gulf war i

How it all began part 3

So, here he was in his slippers and gown, fresh out of the shower and as always eager to help, me in my not sexy at all pyjamas. I really didn’t have time to change into anything a little more flattering but i had to make the most of the situation.

Whilst i showed him where the bird was i was busy formulating a battle plan in my head and it was all a bit frantic until we got to the bird…..it was obviously seriously injured so he wasted no time at all despatching it at which point it was my turn to breakdown……and that wasnt in the plan. It then started raining so he said he would take the bird home and bury it at the bottom of his garden in the morning.

Once he had finished with the bird he turned his attention to me and obviously seeing me distressed it was his turn to comfort me. He held me in his arms for what seemed an age and at the time the last thing on my mind was sex. After a few minutes of kind words and him rubbing and patting me to console me i pulled myself together and asked if he would like a drink. We made our way into the kitchen and i put the kettle on, he asked if he could wash his hands so i suggested he go upstairs and jump in the shower if he wanted as he was drenched due to the time we spent in the rain and obviously wanted to clean up after handling the bloody bird. I said i would sort the drinks out and with that he went up and showered.

After five mins or so i shouted up and asked how he was getting on as i felt i needed a shower to warm myself up, no reply, so i took the two cups of coffee up and got to the bathroom door which was open and quietly peered in only to see him in the shower, covered in body wash, rubbing his hands up and down his legs and torso. He hadnt noticed me as he had his back to the door so i coughed to get his attention……when he turned around to face me he certainly got my attention…his cock was rigid and standing proud but he quickly tried to cover up. I put the cups down and opened the shower door and asked him if he needed any help to which he pulled me into the cubicle without a word…..just a smile….i was still in my unflattering pyjamas which very quickly became soaked so he lifted the top off over my head as i kicked the trousers down my legs…..as i finished taking my trousers off i bent down to chuck them out of the way and came face to tip with his rigid cock, taking him into my mouth i sucked the head and swirled my tongue around under his foreskin and probed his japseye tasting precum before taking his whole length down my throat….he was loving it judging by the way he was shaking….his legs like jelly…he was kneeding my boobs with one hand with the other hand on the back of my head making sure that i wasnt going to stop, little did he know then that i had no intention of stopping, i wanted his load down my throat….after maybe 5 minutes i could feel his cock getting longer, harder, the way my hubbies gets when he is about to shoot his load, so i started playing with his balls and sucked harder and licked more until what seemed like a pint of cum hit the back of my throat, i took the lot, savouring every last drop….once i had drained his balls i stood up, and still without a word we kissed, cuddled and held each other whilst the shower did its job and his cock returned to normal. I asked him if he now wanted his coffee to which he said yes…..we got out and i led him to our bedroom where we both dried each other before sitting on the bed to drink our coffees. Never after us leaving the shower did he mention what had just happened so to break the ice I asked him how long it had been since he had had sex of any kind as there was so much cum to which he replied two years…..and that was before the passing of his beloved wife. I asked him how he felt, had he enjoyed it, would he like me to suck him again…he said he felt a bit awkward, there was the fact i was married, he was 20 years older than me, he was a friend of the family and my hubby was away on his first tour of iraq during the first gulf war. To which i replied that all of the reasons he gave for not doing it were the reasons i wanted to do it, he looked very confused so i suggested we both dress and go downstairs as we needed to talk.

We sat in the dining room at the table, I asked him if he wanted a proper drink to which he said yes, i poured him a malt whisky which hubby keeps for special occasions and i poured myself a white wine. I started off by telling him how lonely i would get whilst hubby was away and that i needed the company of a man. I told him that i didnt want to go to pubs and clubs etc or hook up with any of the guys from camp…that would of been easy but not what we wanted. I let slip that hubby had first suggested him as my lover to be as he had known him for years, he respected him, he knew i would be in safe hands with him, he was discrete and an all round nice guy….a gentleman in fact. I said i found him very attractive both sexually and mentally and he was a very handsome guy for his age, which at this point was 44……i was 22. He said he was flattered and he had often thought about me sexually but would not of dreampt of crossing the line with me normally. Without trying to sound desperate i asked him how he would feel about being my lover whilst hubby was away, i told him hubby was fine, i knew also that he had had the snip so there was no chance of me getting pregnant so we could fuck bareback (which i adore) and he could cum anywhere he wished, which was very important to hubby and i as we were both clean and disease free…….he demolished his malt and said that he would love to see me again but would have to speak to my hubby as he thought that i was having him on and hubby was oblivious to what i had planned…..

