting in a press briefing this afternoon. She confirmed North Korea was one of the topics along with "Turkey and Iran".
Some have speculated the meeting could have been to discuss responses to any looming North Korean missile tests – with fears of a launch on October 18. The US President has also cryptically said only "one thing" will work against North Korea and has criticised the past 25-years of US policy on the Kims.
The Situation Room – officially named the John F. Kennedy Conference Room – is used to deal with disasters and conflicts at home and abroad. It is equipped with secure communications equipment, and allows the US President to command the nation’s military across the globe.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Monday denied he has ever considered resigning from his post. Tillerson gave an unscheduled statement after NBC News reported he was on the verge of quitting over the summer, calling Trump a moron and prompting Mike Pence to intervene.
“My commitment to the success of the president and the country is as strong as it was” upon taking office, Tillerson told reporters Wednesday at the State Department in Washington. “I have never considered leaving this post.”
"The vice president has never had to persuade me to remain as secretary of State because I have never considered leaving," he told reporters at the State Department. Tillerson refused to deny a claim in the report that he called President Trump a "moron" following tense meeting with national security officials over the summer.
Tillerson said of the "moron" report, “I’m not going to deal with petty stuff like that.” He added that he hasn’t spoken to the president on Wednesday morning.
Notably, President Trump appeared to refer to the report in a Twitter post just moments before Tillerson spoke, saying “NBC news is #FakeNews and more dishonest than even CNN. They are a disgrace to good reporting. No wonder their news ratings are way down!”
US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson insists he "never considered" resigning from Donald Trump"s administration pic.twitter.com/XcWdujxF0b
*TILLERSON SAYS COMMITMENT TO TRUMP, COUNTRY AS STRONG AS EVER
*TILLERSON: TRUMP"S FOREIGN POLICY GOALS BREAK TRADITIONAL MOLD
*TILLERSON: `WE"RE FINDING NEW WAYS TO GOVERN"
*TILLERSON SAYS TRUMP ADMIN. IS DELIVERING RESULTS FOR U.S.
*TILLERSON SAYS TRUMP OFFICIALS HAVE WORKED AS A TEAM
*TILLERSON SAYS HE TALKS WITH MATTIS VIRTUALLY EVERY DAY
*TILLERSON: MUST BE CLOSE TIES IN DIPLOMATIC, DEFENSE EFFORTS
*TILLERSON: `WE"RE JUST GETTING STARTED"
*TILLERSON SAYS HE"S NEVER CONSIDERED LEAVING HIS POST
*TILLERSON: TRUMP LOVES COUNTRY, PUTS AMERICANS FIRST
*TILLERSON: WILL SERVE AS SEC. OF STATE AS LONG AS TRUMP WANTS
*TILLERSON: WON"T DEAL WITH `PETTY STUFF" AFTER `MORON" REPORT
*TILLERSON: WON"T BE PART OF EFFORT TO DIVIDE ADMINISTRATION
Update: according to Politico, Rex Tillerson is not resigning. Furthermore, in an apparent intervention by the president, moments ago Donald Trump tweeted that "NBC news is #FakeNews and more dishonest than even CNN. They are a disgrace to good reporting. No wonder their news ratings are way down!"
NBC news is #FakeNews and more dishonest than even CNN. They are a disgrace to good reporting. No wonder their news ratings are way down!
U.S. Secretary of State Tillerson is set to deliver a statement to the media shortly, whose "topic is unknown" according to Reuters, although following today"s report from NBC that he had called Trump a "moron" after a July 20 meeting at the Pentagon with members of Trump’s national security team and Cabinet officials, there is speculation that Tillerson will offer his resignation.
As we reported earlier, the tensions between Trump and the former Exxon CEO reportedly came to a head around the time President Donald Trump delivered a politicized speech in late July to the Boy Scouts of America, an organization Tillerson once led, NBC reported citing officials familiar.
Tillerson, who was in Texas for his son’s wedding in late July when Trump addressed the Boy Scouts, had threatened not to return to Washington, according to three people with direct knowledge of the threats. His discussions with retired Gen. John Kelly, who would soon be named Trump’s second chief of staff, and Defense Secretary James Mattis, helped initially to reassure him, four people with direct knowledge of the exchanges said.
