Trump seeks to make WW-3 unnecessary by acquiring Greenland as collateral to back the $US. It's really the GBP and BOE, along with BlackRock that absolutely need WW-3, since they lost their leveraged bets on collapsing and asset-stripping Russia again, and their "Ukrainian assets" just moved next-door, which they will soon have to admit, as they are collateral for 10X their value in leveraged loans.
If this can be sorted out, at least for a year or so, then Armageddon might not be necessary to maintain the world-order.
All the need of INF Treaty was about the complication of having ballistic missile in that range, fast almost as an ICBM (because ballistic trajectory) but with less fly time (short range) so considered destabilizing by both the Superpowers of the Cold War. The "volcano Maker" are a good marketing but not more, from the filmed effect seems explosive detonating shortly after impact (similar to bunker bursting) I suppose more because ultrafast detonators are difficult and expensive, the precision is also low seems so clustering to saturate the area for assured hit...
Trump is walking in the WW3 as planned because also getting Greenland, Canada and Mexico can't both have the oilfields of Arctic and the Gulf of Mexico, what today seems his first objective. Arctic is pivoted to Greenland and Canada to counterbalance the Russian presence, defense from ICBM is marketing for the investments needed to get the infrastructure done. Gulf is another pivot but more difficult to identify, Panama is clearly a good starting point to strangle the flow of energy to the East, but ownership of oilfields is more complex, American fields are deeply drained, but new ones are probably more on the undrilled Central America side so we have 2 options, first is military the second is commercial one... Federating Mexico could be a good option, using it as a dam on immigration (marketing), tapping on the vast manpower in it (making them American... not migrants but internal redistribution) and going for the oil and minerals in it (almost untapped now).
I suppose that really there are few options for peaceful going through it if this is the plan so war is probable in different forms, now the Russian part is gone, Ukraine is all about to bleed human resources and both sides had quite a lot of lost, the Asian front is ok with the collapse of Syria and the crumbling of Iran as regional power and China is sleepwalking in a no win scenario the field is settled. War will be but no total war, no options for a nuclear exchange because is a total lost for all, but a slow, painful, debilitating death by thousand cuts and slow bleeding of resources.
Look at the directives of the Foll Spectrum Dominance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-spectrum_dominance), look at the energy market and eschew the "money" side because economy is allocation of resources not of useless paper, digital signatures or promises!
The post is saying that 1.38 kg of TNT has a blast radius of more than 140 m and can give rise to casualties 400 m away. I am no way an explosive expert, but this looks to me largely exaggerated. Wikipedia says "Under controlled conditions one kilogram of TNT can destroy (or even obliterate) a small vehicle. " The Hiroshima bomb was worth 15 kton, that is 11 million times 1.38 kg of TNT.
One possible error is in the kinetic energy calculation, which is 5.75 GJ, not MJ. However, this would make the blast radius ridiculously large unless the k=130 was set ad-hoc.
The Bomb is quite misunderstood, we have 2 so it's OK.
The Bomb is technically a strategic weapon, a big bomb made in the megaton range or multiple kiloton (from 50 kt up is strategic) and primary suited to destroy "soft" targets, usually in the literature is for airfields, large military bases and industrial capacity... in reality probably the only good use is to target the city and the people of the enemy: for even moderately hardened targets you need a surface detonation to achieve a good deal of assured destruction and to let the fireball to such and irradiate heavy detritus that will make the target unusable limiting the affected zone, if you go for an air burst you have a much larger area of effect. In literature, it's called countervalue strategy and usually seems like not the primary goal but military brass prefer to look like warriors and treating civilians is a little too mafioso for them. Usually installed on ICBM and SLBM, no more Bombs for the bombers, seems.
Used twice on civilian targets.
The other bomb is technically the Tactical Nuclear one, small and in the megaton range (under 50kt), is the ones for real war. Can be put on almost any platform, from gravity bombs to any missile and is small enough to wage war on the detonation site after the explosion, is important because you want to drop them on the enemy lines but your goal is to stop them then charge for a breakthrough. Never used.
Today we had burned up all this because we have the "variable yield" devices, the best of bot worlds in a dial-up setting that make us choose the boom before the use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb.
Bad news, any bomb can be a city killer, good news... the same! Today no one can ever think about using the Bomb because the only way to know if is set to destroy a company or a country is to look at the results, so by MAD rules any shot is Total Nuclear War and free for all: no country could afford to go nuclear and let ANY other country with that potential so if you go you must go to ANY enemy or vaguely neutral one that is armed. Outside literature no more differences in the bombs, any bomb is a total war.
