Menu



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
PromoteFacebookTwitter!
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
10/8/2013 10:08:19 AM
Russia building 20-ton drone

Massive New Attack Drone Under Development in Russia

LiveScience.com
The U.S. Air Force's MQ-9 Reaper combat drone. Russian aircraft manufacturers are developing new drones that will have similar attack capabilities.

Russia is developing a new 20-ton attack drone that may be used to carry out strikes on stationary and moving targets over land and sea, according to news reports.

Sukhoi, a Russian aircraft manufacturer, is building the massive drone, whose prototype could be ready by 2018, reported Pravda, a political Russian newspaper based in Moscow. The specific capabilities of the new vehicles have not been discussed publicly, but are expected to rival similar American attack drones.

The developments signal Russia's commitment to establishing a strong drone program, Russian officials said.

"From the point of view of theory, engineering and design ideas, we are not in the last place in the world," Vladimir Anokhin, vice president of the Russian Academy of Geopolitical Issues, told Pravda in this translated quote.

Still, Anokhin said Russia has a long way to go.

"We have wonderful teams that have spent decades working on this," he said. "But we do not have enough hands. We do not have the industrial base, we do not have skilled workers who could produce a massive amount of those drones that we need so much now."

Until now, drone development had been largely neglected in Russia, said Denis Fedutinov, a Russian expert on unmanned systems.

"Currently, the Ministry of Defense of Russia is working to remedy this situation by initiating and funding a program to create a range of [drones] of different types and class," Fedutinov told Pravda.

The U.S. military uses drones to collect surveillance and to carry out attacks. Recently, U.S. and Japanese officials finalized an agreement to allow American drones to fly out of Japan to spy on North Korea.

Maintaining a fleet of drones will improve Russia's defense capabilities and bolster the country's Air Force, Anokhin said.

"Drones can be sent to combat zones, to explore and carry out regular observations, without risking human lives," he said. "This is the next step in the development of aviation that has [a] future."

Follow Denise Chow on Twitter @denisechow. Follow LiveScience @livescience, Facebook & Google+. Original article on LiveScience.


Russia developing 20-ton attack drone


The massive aircraft would be used to carry out strikes on targets over land and sea, according to news reports.
When it could be ready




"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
10/8/2013 10:12:32 AM
Shutdown consequences

How the Shutdown Threatens Some Home Owners

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
10/8/2013 5:41:08 PM

Afghanistan: Hamid Karzai Blasts US and Nato as Security Talks Drag On



Hamid Karzai has said the US and Nato will not be allowed to 'continue to violate our sovereignty'. Photograph: Massoud Hossaini/AFP/Getty

Hamid Karzai has said the US and Nato will not be allowed to ‘continue to violate our sovereignty’. Photograph: Massoud Hossaini/AFP/Getty

By Staff and Agencies, The Guardian – October 8, 2013

http://tinyurl.com/nawsubz

Hamid Karzai has ruled out signing a security deal with the United States until disagreements over sovereignty are resolved.

In angry remarks, the Afghan president condemned the Nato alliance for a military occupation that had caused “a lot of suffering, a lot of loss of life and no gains because the country is not secure”.

At a press conference where he discussed the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) that keeps foreign troops in Afghanistan, Karzai was questioned about a NATO airstrike on 5 October in Nangarhar province that the Afghan government claimed killed five civilians. He cast doubt over whether the agreement would be renewed.

Karzai said: “The United States and Nato have not respected our sovereignty. Whenever they find it suitable to them, they have acted against it. This has been a serious point of contention between us and that is why we are taking issue of the BSA strenuously in the negotiations right now,” Karzai said.

“They commit their violations against our sovereignty and conduct raids against our people, air raids and other attacks in the name of the fight on terrorism and in the name of the resolutions of the United Nations. This is against our wishes and repeatedly against our wishes,” Karzai said, using some of his harshest language to date against the US-led military coalition.

“The United States and its allies, Nato, continue to demand even after signing the BSA they will have the freedom to attack our people, our villages. The Afghan people will never allow it.”

Separately, in an interview with the BBC’s Newsnight programme, Karzai – who is serving his final six months in office – hit back at previous remarks by Barack Obama, the US president, who has described his Afghan counterpart as unreliable and ineffective. “They want us to keep silent when civilians are killed. We will not, we cannot,” said Karzai.

Nato says he Nangarhar attack was retaliation for insurgents trying to mortar the base and while it believed no civilians were hurt, it had opened an investigation into the incident.