At that time, however, State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert responded to speculation that Tillerson was thinking about resigning by saying he was “committed to staying” and was “just taking a little time off” in Texas.
Just days earlier, Tillerson had openly disparaged the president, referring to him as a "moron" after a July 20 meeting at the Pentagon with members of Trump’s national security team and Cabinet officials. NBC notes that while it"s unclear if he was aware of the incident, VP Mike Pence "counseled Tillerson", who is fourth in line to the presidency, on ways to ease tensions with Trump, and other top administration officials urged him to remain in the job at least until the end of the year.
Following the NBC report, the President of the Council of Foreign Relations, Richard Haas, called on Tillerson to resign:
Rex Tillerson has been dealt a bad hand by the Potus & has played it badly. For both reasons he cannot be effective SecState & should resign
Should Tillerson indeed resign, it is unclear if it will be dollar negative or positive, as the rising risks of geopolitical escalation without the SecState to "buffer" Trump"s id, will likely make the probability of geopolitical conflict greater, which however these days could be either good or bad for the dollar.
Less than two hours after the United States defense secretary James Mattis landed in Kabul, about forty rockets and rocket-propelled grenades were fired at the airport. Mattis was not injured.
This is Mattis’ first trip to Afghanistan since President Donald Trump announced a new strategy for Afghanistan, recommitting to the country and declaring during a prime-time address back in August that U.S. troops must “fight to win.” According to Fox News, the new strategy for the 16-year-old war includes sending roughly 3,500 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan to join the 11,000 on the ground. Sixteen years after the 9/11 attacks, Kabul is still being attacked by the Taliban. On Tuesday in Washington, General Joe Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it’s time to demand that Pakistan stop giving sanctuary to the Taliban.
The Defense Secretary had already left the airport to meet with Afghanistan’s President Ghani when the attack occurred. The Taliban has claimed responsibility for the attack and one unconfirmed report had alleged that there was an injury. CNN reported that Mattis was the target of the attack, but wasn’t injured.
Mattis arrived in Kabul just after 11 p.m. ET (7:30 a.m. in Kabul) after spending Tuesday in India. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg was also on the flight. Mattis spoke about the attack at a news conference in Kabul, alongside Afghanistan’s president. “If in fact there was an attack on an international airport anywhere in the world, if it’s an attack by a terrorist it’s designed to go after innocent people,” Mattis said. “And this is a classic definition of what the Taliban is up to now. We will suffocate any hope that Al-Qaida or ISIS or the Taliban have of winning by killing. I want to reinforce to the Taliban that the only path to peace and political legitimacy to them is through a negotiated settlement,” Mattis added.
The director of the Kabul airport said all flights have been halted as result of the mortar attack at the airport for the time being.
Click here to subscribe: Join over one million monthly readers and receive breaking news, strategies, ideas and commentary.
Please Spread The Word And Share This Post
Author: Mac Slavo Views: Read by 1 people Date: September 27th, 2017 Website:www.SHTFplan.com
Copyright Information: Copyright SHTFplan and Mac Slavo. This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to www.shtfplan.com. Please contact us for permission to reproduce this content in other media formats.
In a democracy, no one should be comforted to hear that generals have imposed discipline on an elected head of state. That was never supposed to happen in the United States. Now it has.
Among the most enduring political images of the 20th century was the military junta. It was a group of grim-faced officers — usually three — who rose to control a state. The junta would tolerate civilian institutions that agreed to remain subservient, but in the end enforced its own will. As recently as a few decades ago, military juntas ruled important countries including Chile, Argentina, Turkey, and Greece.
These days the junta system is making a comeback in, of all places, Washington. Ultimate power to shape American foreign and security policy has fallen into the hands of three military men: General James Mattis, the secretary of defense; General John Kelly, President Trump’s chief of staff; and General H.R. McMaster, the national security adviser. They do not put on their ribbons to review military parades or dispatch death squads to kill opponents, as members of old-style juntas did. Yet their emergence reflects a new stage in the erosion of our political norms and the militarization of our foreign policy. Another veil is dropping.