Once a retired general of Italy and NATO, Gen P.Mini, summarized the idea of the nuclear bomb as a fortification, the definitive one: you couldn't use them for war, but they are the assured perimeter defenses because if the enemy is coming for you, and you could evaluate that you are going to lose anything they could be used as retaliation for a "no winner" result.
Here we have a problem, the value of nuclear war is the unwanted result of it but is only passive, the active use is mafioso stile and based on the idea that you could do it in reality... If someone see the bet you are in serious troubles, do it and face consequences or don't do it and be perceived as a sitting duck.
Long prologue, it's important to understand that even a lot of actors having nuclear arsenals is in itself not so destabilizing because the rules of war still stand and the passive nature of their value, this also explain the run to precision for weapons: the biggest boom is here to stay so it's a dead end, strategically the nuclear war is the ultimate WW2 bomber campaign, what is important and needed is on tactical and operation level were going nuclear is more trouble than needed. Hypersonic weapons are the shining new toys, good for marketing but not so for real war as seen in Ukraine, there drones and cruise missiles are more than enough, the longest range attack of the war is probably been made from a Ukrainian drone that was a literal plane (a Cesna) that flew freely through all the front and for hundreds of km after!
Too much government with too much to lose for being near midnight in my clock but an indicator based on consensus is free to have any value for different observers.
Last though, Kinetic Energy is probably the ultimate weapon, but we are far from the real use of it as a mass destruction weapon, even the poles of tungsten from orbit of the Project Thor were below the tactical level. For reference, i suggest this page made for sci-fi authors:https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunconvent.php.
In the same site, the Exotic section have the real strategic ultimate weapons and relative calculations they call them Relativistic Weapons because when relativity kick in the energy of the projectile is so much that can be MORE than the equivalent of the same mass in antimatter..
Kinetic Energy is the ultimate weapon, fortunately we are very far from that level.
Those hypersonic metal warheads are not inert, but the physics & chemistry get very fancy:
Mike Mihajlovic explains the high-tech physics of this hypersonic weapons-system. Oreshnik's Warhead - 'Volcano Maker' Thoughts about the Oreshnik's warhead design and composition https://bmanalysis.substack.com/p/oreshniks-warhead-volcano-maker-i
Trump seeks to make WW-3 unnecessary by acquiring Greenland as collateral to back the $US. It's really the GBP and BOE, along with BlackRock that absolutely need WW-3, since they lost their leveraged bets on collapsing and asset-stripping Russia again, and their "Ukrainian assets" just moved next-door, which they will soon have to admit, as they are collateral for 10X their value in leveraged loans.
If this can be sorted out, at least for a year or so, then Armageddon might not be necessary to maintain the world-order.
Declarations are of facade value, as described is a MIRVed IRBM, something of Soviet Union derivation:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oreshnik_(missile).
All the need of INF Treaty was about the complication of having ballistic missile in that range, fast almost as an ICBM (because ballistic trajectory) but with less fly time (short range) so considered destabilizing by both the Superpowers of the Cold War. The "volcano Maker" are a good marketing but not more, from the filmed effect seems explosive detonating shortly after impact (similar to bunker bursting) I suppose more because ultrafast detonators are difficult and expensive, the precision is also low seems so clustering to saturate the area for assured hit...
Trump is walking in the WW3 as planned because also getting Greenland, Canada and Mexico can't both have the oilfields of Arctic and the Gulf of Mexico, what today seems his first objective. Arctic is pivoted to Greenland and Canada to counterbalance the Russian presence, defense from ICBM is marketing for the investments needed to get the infrastructure done. Gulf is another pivot but more difficult to identify, Panama is clearly a good starting point to strangle the flow of energy to the East, but ownership of oilfields is more complex, American fields are deeply drained, but new ones are probably more on the undrilled Central America side so we have 2 options, first is military the second is commercial one... Federating Mexico could be a good option, using it as a dam on immigration (marketing), tapping on the vast manpower in it (making them American... not migrants but internal redistribution) and going for the oil and minerals in it (almost untapped now).
I suppose that really there are few options for peaceful going through it if this is the plan so war is probable in different forms, now the Russian part is gone, Ukraine is all about to bleed human resources and both sides had quite a lot of lost, the Asian front is ok with the collapse of Syria and the crumbling of Iran as regional power and China is sleepwalking in a no win scenario the field is settled. War will be but no total war, no options for a nuclear exchange because is a total lost for all, but a slow, painful, debilitating death by thousand cuts and slow bleeding of resources.