Karzai said he will convene a council of elders in one month to help him make a decision on the pending security agreement. The US wants a deal by the end of October to give American and Nato military planners enough time to prepare for keeping troops in the country after the scheduled 2014 withdrawal instead of a total pullout similar to the one in Iraq.

Karzai told Newsnight that his priorities included bringing the Taliban back into government under a power-sharing agreement. “They are Afghans. Where the Afghan president, the Afghan government can appoint the Taliban to a government job they are welcome,” he said. “But where it’s the Afghan people appointing people through elections to state organs then the Taliban should come and participate in elections.”

He rejected the idea that womens’ interests would be harmed by bringing the Islamist hardliners back into power. “I have no doubt that there will be more Afghan young girls and women studying and getting higher education and better job opportunities. There is no doubt about that; even if the Taliban come that will not end, that will not slow down.”



"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
10/9/2013 12:01:48 AM
GOP: Default not so bad

Analysis: What default? Republicans downplay impact of U.S. debt limit

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) (C) returns to his office after a unanimous House vote to retroactively pay furloughed government workers once the current government shutdown ends, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington October 5, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Jonathan Ernst


Reuters

Watch video

By Andy Sullivan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration says a U.S. default would be "catastrophic." Economists say it could plunge the country into recession and prompt a global financial meltdown.

To many Republicans, however, the prospect of the world's lone superpower juggling its bills doesn't seem so bad. The government could muddle through without a debt-ceiling increase as long as it kept up with interest payments and a few other priorities, they argue.

"We are not going to default on the public debt. That doesn't mean that we have to pay every bill the day it comes in," Republican Representative Joe Barton of Texas said on CNBC on Monday.

Barton's position could reflect a genuine disagreement with warnings by Wall Street and Washington analysts or he could be downplaying the default to gain tactical advantage in negotiations with President Barack Obama. But Barton isn't an outlier.

Nearly every Republican in the House of Representatives voted for a bill in May that would direct the Treasury Department to prioritize bond payments and Social Security retiree benefits over other obligations if Congress failed to extend its borrowing authority. In the Senate, 29 of the chamber's 44 Republicans have signed on to the idea.

Republicans say that approach would minimize the fallout if Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling before the Treasury Department exhausts its borrowing authority on October 17.

Past and present Treasury officials and Wall Street analysts reject that view out of hand as naive at best.

In order to make sure bond payments and Social Security checks went out on time, the government would have to delay other payments by days or weeks. That would send a massive economic shockwave through military contractors, hospitals, and other entities farther down the priority list.

The plan also may not be workable in a practical sense. The U.S. Treasury handles 4 million transactions a day, and separating some of them out would be practically impossible.

"It's mind-boggling. I don't know what to say," said Tony Fratto, a Republican and a former Treasury Department official under President George W. Bush. "Every member of Congress should know this. These aren't complicated concepts."

That may not be the point. By presenting a plan to deal with a possible default, Republican lawmakers can show voters they are taking steps to minimize any potential fallout.

NEGOTIATING PLOY?

And as the October 17 deadline approaches, they may gain a negotiating advantage by showing Democrats they are not particularly afraid of going right up to the edge - or over it.

"It's a strategy to say, 'We can hold out longer, because we don't think it's so bad,'" said New York University political science professor Steven Brams, who has written extensively about strategic decision-making.

With the government entering its second week of a partial shutdown due to a dispute over Obama's healthcare law, business leaders are warning against further brinkmanship.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says Congress must pass the debt ceiling soon to avoid "substantial and enduring damage" to the economy. Financial executives like Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs have also urged lawmakers to resolve the dispute quickly.

The uncertainty has weighed on financial markets. The CBOE Volatility index .VIX - a measure of market turbulence called the "fear index" - has risen by nearly 50 percent over the past three weeks amid fear of a default and anxiety over a related government shutdown that took effect on October 1.

"With each passing day, the market becomes more restless," said Leo Grohowski, chief investment officer at BNY Mellon Wealth Management in New York.

The last debt-ceiling showdown in August 2011 proved costly. Lawmakers averted default with a last-minute deal, consumer confidence plummeted and the S&P 500 .SPX fell 17 percent. Although the S&P 500 recovered in a little over two weeks, the standoff will cost the government $18.9 billion over 10 years in higher interest costs, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Republicans touted their prioritization scheme back then as well. Some lawmakers, notably Tea Party favorite Michele Bachmann, a Republican representative from Minnesota, said they would not vote to raise the debt ceiling no matter what.

This time around some Tea Party Republicans, like Florida Representative Ted Yoho, also say they will vote 'no.'