Given the president’s ignorance of world affairs, the emergence of a military junta in Washington may seem like welcome relief. After all, its three members are mature adults with global experience — unlike Trump and some of the wacky political operatives who surrounded him when he moved into the White House. Already they have exerted a stabilizing influence. Mattis refuses to join the rush to bomb North Korea, Kelly has imposed a measure of order on the White House staff, and McMaster pointedly distanced himself from Trump’s praise for white nationalists after the violence in Charlottesville.
Being ruled by generals seems preferable to the alternative. It isn’t.
Military officers, like all of us, are products of their background and environment. The three members of Trump’s junta have 119 years of uniformed service between them. They naturally see the world from a military perspective and conceive military solutions to its problems. That leads toward a distorted set of national priorities, with military “needs” always rated more important than domestic ones.
Trump has made clear that when he must make foreign policy choices, he will defer to “my generals.” Mattis, the new junta’s strongman, is the former head of Central Command, which directs American wars in the Middle East and Central Asia. Kelly is also an Iraq veteran. McMaster has commanded troops in Iraq and Afghanistan almost without interruption since he led a tank company in the 1991 Gulf War.
Military commanders are trained to fight wars, not to decide whether fighting makes strategic sense. They may be able to tell Trump how many troops are necessary to sustain our present mission in Afghanistan, for example, but they are not trained either to ask or answer the larger question of whether the mission serves America’s long-term interest. That is properly the job of diplomats. Unlike soldiers, whose job is to kill people and break things, diplomats are trained to negotiate, defuse conflicts, coolly assess national interest and design policies to advance it. Notwithstanding Mattis’s relative restraint on North Korea, all three members of Trump’s junta promote the confrontational approach that has brought protracted war in Afghanistan, Iraq and beyond, while fueling tension in Europe and East Asia.
Our new junta is different from classic ones like, for example, the “National Council for Peace and Order” that now rules Thailand. First, our junta’s interest is only international relations, not domestic policy. Second, it did not seize power in a coup, but derives its authority from the favor of an elected president. Third and most important, it main goal is not to impose a new order but to enforce an old one.
Last month, President Trump faced a crucial decision about the future of America’s war in Afghanistan. This was a potential turning point. Four years ago Trump tweeted, “Let’s get out of Afghanistan.” If he had followed that impulse and announced that he was bringing American troops home, the political and military elite in Washington would have been stunned. But junta members swung into action. They persuaded Trump to announce that instead of withdrawing, he would do the opposite: reject “rapid exit” from Afghanistan, increase troop strength, and continue “killing terrorists.”
It is no great surprise that Trump has been drawn into the foreign policy mainstream; the same happened to President Obama early in his presidency. More ominous is that Trump has turned much of his power over to generals. Worst of all, many Americans find this reassuring. They are so disgusted by the corruption and shortsightedness of our political class that they turn to soldiers as an alternative.
After President Trump condemned North Korea"s "hostile and dangerous" actions this morning, hours after the rogue state"s 6th nuclear test, and according to the Kim regime first test of a hydrogen bomb, the press wanted to know one thing: will the US attack North Korea? "We"ll see," Trump responded, leaving church when a press pooler shouted a question about if he plans to attack North Korea. Earlier, commenting on Twitter, Trump called the country "a rogue nation which has become a great threat and embarrassment to China, which is trying to help but with little success", although that statement too failed to provide clarity into what the next tactical step could be.
As reported shortly after midnight ET, the latest North Korean provocation reinforced the danger facing America, Trump had said earlier in a series of tweets, adding that "talk of appeasement" is pointless. "They only understand one thing!" Trump wrote, without elaboration, as he prepared to meet later with his national security team. It was the first nuclear test since Trump took office in January.
The precise strength of the explosion, described by state-controlled media in North Korea as a hydrogen bomb, has yet to be determined. According to the AP, South Korea"s weather agency said the artificial earthquake caused by the explosion was five times to six times stronger than tremors generated by the North"s previous five such tests. The impact reportedly shook buildings in China and in Russia.
