Rumors Of War

This morning Will Schryver is speculating along the lines we’ve been thinking, most recently, yesterday: the drip, drip, drip of revelations about the Zhou regime that could serve at a moments notice to remove Zhou from his occupancy of the Oval Office. And to allow someone to wield a broom in the NatSec establishment that has created a foreign policy debacle beyond any other—yet which continues to double down:

Re: the Seymour Hersh scoop

I can't quite put my finger on it, but something doesn't smell right about this story. Makes me suspect a limited hangout with Hersh as the unwitting medium.

And not just a limited hangout, but one that fingers very particular people by name.

People who are no doubt very unpopular in certain circles -- kingmaker circles who see the Biden jig is up, and are now maneuvering to position a successor to the role of national figurehead, along with an entirely "fresh team".

Then again, I have a vivid imagination ...

Dave @HootMn

@imetatronink Who in the IC has it in for Nuland and Sullivan?

Will Schryver @imetatronink

@HootMn Nuland and Sullivan have played major roles in the biggest US foreign policy debacle EVER. I guarantee they have LOTS of enemies who would love to take them down, and who now have a perfect opportunity.

Sure makes sense of a LOT of what’s happening.

Now, regarding the Hersh story, this Larry Johnson post will refresh your memory of the events, and how they fit in with what Hersh is saying. This isn’t new information, but simply places it in the Hersh context:

INDEPENDENT VIDEO EVIDENCE CONFIRMS KEY PART OF SY HERSH’S REPORT ON THE ATTACK ON NORD STREAM 2

Also, speaking of “acts of war” or possibilities of such, spurred by commenter Cassander I looked that up:

Most writers say an act of war is one of those things that you know when you see it, if you know what I mean. However, these efforts at definition are more helpful:

https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/act-of-war

Act of war means any act peculiar to military, naval or air operations in time of war.

Act of war means hostile or warlike action, whether declared or not, in a time of peace or war, whether initiated by a local government, foreign government or foreign group, civil unrest, insurrection, rebellion or civil war.

Act of war means any loss or damage arising directly or indirectly from, occasioned by, happening through or in the consequence of war, invasion, acts of foreign enemies, hostilities or warlike operations (whether war is declared or not) by any government or sovereign, using military personnel or other agents, civil war, rebellion, revolution, insurrection, civil commotion assuming the proportions of or amounting to …

The bigger point here is that if the act can be traced back to the US then the foreign government(s) affected can be justified in responding more or less in kind.

Is the deliberate destruction of a major energy infrastructure project using warlike means an act of war. Kinda looks that way.

By way of contrast, suppose a country launches a balloon—call it a weather balloon, which is what the launching country calls it. Then suppose, due to force majeure—meaning, jet stream winds of 200 mph+—that balloon is forced into the overhead space of the US. What is the proper response?

Suppose the launching country tells the US that it:

“regrets the unintended entry of the airship into U.S. airspace due to force majeure.”

What’s the proper response? Launch a mass hysterical response against the launching country and shoot the balloon down once it leaves the US space? Then call and say, Hey, let’s talk about that? Shoot first, talk later? There were days in which this could have been discussed.

That’s what happened with the Chinese balloon—and be aware that China, as Douglas Macgregor reminds us, is a country that has at least 300 satellites that could be used for intelligence gathering of one sort or another. They don’t need no stinking balloon.

MoA carried a discussion of this yesterday:

China Rejects "Shoot First, Talk Later" Attitude

The purpose of high level lines of communication between military and political leaders is to prevent that crises happen or, if one has happen incidentally, to prevent their escalation.

Before the shot down the Chinese defense minister Wei Fenghe likely would have taken that call. But the U.S. decided to shoot first and to talk later. That was and is inappropriate.

On January 29 the Chinese weather balloon was drifting westward over Alaska and Canada. There was no expectation that it would cross into the United States. But an unusual low pressure formation over east Canada eventually caused that. Low pressure areas in the northern hemisphere turn counter-clockwise. High pressure areas turn clockwise. The unusually strong low pressure zone over east Canada pushed arctic air masses south through Canada and then south west to west to New England. This phenomenon, on February 1 and 2, caused a cold snap in east Canada and the northeast of the U.S.. But the wind also caused the 200 feet high balloon to turn south.

Picture the coldest Canadian night imaginable. What did you think of it? Clear skies? Calm winds? A deep snowpack? This cold snap had none of these ingredients align because this type of cold is different. Meet advection cold.

The cold air wasn’t developed on location. The imported cold was fed south by a strong low and the trajectory of the polar vortex. The polar vortex was swirling near Hudson Bay and was slingshotted south by favourable atmospheric dynamics.

The cold air wrapped around a developing low, lifting across Labrador. Not just any cold air, either -- the stratospheric polar vortex mixed down in what’s known as a tropopause fold and occurs near the core of a jet stream.

A wind and pressure map from February 3 shows the then already waning low pressure area in the upper right. The red arrow shows the balloon's course.

Both the cold snap and the balloon's turn were surprising. The jet stream would usually have prevent both from happening. But this time the low pressure area proved to be stronger if only for a short moment. It is the reason why the balloon ended up crossing the U.S.

There was no way the balloon could have been steered against the prevailing wind. Here is a CBS meteorologist, who had used NOAA software to predicted the course of the ballon, confirming that fact.

…

By no means could China have planned the balloon's course. Any allegations that the balloon was being 'steered' and intentionally crossed U.S. missile fields and military bases to 'spy' on those are thereby bogus. China has some 300 satellites in the earth's orbit. It does not need balloons to take aerial pictures of static missile silos in the mid-west U.S.

How is it a good idea to cause ruptures in communications between major nuclear armed powers, and to stir up public spy hysteria? That’s the kind of stuff that leads to wars. Like reckless lies about “weapons of mass destruction”.