Girlfriend Sunny

sunkyu ♡ my first ever snsd bias! i remember watching her in “invincible youth” which is what got me into girls generation in the first place. whoever this woman falls for better know they’re damn lucky to have her!

Originally posted by pervingonfemalekpop

  • her fear of loud explosions (from being a baby living in Kuwait during the Gulf War, if I remember correctly) means that halloween isn’t spent seeing her in sexy costumes but instead snuggling on the couch, watching a movie on full volume to drown out the bangers and fireworks
  • new years is much the same
  • and sunkyu feels like such a bad gf, that she’s holding you back from celebrating with your friends and family. she’s tried convincing you to go out without her but “sunkyu, it won’t be any fun without you” and her heart melts so she decides to try conquer her fear
  • for you
  • and while she’s still afraid of the loud, abrassive sound, while explosions still make her cling on to your hand and flinch, she stands strong
  • in the middle of a new years crowd, with hundreds of people counting down to the new year but she sees it as ten seconds until very loud explosion. she’s still scared but she’s strong
  • sunny flinches at the fireworks but then distracts herself with your heated kisses and suddenly, she’s not as scared anymore
  • reassuring her that she’s pretty, even while wearing glasses
  • getting to watch her & taeyeon’s antics as the shorties of the group, teaming up on the other, taller girls
  • it’s hilarious
  • arguments don’t happen often, since she’s an understanding person. also, she’s generally so busy with girls generation that she’s either not around or too tired to argue. but, on the rare occasions there are fights, she furiously sticks her tongue out at you

Originally posted by jjihoonie

  • and that pretty much ends the argument because she’s so smol & kyoot, that who could fight with her?
  • heechul telling you lots of embarrassing stories about her, since they’re good friends. and, like the loving person you are, you tell him some stories too. it’s only fair
  • sunny hates when you two get together
  • “ah, sunny, do you know what a little birdie told me about you,” heechul will say, on some variety show. fear and dread settles on her face because she knows and he’s grinning like a smug little shit
  • whenever you’re down, she cheers you up with aegyo
  • this lady LOVES skinship
  • she holds your hand pretty much 24/7, even while eating. you sit together to eat and if the table is too crowded with all the girls, she’ll pull you aside so you can still be together, eating and holding hands elsewhere or on the floor
  • violently nudging her when she makes puppy sounds in her sleep and keeps you awake
  • a VERY active sex life
  • she’s a sporty lady, so she has a high indurance level. she’s fun and adventurous, so sex can range from sweet quickies before the other girls come back to her giving you a teasing lap dance in various sexy outfits. she looks good in everything istg

Originally posted by shiki-soon

  • eating bungeoppang (type of bread/pastry with red bean in the middle) where she only eats the head and the tail since she hates red bean paste and gives the rest to you
  • her birthdays are always so stressful, since she shares the date with her two older sisters and mother. that’s four birthdays in one
  • to make her feel special, you two do something nice a day or two afterwards, so there’s a day just for her
  • lee sunkyu deserves it

anonymous asked:

Regarding the DF-21, everyone seems to accept the Chinese claim that it is an "Anti-ship" missile, for all we know that's just propaganda and it's really a bunker buster, especially since the CIA probably got their hands on a couple during the sale of some to the Saudis after Gulf War One. I mean it's not the first time a military has lied about what a weapons system actually is.

They have a sizable arsenal of MRBMs with conventional warheads meant for attacking land targets, that’s no surprise - the latest one was hailed as the “Guam express” in their more strident “newspapers,” which tells you what they plan to use them for. There’s also a nuclear-armed variant. Same missile, different payloads. I’m sure it exists. How well it works is another question. 