And while Trump decides to what the proper course of action is, his Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was busy calling counterparts in Asia, while Steven Mnuchin, said he was putting together proposed new sanctions for Trump to consider that would seek to cut off trade with North Korea, although as we said earlier, it"s unclear what kind of penalties might make a difference. Lassina Zerbo, head of the U.N. test ban treaty organization agreed, saying that sanctions already imposed against North Korea aren"t working.
Last month, Trump warned that the U.S. military was "locked and loaded, should North Korea act unwisely" and that the U.S. would unleash "fire and fury" on the North if it continued to threaten America. The bellicose words followed threats from North Korea to launch ballistic missiles toward the U.S. Pacific territory of Guam, intending to create "enveloping fire" near the military hub that"s home to U.S. bombers. So far, Kim has called Trump"s bluff every single time, without any retaliation besides just more jawboning by the US president, which considering a direct response by N. Korea to a US attack could result in millions of dead South Koreans, is probably not the worst outcome.
Meanwhile, as Trump lashed out at North Korea on twitter this morning, while China remains by far the North"s biggest trading partner, Trump appeared to be more critical of South Korean President Moon Jae-in, who has attempted to reach out to the North. To that point, the WSJ reported yesterday that the White House was weighing withdrawing from a five-year-old bilateral trade pact known as KORUS, with a decision set to come as soon as this coming week, according to people familiar with the matter
"South Korea is finding, as I have told them, that their talk of appeasement with North Korea will not work, they only understand one thing!" Trump said.
Shortly after noon ET, Trump underscored the threat of trade war involving both South Korea and China, when he tweeted "The United States is considering, in addition to other options, stopping all trade with any country doing business with North Korea."
The United States is considering, in addition to other options, stopping all trade with any country doing business with North Korea.
Meanwhile, China"s Xinhua News Agency said President Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin, meeting on the sidelines of a Beijing-led economic summit, agreed "to adhere to the goal of the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, have close communication and coordination and properly respond" to the test.
While leaders of superpowers were moving slowly, regional concerns were at breaking point: South Korea held a National Security Council meeting chaired by Moon. Officials in Seoul said Trump"s national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, spoke with his South Korean counterpart for 20 minutes about an hour after the detonation. Japan"s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe called the test "absolutely unacceptable."
Nuclear tests are crucial to perfecting sophisticated technologies and to demonstrating to the world that claims of nuclear prowess are not merely a bluff. The North claimed the device it tested was a thermonuclear weapon, also known as a hydrogen bomb. That could be hard to independently confirm. It said the underground test site did not leak radioactive materials, which would make such a determination even harder.
At the same time, the simple power of the blast was convincing. Japan"s Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera said it might have been as powerful as 70 kilotons. North Korea"s previous largest was thought to be anywhere from 10 to 30 kilotons. "We cannot deny it was an H-bomb test," Onodera said.
Even before this morning"s H-bomb test, the AP reported that Japan was debating whether to develop a limited pre-emptive strike capability and buy cruise missiles, ideas that were anathema in the pacifist country before the North Korea missile threat. With revisions to Japan"s defense plans underway, ruling party hawks are accelerating the moves, and some defense experts say Japan should at least consider them.
After being on the backburner in the ruling party for decades, a possibility of pre-emptive strike was formally proposed to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe by his party"s missile defense panel in March, prompting parliamentary debate, though somewhat lost steam as Abe apparently avoided the divisive topic after seeing support ratings for his scandal-laden government plunge.
"Should we possess pre-emptive strike capability?" liberal-leaning Mainichi newspaper asked the following day. "But isn"t it too reckless to jump to discuss a "get them before they get you" approach?"
Following the latest, most powerful nuclear test, Japan"s resolve for a preemptive strike will only strengthen further.
