О новых деталях и экономических последствиях подрыва “Северных потоков”

On the destruction of the  gas pipes under the sea…how it was done. Who did it.

New details and economic consequences of the Nord Stream disruption

Intel Slava Z
🇷🇺 ⚡️President Vladimir Putin convenes the Russian Security Council at 13:00…

The main theme, I think, is clear.

Stalin would not have hesitated to have these people shot. Just to make sure he got all the guilty he had to shoot many who were innocent (Molotov Remembers) Otherwise the USSR would have lost the war, says Molotov. Reluctantly, I agree…probably whole Soviet divisions would have surrendered to the nazi armies. VVP and the present government is being less radical, but even that has limits.

https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/russian-mod-purges-hit-fever-pitch

https://archive.org/details/molotovremembers0000chue/page/n5/mode/2up

“The Russian corruption purges have reached new heights.

Several more big figures have been arrested this week. On July 26, it was ex-Deputy Defense Minister Dmitry Bulgakov, who headed the Russian Logistics and Transport wing of the Armed Forces.”

The story simplicus offers is very sobering, shocking.  Even Sergei Shoigu seems to be implicated. I would ask, if the accusations are true, what other even more treasonous crimes are underway? 

Ultimately, one might suppose, the harsh methods of Stalin may be necessary.

Redacted… with Larry Johnson... mentioning FF possibility an’ dead GI’s as a real possibility.

About hypersonic. Remarks. Somewhat conjectural.

There is a calculus accounting shape (drag coefficient and area) mass density, initial kinetic energy (how much energy was imparted in by the launcher), pathway (how long the machine experiences drag and the rate of increase in drag as the air density increases with loss of altitude. To stay hypersonic it needs to be very dense – (like mostly tungsten (I’d guess)), These are pretty basic aerodynamic calculations, and the engineering demands some very exotic materials – but indeed just about any streamline shape with significant mass density goes hypersonic if it falls out of sub orbital or orbital pathways, if it doesn’t melt or disintegrate from stress. And even at low altitudes with plenty of rocket boost a projectile can go hypersonic – some rifle bullets are hypersonic…(in a sense the bullet is escaping the “rocket” – the rifle, which accelerates into the shooter’s shoulder) and there are laboratory “cannons” that make little things go extremely fast. Lesser but significant are variations in tidal forces and gravity…so called  coriliosis effects – then there’s the big problem of control, guidance –  The air around the machine gets very hot, so hot that it conducts electricity – vaguely like the tenuous gas in a fluorescent lamp or the old radio tubes do. This is nice for a weapon designer, as it makes the thing essentially radar-proof – invisible to radar. But it means that the machine is more or less blind to radio input. How the Russian, Chinese, Iranians systems of guidance work is a big secret…my guess is optical-celestial (some portion of the light spectrum is transparent, as a “window” looking up from the doral portion of the machine. combined with inertial guidance – which measures and integrates acceleration and attitude and altitude with time – running through very sexy algorithms…the interim conclusions would be combined with celestial – optical ie the machine looks at the sky.  The second big problem is how to change direction and control angles of attack in the atmosphere. No one is saying anything about this. I can imagine two. One is gas bleeds through tiny lateral ports – changing the local drag very slightly according to the guidance algorhythm. Another possibility is changing the center of mass – in the atmosphere the machine is expending energy, slowing. Imagine a heavy slug  inside that can move in two lateral directions by servos motors – change in yaw and pitch would occur. My guess is that both methods are combined.

Additional at terminal phase, ie the last few kilometers, a machine might well fire a small rocket engine to add to its final velocity. “Velocity” here is slightly incorrect, by the way, maneuvering objects have speed, not velocity – unless they’re not maneuvering – then the speed is equal to the velocity. Imagine a car going 100 mph at Bonneville Salt Flats – the speed and the velocity are the same. But let the car do 100 MPH at a Indianapolis and the speed in 100, the velocity is constantly changing. Mostly these two words are used interchangeably.  But they matter, sometimes, a lot. It takes energy to change velocity. Speed, ignoring friction, does not.

Mind you, some of what I’ve written is highly conjectural. I have been thinking about the hypersonic problems for years. But Werner’s Ghost does not answer my dreams. 😉

https://www.rbth.com/science-and-tech/332100-what-is-iskander-m

“The Iskander-M tactical missile system includes a total of 51 pieces of equipment: 12 launchers (each with two missiles), 12 transport-loading vehicles, 11 command vehicles, 14 life-support vehicles, one technical support vehicle, a communications processing center, plus sets of precision-guided missiles, ammunition, and training tools.”

They’re not “ballistic” they jink around, in flight, ie very difficult to intercept.

“…use seven types of missiles that are totally indistinguishable to the naked eye and can be equipped with as many as ten kinds of warheads….”  and release decoys!  

About that EW> https://sovereignista.com/globalsouthforum/topic/chronicles-of-the-apocalypse-01-aug-2024/#post-37850                       😉

https://garalperovitz.org/atomic-bomb/

This work began with my 1965 book, Atomic diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam : the use of the atomic bomb and the American confrontation with Soviet power, in which I argued that the then available evidence available pointed to three major conclusions: first, that the first use of these terrible weapons was unnecessary; second, that this was understood by decision makers at the time; and third that there was very substantial though not absolutely definitive evidence that by the late summer of 1945 the decision was primarily influenced by diplomatic considerations related to the Soviet Union.

…

https://vk.com/wall-182989600_6638

Summary:
One of the most controversial issues absorbing America today: Was it necessary to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Fifty years after the fateful summer of 1945, we are still debating Harry Truman’s decision. Now, in an exhaustive, thoroughly documented study of the events of that time, Gar Alperovitz makes plain why the United States did not need to deploy the bomb, how Truman was advised of alternatives to it by nearly every civilian and military adviser, and how his final decision was later justified by what amounted to a deception – the claim that the action saved half a million to a million American soldiers who might otherwise have died in an invasion. Alperovitz demonstrates that Japan was close to surrender, that it was profoundly threatened by the prospect of Soviet entry into the war, and that American leaders knew the end was near. Military commanders like Eisenhower, Arnold, and Leahy saw no need to use the bomb; most of Truman’s key Cabinet members urged a clarification of the position of Japan’s Emperor to speed surrender. But the inexperienced president listened most intently to his incoming secretary of state, James F. Byrnes, and Byrnes was convinced the bomb would be an important diplomatic instrument in dealing with the Soviets.

March ‘ 44 “The Bomb is for Russia”. (General Groves at dinner with bomb scientist.)