The DF-21 has multiple issues - for one, what’s the kill-chain? It needs to know where the target is, for starters, because ballistic missiles are, uh… ballistic. They have a very limited ability to change their trajectories while in flight, so they need to have an exact fix on the target beforehand. This isn’t as easy as you might think - we were able to sail a carrier task force around in Russia’s back yard during the NORPAC 82 exercise without them ever locating the carrier group. Yes, 1982, well after satellite recon was available, and the Soviets had much more than the Chinese do. Said link doesn’t describe how the satellites were defeated (because it’s top-secret as hell, natch,) but there’s several methods for it - a simple one is weather. Even the best camera can’t see through clouds. And while some satellites have surface-search radar, they can’t tell ships apart - have a gander here for a rough idea of just how many ships are on the ocean at any given time, especially near major trade lanes like the South China Sea.  Then there’s dwell time; since inclination changes are hideously expensive delta-V wise, earth observation satellites are typically put in a polar orbit, so the earth will rotate underneath them slowly, letting them cover a “slice” a bit further west than their last pass. It only takes about 90 minutes to whip ‘round the Earth in LEO, but it takes, well, 12 hours for the same spot on Earth to come under you again (on the “back side” of your orbit) and even then it’ll be at night, so you’ll have to use the IR cameras (which are lower resolution for various reasons, especially atmosphere haet IR. Water vapor absorbs infa-red wavelengths very well.) So to have reasonable coverage - say, a recon satellite passing over a particular patch of ocean every 6 hours or so - you need more than a handful of satellites, and that’s hideously expensive. 

Of course, China only wants to control the SCS, so a single geostationary satellite could meet their needs, like the one they’ve already launched. Geostationary orbit is high, however, which is probably why that satellite’s image resolution is so abysmal (50m visible light can probably sort a carrier from a supertanker, but 400m resolution with IR won’t do shit.) On the plus side, geostationary is a lot harder to reach with missiles. That still leaves a bevy of methods for shutting it down, however, including old-fashioned jamming, either of the satellite, or of its receiving ground stations. It doesn’t matter what it sees, if it can’t tell anybody. There’s also this mention of the satellite only being able to “localize” a carrier due to the data processing time required, which strikes me as unusual - with modern technology even a geostationary satellite should have no problem with continuous high-bandwidth transmissions, unless I’m gravely mistaken. Or it could be referring to the time required for actual human eyes to scan the imagery and pick out the carrier-shaped dot, though fairly simple image-matching software ought to be up to simplifying that task. 

Or maybe we’d just shoot the damn thing down. The tl;dr is that there’s still a need for actual old-fashioned recon assets, (which can be seen by how China’s investing in them.) Unfortunately for China, this requires them to fly aircraft within 200nm of a hostile US CBG, which tends to be an unhealthy endeavor - especially if using surface-search radar. Their radar-equipped satellites and stationary radars on their new SCS outposts (assuming those don’t eat TLAMs) can at least locate contacts, so a recon aircraft can use advanced long-range optics to visually ID them, which lets the aircraft operate on passive EMCON to avoid detection. (It’ll probably have to check every contact - the map I linked above shows ships who are broadcasting their position/identification with transponders, much like aircraft, but that requires trusting the transponder’s owner…) Unfortunately that requires getting even closer, and flying at a minimum altitude to see over the curvature of the Earth - against some of the best AWACs in existence (both carrier-borne and land-based, given our bases in Japan, Singapore and elsewhere.) There’s been some speculation that the RQ-170 stealth drone that was forced down in Iran (that Obama refused to have bombed, the stupid fuck,) will go a long way towards providing the Chinese with the stealth recon assets they’ll need for this - thanks, Obama! But Iran’s a lot tighter with Russia than China, and Russia and China are a bit… touchy with each other still. So that’s an outside chance. 