Meanwhile, more is likely to come from North Korea. Just before Sunday"s test, according to state media, Kim and the other senior leaders at the party presidium meeting discussed "detailed ways and measures for containing the U.S. and other hostile forces" vicious moves for sanctions." The photos released earlier showed Kim talking with his lieutenants as he observed a silver, peanut-shaped device that the state-run media said was designed to be mounted on the North"s "Hwasong-14" ICBM. The North claims the device was made domestically and has explosive power that can range from tens to hundreds of kilotons. For context, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima by the U.S. had a 15-kiloton yield.
Of course, the biggest concern to date is that not only are options to pressure Pyongyang limited, but the Kim regime seems to be growing more bold with every unanswered provocation. Further economic and trade sanctions, increased diplomatic pressure and boosting military maneuvers or shows of force would likely all be on the table. Which is why we expect that following today"s meeting between Trump and Kelly, General and "other military leaders", the sequence of events involing US military intervention in North Korea will finally start to move.
The approximately 15,000 transgender servicemembers can breathe a sigh of relief - for now, at least.
Defense Secretary James Mattis announced on Tuesday that trans soldiers will be allowed to remain in the military pending the results of a study conducted by a panel of experts. The news, which was first reported by USA Today, follows President Donald Trump’s signing last week of a memorandum officially prohibiting individuals who identify as transgender from joining the military. In that memorandum, Trump granted Mattis and the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security (which includes the US Coast Guard) wide latitude to decide how trans servicemembers should be treated.
The policy shift, which Trump first announced via Twitter last month, reverses an Obama-era decision, made shortly before he left office, that allowed trans individuals to service openly for the first time.
Mattis said the current policy of allowing trans individuals who are currently serving to finish out their assignments will remain in place, unless the panel recommends that it be reversed.
"Once the panel reports its recommendations and following my consultation with the secretary of Homeland Security, I will provide my advice to the president concerning implementation of his policy direction," Mattis said in the statement. "In the interim, current policy with respect to currently serving members will remain in place."
His decision will give the Pentagon more time to work out the details of allowing trans individuals to serve, like determining whether the VA should pay for gender-reassignment surgery.
“Mattis" move buys time for the Pentagon to determine how and if it will allow thousands of transgender troops to continue to serve, whether they will receive medical treatment, or how they will be discharged.”
Contrary to the perception, this decision does not signal that Mattis agrees with Obama’s directive that all trans people be allowed to serve. Mattis, as USA Today notes, has “little tolerance for policies that detract from military readiness.” Back in June, he delayed the Pentagon’s plan to accept new transgender troops to allow more time to study the effect of transgender recruitment on the US’s ability to fight (and win) wars.
When Obama first lifted the ban, the Pentagon outlined its plan for providing medical coverage to trans soldiers. The plan mandated that the VA should cover gender reassignment surgery if it was deemed medically necessary.
Trump claimed that the military wouldn’t pay for these surgeries when he first announced his decision to reinstate the ban.
After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow......
A RAND Corp. study commissioned by the Pentagon last year found that trans troops would have a “negligible” impact on military readiness, according to USA Today.
“Last year, the Pentagon commissioned a study by the non-partisan RAND Corp. to examine the effects on military readiness of allowing transgender troops to serve openly and the cost of providing them medical treatment. The study estimated that a few to several thousand transgender troops are on the active duty force of 1.3 million.Researchers found that paying for their health care needs would amount to about $8 million per year and their effect on readiness would be negligible.”
As we’ve previously reported, available data suggest that trans people serve in the military at rates well above the national average. Though the data is sparse, studies estimate that trans men and women are anywhere from two- to five-times more likely to join the military as their cisgender (nontrans) counterparts.
Trans service members and veterans offer a variety of explanations for this disparity. For some, the military uniform functions as gender camouflage—a way to forestall uncomfortable questions from friends, family, or spouses. For others, joining the armed forces offers financial security and community to a group that is disproportionately denied both.
Contrary to what progressives may believe, the reality of whether trans individuals should be allowed to openly serve is a complex one. To better accomodate trans servicemembers, the military needs to develop guidelines not just relating to their medical care, but to a host of other issues affecting both their well-being, and the well-being of their fellow soldiers. Whatever Mattis’s panel ultimately decides, at least it will be an evidence-based decision.
