They Are At It, Again.

Politico few days ago published a piece on Russia. This piece, written by a host of US foreign policy "luminaries" who pass in the US for Russia "experts", because they once visited Moscow and ate pelmeni in the neighborhood Russian restaurant, just think that they have a capacity to offer anything on the subject of destroyed Russian-American relations. They start with classic US globalist tropes:

U.S.-Russia relations are at a dangerous dead end that threatens the U.S. national interest. The risk of a military confrontation that could go nuclear is again real. We are drifting toward a fraught nuclear arms race, with our foreign-policy arsenal reduced mainly to reactions, sanctions, public shaming and congressional resolutions. The global Covid-19 pandemic and the resulting serious worldwide economic decline, rather than fostering cooperation, have only reinforced the current downward trajectory. Meanwhile, the great challenges to peace and our well-being that demand U.S.-Russia cooperation, including the existential threats of nuclear war and climate change, go unattended. Because the stakes are so high, both in the dangers they entail and the costs they contain, we believe that a careful, dispassionate analysis and change of our current course are imperative.

The first question which arises here is what do authors of this piece mean when they propose "cooperation" on such issues as "climate change" and Covid-19? I can understand the "nuclear arms race" item which worries authors, but by now everyone knows how the US approaches any negotiations on this matter with Russia, who somehow is supposed to give up her advanced military arsenal which the US would never do, should the United States had the same advantage Russia currently has over the US in terms of new generation warfare. START, anyone? But climate change? How does this group of authors imagine this "cooperation"? How can it possibly look like? I can tell you how--by throwing a noose around Russia's industrial neck. I am sure these Russia "experts" know that the only reason Russia takes part in the international voodoo dances around the grossly overstated anthropogenic (read attentively again--anthropogenic, that is caused by human) climate change is because for now, at least, EU is Russia's major market. EU is run by ignorant imbeciles who are impressed with Greta Thunberg credentials and follow all kinds of suicidal environmental fundamentalist cults. That is why Russia signs all kinds of "agreements" with them and continues to do her own thing. Putin is on record that climate change is not man-made. 

The only valuable thought in this paragraph is surprisingly correct assessment of the US "foreign policy arsenal" and, what is not mentioned here, people who use it--most of them, as I am on record for years about that, in normal country would have difficulties applying for a job as pizza delivery drivers. In fact, the proof is in the pudding, after all, as authors themselves admit, somebody developed and continues to use this so called "arsenal". It is an arsenal of losers with a hugely inflated and sensitive ego and with rather mediocre talents and capabilities and authors openly admit that. Russians are not impressed, neither is the most of the rest of the world. But authors wouldn't be American foreign policy "establishment" authors if they wouldn't have relapsed into good ol' behavioral pattern of self-righteousness:

We go into this open-eyed. Russia complicates, even thwarts, our actions, especially along its extended periphery in Europe and Asia. It has seized territory in Ukraine and Georgia. It challenges our role as a global leader and the world order we helped build. It interferes in our domestic politics to exacerbate divisions and tarnish our democratic reputation. At best, our relations will remain a mix of competition and cooperation. The policy challenge will be to strike the most beneficial and safest balance between the two. To this end, we offer six broad prescriptions for U.S. policy.

Authors, obviously, do not understand that the world order they "helped build" is rather a shitty one with non-ending wars, sanctions, support of terrorism and other benefits of what became known as Pax Americana, which is in the state of implosion as I write this. Yes, Russia helped to dismantle this "world order", she will do even more towards this end, but the authors of this piece better take a look at themselves in the mirror to see people who are solely responsible for a reaction to this "world order", which for some reason evolved, and rather quickly at that, into global chaos. As they said, you had your chance, you blew it. The faster you understand this, the better it will be for the rest of the world. And, of course, the United States cannot do the "policy change" because it doesn't know how. The next paragraph immediately exposes why US cannot do "policy change" and why Russia doesn't want to deal with obviously delusional people:

We must first find a way to deal effectively with Russian interference in U.S. elections and, most important, block any effort to corrupt the voting process. Hardening our electoral infrastructure, sanctioning Russians who weaponize stolen information and countering Russia’s capacity to hack our systems are all necessary measures. So is exposing Russian disinformation. We must, however, also engage Russia through negotiations out of the public glare, focused on each side’s capabilities to do great damage to the other side’s critical infrastructure.