But party leaders like Boehner say they will be able to round up enough votes to raise the debt ceiling as long as they get concessions from Obama.

Many Republicans also suspect that the administration has some additional tricks to stave off default that they haven't disclosed. While Treasury says it can't guarantee payments after October 17, analysts say actual default could come days or weeks later, and lawmakers wonder if they are being rushed unnecessarily.

Though both sides have begun to extend tentative feelers that could lead to a way out of the standoff, both believe that they can extract the most concessions by holding out until the last possible minute. In this context, Republicans' move to downplay the October 17 deadline makes sense, Brams said.

"I don't expect we'd see a compromise until we're at the brink," Brams said.

(The story has been filed again to correct Chamber of Commerce position on debt ceiling in paragraph 15.)

(Additional reporting by Ryan Vlastelica in New York; Editing by Fred Barbash and Eric Walsh)


Why Republicans downplay default impact


Economists say failure to increase the debt limit would be catastrophic, but many Republicans don’t see it that way.
Wall St. grows anxious



"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
10/9/2013 12:09:47 AM
No debit limit doomsday?

Republicans Reject Debt Limit Doomsday Predictions

By ABBY D. PHILLIP | Good Morning America14 hours ago

Catastrophic. Disastrous. Default. Those are just some of the doomsday terms being used to describe what would happen ifCongress fails to raise the country's debt limit and isn't able to pay its debt.

Not so, according to some–mainly Republicans—in Congress. Their reasoning seems to revolve around the same thread: if we don't know what's going to happen because the country has never been down this road before, how can we be sure it'll be so bad?

"We don't know, we haven't ever done it," Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, told ABC News, when asked what happens if the debt limit isn't increased on Oct. 17.

Part two of this theory involves "prioritizing" debt payments, so that the government is able to pay the interest on the country's debt, and postpone other payments.

"We have about $25 billion a month in debt service and we have about $225 billion in revenues that we anticipate," Rep. Dennis Ross, R-Fla., told ABC News. "I think we'll always service our debt so that we never default on our sovereign debt."

"It just becomes a priority of what are we going to pay or not pay thereafter," he added.

That view has been resoundingly denounced by the White House, which has said that the consequences of not raising the debt ceiling—prioritization or no—would send economic markets into a tailspin.

"Prioritization is default by another name," Director of the National Economic Council Gene Sperlingsaid on Monday at a breakfast sponsored by Politico. "Prioritization is like telling a relative who's got near -- who's got perfect credit, you know, it's ok if you pay your mortgage and don't pay your student loan and your car loan, your credit loan."

And in a report to Congress last week, the Treasury Department warned that two years ago in 2011 a near miss on this same issue caused long-lasting consequences to the economy.

An actual default, they warn, could cause credit markets to freeze, the value of the dollar to plummet, interest rates to skyrocket, in a way that could make the 2008 recession seem less severe.

The warnings have come from the White House, economists, the business community and even from China, our biggest debtor, who in a statement yesterday warned lawmakers to "resolve in a timely way the political issues around the debt ceiling and prevent a US debt default."

They have even come from House Speaker John Boehner, who told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos on Sunday that he agreed with the White House's assessment that default could have disastrous consequences for the economy.

But the problem they all face in making their case to skeptical lawmakers is that the exact mechanism for default isn't clear, even to them.

Asked directly how it would happen, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers Jason Furman acknowledged that failure to raise the debt limit wouldn't cause the U.S. to instantly fall off the proverbial cliff.

"We've never actually tested it," Furman said Monday. "We don't know what happens. And we don't ever want to find out what happens."

Some lawmakers, like Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., have pledged that they won't vote to raise the debt limit at all, and others have said they'll only do it if the vote is accompanied by reforms that reduce the country's debt overall.

Either way, come Oct. 17, the Treasury Department says that unless Congress acts, on that day it will run out of "extraordinary" measures they've utilized for the last several months to pay the country's debt.

But a few Republicans view even that date as an arbitrary timeline used by the White House to gain leverage and kick long-term budget reforms down the road.

By Rep. Tim Huelskamp's calculations, we have "about five weeks" until the Treasury department faces a sizable enough payment that it might require it to raise the debt ceiling.

"I think the Oct. 17 date … is not the real date," the Kansas Republican told ABC News. "We don't have a payment on debt until Oct. 31 according to the Treasury Department…we have a big one on Nov. 15."

"It's in their interest to kind of keep fudging with those numbers and moving them up to create pressure," he added.

Also Read


A select few say prioritizing payments could soften the effects, but critics say they're playing with fire.
'Default by another name'





"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1