Following the second collision of US warships in two months, the US Navy"s Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) has calling for a comprehensive review of recent incidents in the Pacific in the wake of the USS John McCain collision with an oil tanker early Monday morning. In a video, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson called for an "operational pause" with commands and leaders across the fleet, and a deeper look into the training and certification of forces operating in the Navy"s 7th Fleet - those in and around Japan.
"I have directed fleet commanders to immediately conduct an operational pause with commands and leaders across the fleet, to ensure we are taking all appropriate immediate measures to enhance the Navy"s safe and effective operation around the world.... This is the second major collision in the last three months, and is the latest in a series of major incidents, particularly in the Pacific theater," said Richardson. "This trend demands more forceful action."
That review "will examine the process by which we train and certify our forward deployed forces in Japan to be ready for operations and war," according to Richardson. "This will include, but not be limited to, trends in operational tempo, performance, maintenance, equipment and personnel. It will also focus on surface warfare training and career development, including tactical and navigational proficiency."
According to CBS, the investigative team will be diverse, including people from across the Navy (both officer and enlisted), and experts from outside the Navy and the private sector.
As shown earlier, the USS John S. McCain suffered extensive hull damage after colliding with the oil/chemical tanker called the Alnic MC. Five sailors were injured and another 10 remain missing.
Richardson noted that the review, led by Adm. Phil Davidson, Commander of the U.S. Fleet Forces Command, will be on a "tight timeline" in order to address the problems and "quickly make corrective actions."
Earlier at a briefing in Amman, Jordan, Defense Secretary James Mattis offered his thoughts and prayers to the sailors and families of those on board the USS John McCain, saying an investigation is currently underway to determine what exactly happened and caused the crash. Mattis added the CNO"s broader investigation will put together an inquiry into all related accidents incidents at sea to address all existing factors, including the USS Fitzgerald.
“He has put together a broader inquiry to look into these incidents and to determine any of the causal factors to determine what’s going on,” Defense Secretary James Mattis told reporters while traveling in Amman, Jordan.
Meanwhile, courtesy of Bloomberg, the historical movement of both the USS John S. McCain and the Alnic MC tanker was revealed, swowing both the path of both ships as they ultimately collided just east of Singapore.
All three major stock indexes were deep in the red last week, and volatility spiked for the first time in months as the war clouds gather over the Korean Peninsula.
Here’s the latest tweet from President Trump:
Here’s another from two days ago, equally as subtle:
Markets still have not come to terms with the very real potential of a shooting war with North Korea over its nuclear program.
President Trump, Secretary of State Tillerson and Defense Secretary Mattis have all made it clear that a nuclear-armed North Korea with ICBMs that can hit the United States will not be allowed.
If North Korea persists, this means war with the U.S. There’s only one problem: North Korea thinks we’re bluffing.
North Korea believes that the U.S. is bluffing based in part on the prior failures of the U.S. to back up “red line” declarations in Syria over its alleged use of chemical weapons. Their belief is also based on the horrendous damage that would be inflicted on South Korea.
China also believes the U.S. is bluffing.
A major Chinese think tank analyst with government connections named Liu Ming says,
“The military option the Americans are threatening won’t likely happen because the stakes will be too high. It’s a pretext and an excuse to pile up pressure on China. It’s more like blackmail than a realistic option.”
This is how wars begin:not because anyone wants a war, but because two sides misread each other’s intentions and stumble into one.
Make no mistake — Trump is not bluffing. He’s deadly serious about ending the threat from North Korea. And he has support within the national security community.
Defense Secretary James Mattis added Wednesday that North Korea “should cease any consideration of actions that will lead to the end of the regime and destruction of its people.”
Four-star Gen. Terrence J. O’Shaughnessy, commander of all air forces in the Pacific, said the U.S. would use “rapid, lethal and overwhelming force” against North Korea if necessary.
This comes as North Korea has threatened to attack the American territory of Guam, which is home to several key U.S. naval and air installations.
Meanwhile, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said, “The time for talk is over. The danger the North Korean regime poses… is now clear to all.”