Ahem, this paragraph alone speak volumes about Russia's, correct I may say, posture towards the United States and this posture was succinctly expressed by Putin himself who not for once stated to the effect that Russia is ready to deal with the United States when the United States is ready. Current US elites, including the authors of this "opinion" piece are not ready and they will never be, because they exhibit all traits of the American foreign policy class, which is overwhelmingly ignorant, incompetent and badly educated. Russia has NOBODY to talk to in the US, plus, and that is a well-known, in Russia, fact--any "agreement" with the US is not worth the paper it is written on. US is not a credible and agreement-capable state. 

After that, the authors go into all kinds of generalities about how wonderful it would have been to have some sort of predictable relations with Russia, such a in the good ol' Cold War 1.0 times. Bloviation on other issues, such as Ukraine, follow and they are really tiresome, same ol, same ol', well, read yourself:

On salient issues where U.S. and Russian interests are in genuine conflict, such as Ukraine and Syria, the U.S. should remain firm on principles shared with our allies and critical to a fair outcome.

US "principles" in Syria are support for Jihadists, including Al Qaeda elements against Syria's legitimate government and Russia. US is on record on that!

James Jeffrey, the US special envoy for Syria and defeating the Islamic State, has made quite a frank confession of how he sees his job and that of US troops there: to create a new Vietnam or Afghanistan for Moscow. "Our military presence, while small, is important for overall calculations. So we urge the Congress, the American people, the president to keep these forces on, but again this isn’t Afghanistan, this isn’t Vietnam, this isn’t a quagmire," Jeffrey said on Tuesday, during a video event hosted by the Hudson Institute.

Unless the authors of this "piece" spent last twenty years or so under some stone in the middle of nowhere, they should have enough awareness for grasping a simple fact that Russians know all that and they do not really negotiate with people like that. As per Ukraine, I and others wrote so much on this issue that, I think, there is very little to add here at this time. US (and EU's) bloody coup in Ukraine is a major reason for the United States finding itself in the position and state it is in. 

While laboring through this exhibit A of the American delusional strategic thinking, or rather lack thereof, and incompetent arrogance, we finally arrive to a key point in this piece:

The success of U.S.-China policy will in no small measure depend on whether the state of U.S.-Russia relations permits three-way cooperation on critical issues. Our current policies reinforce Russia’s readiness to align with the least constructive aspects of China’s U.S. policy. Moving the needle in the opposite direction will not be easy, but should be our objective.

Ah, that is warmer. I have some news for these "giants" of American foreign policy and "academe". Let me explain:

1. The United States has already lost economic "war" to China. Even considering the fraud which US economic numbers are, China's economy dwarfs that of the US, not least because of the fact that the actual size of US economy is much much smaller than the US likes to pretend. 

2. Russia has zero reasons to view the United States as a viable negotiating partner. US share in Russia's trade is minuscule and Russia shed most of her US Treasuries. In other words, the US has very little or no value economically for Russia. The only way the United States is making herself noticeable for Russia is through bullying and blackmailing nations which have serious economic relations with Russia.  

3. China is a huge market for Russia's hydrocarbons, high value added petrochemical products, weapons, food, and potentially huge aerospace market. Russia is keenly interested in having a stable, prosperous and friendly China next to her. This contradicts dramatically with the US objectives and that explains a natural, organic emerging alliance between Russia and China. Plus, for the authors of the piece, it is 2020, boys and girls, not 1970s. 

 

4. US has nothing to offer Russia. Zilch, nada, zero. As I write for years, the US doesn't have enough geopolitical currency "to buy" Russia. Russia could have been a friend and ally for the United States and vice-versa, but as Pat Buchanan noted more than 4 years ago:

The Russian people, having extended a hand in friendship and seen it slapped away, cheered the ouster of the accommodating Boris Yeltsin and the arrival of an autocratic strong man who would make Russia respected again. We ourselves prepared the path for Vladimir Putin.

Reading this piece in Politco one can totally see why Russia has no desire to deal with the United States and its delusional elites who don't grasp their own predicament and exercise in geopolitical Oblomovschina and day-dreaming. They are not ready to deal with reality and Russia knows it. That is why she aids China in building Chinese version of Missile Attack Early Warning System and provides domestic versions of her advanced weapons, among many other things. As O.Henry's immortal piece The Roads We Take ends with:

The expression on Dodson's face changed in an instant to one of cold ferocity mingled with inexorable cupidity. The soul of the man showed itself for a moment like an evil face in the window of a reputable house."He will settle at one eighty-five," said Dodson. "Bolivar cannot carry double."