Look at the directives of the Foll Spectrum Dominance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-spectrum_dominance), look at the energy market and eschew the "money" side because economy is allocation of resources not of useless paper, digital signatures or promises!
The post is saying that 1.38 kg of TNT has a blast radius of more than 140 m and can give rise to casualties 400 m away. I am no way an explosive expert, but this looks to me largely exaggerated. Wikipedia says "Under controlled conditions one kilogram of TNT can destroy (or even obliterate) a small vehicle. " The Hiroshima bomb was worth 15 kton, that is 11 million times 1.38 kg of TNT.
One possible error is in the kinetic energy calculation, which is 5.75 GJ, not MJ. However, this would make the blast radius ridiculously large unless the k=130 was set ad-hoc.
The Bomb is quite misunderstood, we have 2 so it's OK.
The Bomb is technically a strategic weapon, a big bomb made in the megaton range or multiple kiloton (from 50 kt up is strategic) and primary suited to destroy "soft" targets, usually in the literature is for airfields, large military bases and industrial capacity... in reality probably the only good use is to target the city and the people of the enemy: for even moderately hardened targets you need a surface detonation to achieve a good deal of assured destruction and to let the fireball to such and irradiate heavy detritus that will make the target unusable limiting the affected zone, if you go for an air burst you have a much larger area of effect. In literature, it's called countervalue strategy and usually seems like not the primary goal but military brass prefer to look like warriors and treating civilians is a little too mafioso for them. Usually installed on ICBM and SLBM, no more Bombs for the bombers, seems.
Used twice on civilian targets.
The other bomb is technically the Tactical Nuclear one, small and in the megaton range (under 50kt), is the ones for real war. Can be put on almost any platform, from gravity bombs to any missile and is small enough to wage war on the detonation site after the explosion, is important because you want to drop them on the enemy lines but your goal is to stop them then charge for a breakthrough. Never used.
Today we had burned up all this because we have the "variable yield" devices, the best of bot worlds in a dial-up setting that make us choose the boom before the use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb.
Bad news, any bomb can be a city killer, good news... the same! Today no one can ever think about using the Bomb because the only way to know if is set to destroy a company or a country is to look at the results, so by MAD rules any shot is Total Nuclear War and free for all: no country could afford to go nuclear and let ANY other country with that potential so if you go you must go to ANY enemy or vaguely neutral one that is armed. Outside literature no more differences in the bombs, any bomb is a total war.
Once a retired general of Italy and NATO, Gen P.Mini, summarized the idea of the nuclear bomb as a fortification, the definitive one: you couldn't use them for war, but they are the assured perimeter defenses because if the enemy is coming for you, and you could evaluate that you are going to lose anything they could be used as retaliation for a "no winner" result.
Here we have a problem, the value of nuclear war is the unwanted result of it but is only passive, the active use is mafioso stile and based on the idea that you could do it in reality... If someone see the bet you are in serious troubles, do it and face consequences or don't do it and be perceived as a sitting duck.
Long prologue, it's important to understand that even a lot of actors having nuclear arsenals is in itself not so destabilizing because the rules of war still stand and the passive nature of their value, this also explain the run to precision for weapons: the biggest boom is here to stay so it's a dead end, strategically the nuclear war is the ultimate WW2 bomber campaign, what is important and needed is on tactical and operation level were going nuclear is more trouble than needed. Hypersonic weapons are the shining new toys, good for marketing but not so for real war as seen in Ukraine, there drones and cruise missiles are more than enough, the longest range attack of the war is probably been made from a Ukrainian drone that was a literal plane (a Cesna) that flew freely through all the front and for hundreds of km after!
Too much government with too much to lose for being near midnight in my clock but an indicator based on consensus is free to have any value for different observers.
Last though, Kinetic Energy is probably the ultimate weapon, but we are far from the real use of it as a mass destruction weapon, even the poles of tungsten from orbit of the Project Thor were below the tactical level. For reference, i suggest this page made for sci-fi authors:https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunconvent.php.
In the same site, the Exotic section have the real strategic ultimate weapons and relative calculations they call them Relativistic Weapons because when relativity kick in the energy of the projectile is so much that can be MORE than the equivalent of the same mass in antimatter..
Kinetic Energy is the ultimate weapon, fortunately we are very far from that level.