You can’t get much more explicit than that.
The American people and citizens around the world are being told in no uncertain terms that a war with North Korea is coming unless North Korea ends its nuclear program. Yet North Korea will not end its weapons program. They consider these weapons indispensable to the survival of the regime.
Therefore, war is almost inevitable.
This war is coming in mid-2018, if not sooner. Markets have not priced in this outcome. When markets do adjust to the reality of war, it could result in one of the worst market meltdowns of all time.
Don’t wait until next year when everyone else will see this clearly. The time to prepare is now.
You can make your portfolio shockproof by reducing stock exposures and increasing allocations to cash, gold, silver, museum-quality collectibles and land.
With anxiety briefly ticking down on The New York Times story about Trump"s "fire and fury" comments being off-the-cuff - as opposed to policy - The Pentagon just turned the dial back on the threats...
US Secretary Of Defense James Mattis issued the following statement:
"The United States and our allies have the demonstrated capabilities and unquestionable commitment to defend ourselves from an attack.
Kim Jong Un should take heed of the United Nations Security Council"s unified voice, and statements from governments the world over, who agree the DPRK poses a threat to global security and stability.
The DPRK must choose to stop isolating itself and stand down its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The DPRK should cease any consideration of actions that would lead to the end of its regime and the destruction of its people.
President Trump was informed of the growing threat last December and on taking office his first orders to me emphasized the readiness of our ballistic missile defense and nuclear deterrent forces.
While our State Department is making every effort to resolve this global threat through diplomatic means, it must be noted that the combined allied militaries now possess the most precise, rehearsed and robust defensive and offensive capabilities on Earth.
The DPRK regime"s actions will continue to be grossly overmatched by ours and would lose any arms race or conflict it initiates."
Roughly translated - stop... or you"ll lose (bigly).
With the success of the last missile test, North Korea is continuing the ramping up their weapons system. Their last hugely successful ICBM test showed they have the capability to strike Alaska.
United States intelligence is now saying the rogue North Korean regime is getting ready to launch yet another missile test. The frequency of these tests show a continued thumbing of Kim Jong Un’s nose in Donald Trump’s direction, and they increase the already heightened tensions between the two countries. U.S. intelligence is also suggesting that North Korea is making preparations for the test which could happen in about two weeks, according to CNN.
Earlier this week, Gen. Paul Selva, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he is “reasonably confident in the ability of our intelligence community to monitor the testing but not the deployment of these missile systems.” Since that isn’t comforting, all hope lies in Kim Jong Un suddenly deciding he no longer enjoys his hobby of war and provocation. “Kim Jong Un and his forces are very good at camouflage, concealment, and deception,” Selva told the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this week.
He added that Pyongyang has not yet shown “capacity to strike the United States with any degree of accuracy or reasonable confidence of success.” But that statement doesn’t appear to be factual. North Korea, on July 4 of this year, successfully tested an intercontinental ballistic missile for the first time, and experts agree that it had the capability of hitting the US.
Alaska is not considered “mainland United States,” but US land is within the range of a North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile. It does seem like there’s been a long period of time since Kim Jong-Un launched another missile test, but with the success of the last one, he may be more feverishly preparing for the next one.
US satellites have detected new imagery and satellite-based radar emissions indicating North Korea may be testing components and missile control facilities for another ICBM or intermediate launch, officials say. The US is watching in particular for further testing of North Korean radars and communications that could be used in a launch. The next test launch would be the first since North Korea successfully launched an ICBM on July 4. -CNN
But Defense Secretary James Mattis has long warned against letting the North Korean situation get to the point of a US military strike and has strongly and publicly advocated for a diplomatic solution led by the State Department.
Click here to subscribe: Join over one million monthly readers and receive breaking news, strategies, ideas and commentary.
Please Spread The Word And Share This Post
Author: Mac Slavo Views: Read by 214 people Date: July 20th, 2017 Website:www.SHTFplan.com
Copyright Information: Copyright SHTFplan and Mac Slavo. This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to www.shtfplan.com. Please contact us for permission to reproduce this content in other media formats.