There is a reason this phrase became a proverb in USSR and Russia. Nothing personal ladies and gentlemen who wrote this Politco piece, just business. Bolivar cannot carry double because there are consequences for the actions and somebody kept the ledger.          

I Didn't Do Fridays In A Long Time.

Life today simply gives no reasons for joy, but as I spoke to my good friend today on Skype there was a moment in space and time when it was all good and cool. The sound and an incredible talent which defeated staleness of the world. 

It was a... Journey;))) of a lifetime. 

The quality of this music is simply beyond modern comprehension. They called them a Corporate Rock. Sure, I miss this "corporate" rock. 

Why Things Do Not Work.

OK, I get it, the United States loves lawyers. I have nothing against lawyers per se, it is a necessary profession and will remain so for a very long time, while human civilization goes through its legal and cultural motions. But this is what attracted my attention this morning. 

The envoy leading President Donald Trump's hardline push on Iran quit on Thursday, months before an election that could reorient US policy. Brian Hook, a stalwart Republican considered one of the most powerful figures at the State Department, decided to return to the private sector, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said. Hook "has achieved historic results countering the Iranian regime," Pompeo said in a statement.

Obviously if this comedy hasn't been funny enough, what follows Hook's departure is even funnier. 

Hook will be replaced by Elliott Abrams, an intellectual architect of the 2003 invasion of Iraq who has been leading Trump's unsuccessful campaign to oust Venezuela's leftist president, Nicolas Maduro. Abrams, known in the 1980s for his staunch defense of right-wing strongmen in Latin America, will handle both Iran and Venezuela, Pompeo said.

As you may observe, US, for some unknown reason, greatly appreciates convicted felons and losers to serve as conduits for whatever passes as a foreign policy in D.C. And frankly, by now, let's point out to the white elephant (or 800-pound gorilla) in the room--US Department of State is a fascinating collection of ignoramuses, incompetents, miscreants and random people who, in normal country, wouldn't be allowed to sort trash at the city dumpster, yet, they consistently end up in the positions of some power. That brings us back to Mr. Hook, the so called "envoy". Take a look at Hooks' background:

Hook received a bachelor's degree in marketing from the University of St. Thomas in 1990, a master's degree in philosophy from Boston College, and a law degree from the University of Iowa College of Law.

He also worked for Mitt Romney's campaign, naturally as a "foreign policy adviser", and, in general, is a classic colorless, badly educated political bacteria populating the colony of his likes in the petri dish of Washington's bureaucracy. This is the only "elite" the United States can produce today--the guy with degree in law, the experience of being busy with useless activity, and with a single trick in his arsenal of applicable skills--that's the level of "qualifications" one gets nowadays in D.C. I am sure Hook's expertise in Iran, Farsi language, knowledge of Iranian culture and Iran's military should be top notch, right? After all he was a special envoy for Iran. Nah, I am screwing with you--the level of expertise on Iran is D.C. is defined by terrorist organizations such as MEK, conveniently removed from the list of terrorist organizations when the US decided that it needed it, and by homegrown Iranian versions of Ahmed Chalabi, same type of "experts" as a bunch of clowns populating Russia Studies field in the US. 

And so it is, US foreign policy establishment continues to recycle itself through ignorance and delusion of its cadres. What did Pompeo mean by "historic results countering the Iranian regime" remains a mystery. The only historic result achieved in US foreign policy in the last 30 years is a historic in its sheer vastness ignorance of what passes in the US for diplomacy. But then again, looking at US higher education and cadres it produces one shouldn't be surprised with the results.

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran's foreign ministry on Friday expressed indifference to the change in the Trump administration’s top envoy for Iran, alleging that the new U.S. official in the post would be no different from his predecessor.

By now, the rest of the world knows perfectly what to expect from the US and her "diplomats", and that is why the wolrd gets on with with its life, keeping a cautious eye on a country which long ago lost any self-respect, never mind respecting anything else.    

Some Data.