For sake of argument say you find the carriers and fire on them. Now even a ballistic missile takes some time to arrive at a target, and given how a re-entry vehicle (RV’s) maneuvering ability in the terminal phase is very limited, you have to put the weapon on-target very precisely ahead of time. The time to do this is in “midcourse” flight, while the weapon’s in space and before it re-enters. The earlier you perform a course-correction maneuver, the more delta-v efficient it is - especially in midcourse, since in boost or re-entry your thrusters are fighting the atmosphere. Even if their geostationary satellite is capable of constant communication, I doubt it has a full EOTS system that’s fully networked (”datalinked”) to provide said course updates for the mid-course course-correction maneuver; this’d require constant contact to be held by recon assets. And of course, these datalinks are vulnerable to jamming. Some have suggested the DF-21 might operate in a “swarm mode,” much like the old P-700 did; with the first warheads fired searching for the target and passing data back to the ones still in mid-course so they can actually hit the target. 

Then there’s the actual terminal phase. Even a normal RV (not a fancy hyper-sonic glide vehicle) can maneuver once in atmosphere; the same way the Apollo Command Module did, by using the limited normal/compression lift generated by the blunt RV body to adjust the landing footprint. At the velocities/altitudes involved here it’ll only have the energy to tweak the trajectory, but that’s enough for terminal attack. These high-G maneuvers also double as evasive maneuvers, making high-altitude intercept difficult. Terminal attack, however, is where life gets difficult. 

At the kind of insane speeds a re-entering vehicle encounters, the compression heating forms plasma beneath the heat-shield. This plasma blocks all radio communications - that’s why you get the dramatic silence during re-entry in the old Apollo movies. The beam-riding SPRINT anti-ballistic missile, (which accelerated at 100 goddamn gravities,) was also hampered by this issue. There is a way around it, as used by the later Shuttle missions - communicating with a satellite in orbit (thus avoiding the plasma sheath below,) which bounces the signal back to the Earth command station. (This is yet another communications link vulnerable to jamming.) Without this, it’s hard to see how the DF-21 can “see” through its own plasma sheath, either optically or with radar, to continue fine-tuning its terminal intercept. It may deploy spoilers to de-accelerate sooner, (making it more vulnerable to intercept,) or wait till very shortly before terminal intercept as it deaccelerates in the thicker lower atmosphere to make final targeting corrections, which drastically reduces its footprint and makes very precise target information and course corrections in mid-course/re-entry interface even more vital. 

Without even talking about shooting it down yet, you can see that the DF-21 is just the pointy end of a much bigger system that is itself vulnerable to both hard and soft kill techniques. This is to say nothing of the need of the payload to penetrate the final defenses of the ship; which would include both decoys and very, very intense jamming (modern warships carry a lot of jammers, and they’re due for a massive leap in capability with the introduction of the Next Generation Jammer in in 2020 or so.) These jammers are capable of obfuscating the exact location of the ship throughout the attack, to every detection/tracking platform as well, and so can defeat the DF-21 simply by denying it accurate offboard targeting data for the mid-course correction.

And then there’s actually shooting them down, which is notable because it’s impressive it’s an option at all. The SM-3 is the big star here, of course, because it’s a purpose-built weapon with an exo-atmospheric interceptor; that is, it can hit the weapons in space, during mid-course, when they’re at apogee and moving the slowest. That’s an impressive ability, but recent upgrades have also made the SM-2ER (which the SM-3 was based on) and the SM-6 capable of ABM defense as well. They can’t maneuver out of atmosphere, but they can maneuver in the atmosphere better than the SM-3s final stage, which gives a high-to-medium altitude terminal intercept ability. Their blast-frag warheads aren’t nearly as effective as the hit-to-kill KKV of the SM-3, when it comes to completely destroying the target… but complete destruction of an RV is only a requirement when you’re being attacked by nuclear or chemical weapons, which have a wide area-of-affect. A blast-fragmentation hit to a DF-21 RV would not only knock it off course, but the damage to sensors, maneuvering thrusters and even the basic aerodynamic integrity would greatly inhibit its ability to conduct a successful attack. 

There’s more advantages to the SM-2ER and SM-6. Magazine requirements are one - it allows ships to defend themselves with the voluminous numbers of air-defense missiles they already carry for other threats, greatly reducing the penalty of reserving cells for the SM-3. It allows a longer timeframe for attack, since they’re effective even at medium altitudes. But best of all, they can attack the RVs without worrying about decoys or other countermeasures. Decoys are (by necessity) lighter than the RV itself, so once they hit atmospheric drag they’re soon parted from the actual weapon. At the time the RVs are coming into range of the majority of the CBGs defensive arsenal, they’ll be stripped of their decoys and have an IR signature like a neon friggin sign. 