Which needs some elaboration. Because it explains one of the major factors behind geopolitical realignment taking place since the United States and EU unleashed a bloody mayhem in Ukraine. I warned already then that Russians are wrong people to fvck with. Well, here we are today with the US accelerating towards economic abyss while simultaneously destroying everything it prided itself on for couple of centuries, namely the rule of law, freedom of speech and whatever is understood under "democracy" in the US.  But behind all this massive geopolitical shift the "fundamentals" which define nations' real power one thing seems to be often forgotten and not brought up in the discussion often enough. Here is demonstration: this is 2017 statistics:

Well, I guess by now you can easily calculate that population of Russia being 2.2 times smaller than that of the United States and 9.9 times smaller than that of China (and 9.5 times smaller than that of India) per capita Russia produces the highest number of STEM graduates in the world. Here is another angle for 2018. 

Here are some top countries with higher number of graduates as Russian Federation takes the top slot with 454,436 of annual engineering, manufacturing, and construction graduates, followed by the United States with 237,826. Meanwhile, those engineering graduates from Iran number 233,695 annually.  

China is not included in this count, neither is India, but this is not what matters here. What matters here is quality. Not only Russia produces, in absolute terms, twice as many engineers than the United States, but even if one considers that the United States has an access virtually for free to already educated engineering cadres from elsewhere, primarily India and China, through immigration programs, I can easily point out a number of Russia's engineering schools whose graduates will never move to the United States, thus providing the US with a top shelf engineering expertise. And I am not talking about programmers; in this field Russia does provide the US with an absolute top-notch software engineering talent. 

It goes without saying that the United States will never have access to the most graduates of industrial and weapons engineering schools such as Bauman MGTU. Especially those who went through classified courses, nor will Russian military academies, which are top engineering schools in their own right, provide any inflow to US engineering cadres. Don't count me, I am an old fart who completely forgot everything I ever knew (secrets wise), plus I have no ambitions to pursue specifically engineering career. And then, of course, comes this economic thingy which for many top notch Russian engineers stopped being a crucial factor in making their decision on where to employ themselves--top talent feels itself money-wise very well in Russia. As people who know, and are such talent, testify--Russia pretty much matches most of "economic" desires for such talents. No, really. Exchange Moscow, St. Petersburg or Novosibirsk for NYC or "silicon valley"? Really? Russians have an easy access to the internet, travel a lot and know about real state of the affairs in the US. The city on the hill doesn't shine anymore. 

Some, of course, still fall for the gimmick of American rivers of milk and honey, but increasingly even those begin to reconsider. Mind you, I am talking about STEM talent. The United States is free to remove from Russia most political "scientists", lawyers, journos, business "analysts" etc. Truth is, the demand for those basically evaporated in Russia, with the exception of good accountants--this profession will always be in demand. But, having said all that, one begins to understand how the country "with the economy the size of Texas"(c) continues to produce some mind-boggling technologies both in military and civilian fields. Very simple--by nurturing national STEM intellect, which is in the foundation of national security and survival. It is also in the foundation of making things. You know, cars, aircraft, buildings, railroads, medicine, submarines, computers and other things which are of low interest for Wall Street or Forbes' "analysts" who obviously never attended any school which gives a good handle on STEM.  

Please, don't misconstrue me as bragging. I am not bragging, I just state cold hard facts which are going into my third book which looks at issues of geoeconomics and how American "elites", most of who have no serious applicable productive skills, betrayed own people and doing so de facto demolished US standing in the world, granted many applaud such a development. Recall Lenin's sacramental from his "Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power"  

We are not utopians. We know that an unskilled labourer or a cook cannot immediately get on with the job of state administration. In this we agree with the Cadets, with Breshkovskaya, and with Tsereteli. We differ, however, from these citizens in that we demand an immediate break with the prejudiced view that only the rich, or officials chosen from rich families, are capable of administering the state, of performing the ordinary, everyday work of administration. We demand that training in the work of state administration be conducted by class-conscious workers and soldiers and that this training be begun at once, i.e., that a beginning be made at once in training all the working people, all the poor, for this work.   

Boy, how many in the West even today are able to grasp the fact that apart from own internal, and deadly, rot, modern degenerate West is being outplayed, outproduced, outgunned and outsmarted by the heirs of those very unskilled laborers and cooks (have anybody read Putin's biography, wink, wink) who instead of going to political "science" or journo school went into... well, you know. But I am sure American know-how in producing "elite" will be in a huge demand in the third world which is so desperate for oversupply of philosophers, political analysts, stock brokers, journalists, creative writers and Queer and ethnic studies majors. Meritocracy is so overrated...especially in the 21st century where iPhones grow on trees and Hollywood "stars" influence public opinion.

Beirut.

It is a horrendous tragedy. We are talking about, roughly, 3 kilotons of ammonia nitrate exploding and no, this is not an attack or terrorist act. Ammonia nitrate is extremely volatile and more than 3,000 tons of it has been stored at Beirut's port since 2014, when the vessel, owned by some Russian/Cyprus dude, while transporting this deadly cargo from Georgia to Africa broke down. It is not surprising knowing corruption in Lebanon that this cargo was stored without any regard to safety and special handling procedures. The luck simply ran out for Beirut which looks like a Hiroshima or Nagasaki now. 

For conspiracy imbeciles who try to push some "nuclear explosion"  BS--learn main destructive properties of nuclear explosions among which light flash is a main one. Nothing, including a brownish smoke--a first sigh of chemical explosion--points out to any nuclear blast. The world better get its act together and drop this "attack" BS (such as Trump already suggested) and start helping people of Beirut. Even Israel offered help immediately, first flight with Russian doctors has already landed in Beirut and first five IL-76s are already on tarmac in Russia ready to fly in field hospitals and supplies, the United States (despite Trump's snafu) already offered any help--the US Navy is there in the Med and it is at its best when providing massive humanitarian assistance. I am sure many other countries will respond with help. Beirut has only 1 month worth of food currently and hospitals are filled with wounded. It is a horrendous tragedy. 

This will require an extraordinary international effort to help people of Lebanon.   

Very Nonchalant.

The decision, looks like, was made (in Russian) and another Udaloy-class, Project 1155 large ASW ship, this time Admiral Levchenko, will undergo same modernization as recently re-commissioned Marshal Shaposhnikov, which now undergoes post-modernization trials and should join the fleet (Pacific) fairly soon. Levchenko should remain at the Northern Fleet. Looks like all remaining 7 Udaloys will undergo modernization. They will be re-designated into frigates but with an immense surface warfare potential. 

Just to remind you how those new (old) frigates will look like (Bagira, UKSK, X-35 et al), here is Shaposhnikov again. 

Looks like costs of modernization of Shaposhnikov were largely offset by operational benefits of keeping these older hulls (with pretty much new internals) afloat and I am sure many in Russian Navy felt vindicated, and satisfied, with such a direction the fate of these elegant ships took. They were always loved in Soviet and now Russian Navies, they deployed like crazy due to their excellent reliability and sea-keeping qualities and now they finally are being up-gunned the way God intended. Just another day in Russia's "declining" shipbuilding industry and tattered economy, wink-wink. 

Scratching My Head.

Ahem. I don't know how to read into this.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy is taking major steps in an attempt to shake off years of false starts and setbacks with the Littoral Combat Ship program, an effort Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday said he’d oversee on his watch. In an exclusive interview with Defense News on July 16, Gilday listed LCS as a major priority, saying he will turn up the heat on efforts to get the ship to become a major contributor to fleet operations.“There are things in the near term that I have to deliver, that I’m putting heat on now, and one of them is LCS,” Gilday said. “One part is sustainability and reliability. We know enough about that platform and the problems that we have that plague us with regard to reliability and sustainability, and I need them resolved.”

My take on this whole spike in activity regarding these very expensive and grossly under-gunned, putting it politely, ships is related to news from Russia who started trials for her combat modules for project 22160 patrol ships.

Gilday’s goal of fielding the mission modules is well along already, according to two sources familiar with the progress, who spoke to Defense News on condition of anonymity.The mine-warfare mission module is on track for a final test and evaluation by the end of this year, a source with knowledge of the program told Defense News, and the individual components have already passed testing and are in initial low-rate production.End-to-end testing of the mine-warfare mission module is set to begin in fiscal 2021 and is on track to have its initial operating capability declared in 2022, another source said.The status of the ASW mission module, which has been a regular target of Congress-imposed budget cuts, is a little less clear.