And then there’s the attrition argument. There’s actually data on how many SM-3s are in the inventory and how many we’re likely to build per-annum. Compare this with the DF-21; it’s estimated by the US Navy that 8-10 DF-21s can be built per annum, and at least some of those are going to be conventional or nuclear land-attack warhead equipped. This isn’t a surprise; ballistic missiles are huge, expensive, and very very finicky things to build. So from a pure defense saturation perspective, we can build interceptors faster than they can build ding-dongs. 

China beats us in iPhone production, but we still beat them in rocket science. 

anonymous asked:

Eltigrechico is wrong. For if everything he says is true, then libertarians should be isolationists not non-interventionists since a state never had a right to fight our conflicts. Even if another nation is committing a genocide against us. However, if a state is justified in doing so in cases of defense, then given your definition of defense, almost every war we got into was justified and hawkish policies should be supported by libertarians

Before you read this, I want everybody to look at what my stance was on this a year ago. My, my, how things have changed.

Anon, why, exactly, do you think libertarians are anti-war? Also, what do you think isolationism entails?

If anyone, anywhere, is a victim of aggression, then anyone, anywhere has the right to defend the victim. That is beyond dispute. That does not, however, create an obligation.

Take Saddam Hussein. Literally anybody on the planet had the right to kill him. He had committed acts of aggression against the Kurdish people, and if even one had cried out for help, then any person or group of people could choose to answer the call. (That’s not even why we started the Second Gulf War, I know, but bear with me.) George Bush himself could have personally taken out Saddam with a well-placed sniper shot, and no crime would have occurred. It would have been an act of defense of the innocent.

But nobody had to answer the call. If they were so inclined, every human being on the planet could have chosen to simply turn a blind eye to Saddam’s numerous crimes against humanity and let the Kurds die. It would certainly not be the first time.

This would not be virtuous. This would created a darker world by signaling to others that genocide could not or would not be punished. There are a million reasons why letting genocide occur is a Bad IdeaTM. But if for some reason the people of the world all did a risk assessment and determined that they did not wish to stick their necks out on the issue, nobody, not even the Kurds, would have the right to force people to help them.

The reason the State wars are immoral is two-fold.

The first is that the citizens of the states fighting the war are forced to support it. If a person does not believe in intervention in the Middle East or Southeast Asia or Latin America or wherever, they are still forced to support it anyway through government extortion. Not only that, but there is a distinct increase in government extortion every time the government chooses to engage in these wars without the consent of any given citizen. Not only that, but the government inevitably harms freedoms in other ways outside of specific tax burdens, through violations of the rights to privacy, free speech, free association, and so on.

A man who loses his son in 9/11 could say that he has seen enough bloodshed and does not want to bring that horror to another father on the other side of the world in a country that didn’t even have anything to do with the attack, nor does he want to give into fear and panic at home.

“No,” says the state, “we must respond with force, and you must support this.”

He must act according to the state’s vision of virtue, no matter how much it tears at his soul. In other times past, the State might have even forced the man to send another of his sons to participate in what this atrocity, but we are just a bit more civilized than that.

And then the state tells the man that if he does not like it, he may leave. But even if the burden was on him (it isn’t), Where is he to go? Any other state to which he moves will likely engage in the same behavior. If he complains there, he will be told that he should have stayed in his own country to fix it, and yet when he tried to fix his own country, he was repeatedly shown the door. And the sicker irony is that the US in particular routinely bombs countries with which it is not even at war in the first place, shrinking his so-called choices even further.

The second is that the state continually obfuscates responsibility for its own crimes in order to commit more of them. The state kidnaps and tortures innocents on word of mouth. The state obliterates families and retroactively designates the males as combatants. The State kills groups of people in their own lands for fitting some sort of pattern. At one point, the US government deliberately murdered 200,000 civilians with a superweapon on the grounds that if they did not, they would have had to kill even more civilians than that.

And through all of this, the buck passes forever.