Let's face it--the issue with combat modules for LCS is nothing new, as is the issue of preposterous costs for such a ship, in excess of $700 million per hull. What may become an issue, and a huge one at that, will be if Russians will succeed (I am pretty sure they will) with testing of their own modules, including ASW one, and appearance of project 22160, say in Mediterranean, carrying containers with Kalibrs or P-800s, or 3M22s together with ASW packages. This WILL create a shitstorm in appropriate Committees and subcommittees in Congress--remember, pr. 22160 are shitstorm corvettes--because the question will be this: why those fvcking Russians managed in few years to come up with several working modules for what amounts to their version of LCS (of sorts) and we cannot do it for more than a decade? I would say such a question, actually, will be a legitimate one. But then guess what--have you heard about F-15X lately? I heard:

And now the Air Force is doing just that. Last week, the Defense Department announced in its daily digest of defense contracts awarded that Boeing will produce an unspecified number of F-15EX aircraft over the next three years, at a total cost of $22.89 billion.

Oh baby, for around $90 million a pop for a venerable and slightly up-gunned F-15 that looks so...so... Pentagonish. But isn't it how the whole US Defense Budget is spent? I omit here all those "doctrinal" decisions such as producing a rather mediocre aircraft such as F-35, but it will do for attacking third world nations, and calling it "Stealth" because 1950s radar cannot "detect" it, but generally one has to wonder "where's the beef"?  Argument of "complexity" of US weapon systems is a complete bunk--I write about this for years and people at TAC question this too.

How Bells, Whistles & Greed Blew Up the Defense Budget. The hawks say we need to spend $740B a year because our weapons systems are so much more complex now. Here's the real story.

OK, let me cut to the chase--most American "hawks" are not hawks but chicken-hawks most of who do not know shit from shinola when dealing with military, because they lack proper education and experience which would allow them to pass sound judgements on the issue of actual warfare. US weapon systems are no more complex than many from Europe, let alone Russia. Term "sophisticated" is a false equivalency and is used merely to impress dumb-asses who sign the checks for Pentagon. Criteria of Combat Efficiency of the system has long been discarded in the US in favor of monetary gain (through ridiculous unreal costs) and making Hollywood movies. The issue is not even that SU-35C, not speaking of SU-57, will tear F-35 a new one, or that Patriot PAC whatever the version, looks like, using Publius Tacitus terminology, a Nerf Gun when compared to Russian Air Defense systems. The issue is that the US simply cannot produce decent weapon system on time, on budget and, most important, cannot make it combat effective in real combat environment. 

Come on, Russians know this, so do many many people in DoD in the US, but they are not talking because US warfare long ago became about money, appearances and propaganda, not about defense. Come to think about it, not about offense either, since the US military record as of lately is not that impressive. Ridiculous price tags of US weapons didn't help much in Afghanistan or Syria, once Russia got involved there. Well, as one of the pundits concludes:

Wood’s argument that the only way to deal with adversary technology is with better technology is also false. We don’t need to out-engineer the Russias and Chinas of the world, we need to out-think them. For virtually every high-tech weapon, there is a low-tech counter. Our struggles to deal with IEDs in Iraq is the perfect example of this. The Pentagon spent $20 billion to develop counter-IED systems only to come to the realization that nothing worked as well as a dog.

Out-think is a fancy euphemism for coming to terms with military reality and facing facts, which for Pentagon will be really painful and goes completely against Modus Operandi and Vivendi both in US military and the US Congress agreed upon for the sake of keeping a gravy train running. Well, the run may continue but the US realistically cannot win a war with the peer. In fact, it will sustain colossal materiel and reputational losses gigantic price tags of its weapons notwithstanding. Just yesterday I listened to one discussion between some totally delusional "Marxist" Alekseev and former Colonel from General Staff Vladimir Trukhan, who apart from wiping the floor with Alekseev, noted that as a former Officer-operator of General Staff he doesn't take militarily NATO seriously. Or as he said: "we don't even break sweat". He has a point, but then again, I can only repeat myself--the real danger is in the United States stumbling into open military confrontation with China, let alone Russia, see its expensive military hardware destroyed en masse, not to speak of human losses, and being pushed to the threshold of the unthinkable. This is the only "out-thinking" the United Sates is capable of today and that makes me scratch my head. I heard there was a proposition to put a ballistic missile on Zumwalt-class DDGs to enable these three white elephants with a whopper of a price tag to have missiles capable of carrying hyper-sonic glider vehicles within Prompt Global Strike paradigm. If that is "out-thinking" what can I say.... Sergei Viktorovich, help!