You cannot blame the troops, even though they all volunteered to serve, for they were just following orders, even other men in the past took it upon themselves to assassinate their superior officers with hand grenades before they would violate their morals.

You cannot blame the executive, because he is simply following the orders given to him by congress, assuming he went to Congress at all.

You cannot blame congress, because they are simply following the mandate of taxpayers and voters. They wanted this, or were at least complicit in it. And you know they wanted this, because they didn’t choose to leave the country when the war started.

And god help you if you lose your family in an American airstrike or find yourself whisked away without trial to a prison site in Cuba indefinitely and choose to take it out on American taxpayers and voters. They are not legitimate targets, only troops are.

But you can’t blame the troops, even the specific troops who trespassed against you. They’re just following orders, after all.

A libertarian does not have to support a war, just because he thinks the target deserves to die. He may very well decide that the agent prosecuting the war is not capable of completing its objectives in anything approaching a timely fashion or at a cost, financial or humanitarian, that he is willing to accept. And yet as of now he has no choice. Even if he does want Saddam dead, it must be done on the state’s terms, and he cannot renegotiate them or seek an alternative provider.The only way for a state war to be legitimate is if it stopped targeting civilians and stopped collecting taxes. That is, if it ceases to become a state at all.

The logical conclusion of @eltigrechico‘s libertarian position is not non-interventionism. It is not isolationism. The logical conclusion of my philosophy is not a war economy. It is not interventionism. It is not an unceasing worldwide anti-communist crusade. (That’s just my consumer preference.)

The logical conclusion to both of our positions is Anarchism, the destruction of the state itself.

2

Continuing to rep ol’ Crna Gora at Gulf Wars this year.

I was called a lot of interesting things, like “the sparkly Bedouin girl” (what?), “the confused Persian lady” (what????), and my personal favourite, “oh Gods you’re tall–no, I mean, MY LADY. YOU ARE…REALLY QUITE STATUESQUE. Oh my word…”

…well! Hazards of being the only Serb (that I know of)!

youtube

This is a really beautiful visual representation of what 00:15 seconds means to hundreds of thousands of Israeli people every day: the difference between life and death.

While Israel sends leaflets, text messages, phone calls, to the people of Gaza before an air strike, Israelis get no such warning and for the elderly, the differently abled, and those outside, this can mean that their life will be in danger.

Air raid sirens in Israel go off when a rocket approaches, not a mortar, not a terrorist. We are lucky to have the Iron Dome, but even that doesn’t truly defend us. 

These sirens are terrifying. For a child like myself, I grew up in the safety of the years between the Intifadas, after the Gulf War, I wasn’t in Israel during The Second Lebanon War, Gaza (2009). These sounds only burned into my conscious when I was 18 years old, a student in one of the most bustling, lively cities in the world. I had a minute to get to the shelter, and I was only subjected to this sound a few times. For the people of Sderot, they have no such luxury.

I remember standing on the street with my friend, having just gone grocery shopping, and hearing the siren (for the first time, for a real attack, not in memorium). The whole street stopped, confused, before panicked we ran to the nearest shelters. No child of the South is a foreigner to this concept. Some kids can even tell what kind of rocket hit by the sound they make.

No one deserves to live like that.

youtube

TWIN PEAKS GULF WAR I MESSAGE

Agent Cooper’s message to the “allied forces out there in the Middle East” circa Gulf War I.  

(David Lynch heard off-camera.)

Hegelian dialectic

Ten dollar word but a simple and effective strategy.

An entity, whether a person, vituperation corporation or government body creates a problem.

The public naturally has an outcry.

The entity then presents a solution which is essentially the end goal or part of the end goal in the first place. The solution usually facilitates the concentration of power from the many to the few.

The entity would never have been able to present the solution under normal circumstances so it needs an event that will create an emotional trauma. For example, the Patriot Act and Homeland security act would have never passed in a pre 9/11 world. Iraq war could not happen without it either.

Vietnam could not happen without the gulf of Tonkin, world war I Us involvement could not occur without the sinking of the Lusitania.

The event that occurs is the distraction, what should be asked instead is who benefits, monetarily, politically, etc, etc.

The prestige is an excellent movie on this topic.