Dear JFK Murder Solved Forum Members and Readers:
THERE IS NO PROFIT IN PEACE. YOU WILL NEVER EXPERIENCE IT, OR SEE IT IN YOUR LIFETIME.
YOU WILL NEVER BE TOLD THE COMPLETE, HONEST, TRUTH ABOUT PEARL HARBOR, VIET NAM,
LAOS, CAMBODIA, JFK, MX, MLK, RFK, THE OKLAHOMA BOMBING, 09.11.2001, FALSE FLAGS,
AND SO MANY OTHER ATROCITIES - EVER. THEY WILL NEVER CHANGE THE HISTORY BOOKS.
REMEMBER THAT, AND MORE. 04.12.2017, BB.
U.S. ARMY EXPLORING “DEVASTATING” NEW WEAPON FOR USE IN WAR WITH RUSSIA:
A monorail dry-run test at Holloman Air Force Base in July 2013 had no payload and used three
representative carbon-epoxy panels mounted on the top and sides of the sled.
BY: PATRICK TUCKER
APRIL 11, 2017
The Kinetic Energy Projectile would be a tungsten warhead that moves at three times the speed
of sound, destroying anything in its path.
Were the United States to go to war with Russia, both sides could draw on deadly weapons that
the world has never seen on a battlefield.
On the Russian side, there are new and smaller tactical nuclear weapons. To counter them, the
U.S. Army is taking another look at a “devastating” weapon it first tested in 2013: the Kinetic
Energy Projectile, or KEP, a tungsten-based charge moving at three times the speed of sound that
can destroy anything in its path.
“Think of it as a big shotgun shell,” Maj. Gen. William Hix, the Army’s director of strategy, plans
and policy, said a few weeks ago at the Booz Allen Hamilton Direct Energy Summit. But unlike a
shotgun shell, Hix said, the KEP moves at incredible speeds of “Mach 3 to Mach 6.”
Randy Simpson, a weapons programs manager at Lawrence Livermore National Lab, explains that
kinetic energy projectiles are warheads that “take advantage of high terminal speeds to deliver
much more energy onto a target than the chemical explosives they carry would deliver alone.”
Said Hix: “The way that they [Lawrence Livermore] have designed it is quite devastating. I would
not want to be around it. Not much can survive it. If you are in a main battle tank, if you’re a crew
member, you might survive but the vehicle will be non-mission capable, and everything below that
will level of protection will be dead. That’s what I am talking about.”
US Army Exploring ‘Devastating’ New Weapon For Use In War with Russia.
Iran Expected an Economic Boost from the Nuclear Deal. It’s Not Happening.
Can US Warplanes Evade Russian Air Defenses ? We May Soon Find Out in Syria.
The general emphasized that the exploration was in a conceptual phase and not yet any sort of
actual program: “We’re looking at ways we might — key, might — use that capability in one of
our existing launch platforms as part of the weapons suite that we have.”
He said the main contender for a launcher would be the Army Tactical Missile System, made by
In October 2013, an Air Force test team strapped the projectile to a “sled” on the high-speed
test track at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico. The goal: to get it moving faster than
Mach 3 and see how it might actually work in the air. The test showed that the warhead design
worked; it also provided data to help simulations and modeling.
Why would the U.S. military, which has put untold billions of dollars into precision weapons over
several decades, need such a blunt and terrifying weapon ? To counter small Russian nuclear
“The Russians … maintain their tactical nuclear stockpile in ways that we have not,” Hix said.
Potomac Institute head Philip Karber, who helped write the Pentagon’s Russia New Generation
Warfare Study, offered a bit more explanation when Defense One spoke to him in January. While
the United States retains just a few of its once-large arsenal of tactical nukes, Karber estimates
that Russia currently has anywhere from 2,000 to 5,000 of the weapons.
“Look at what the Russians have been doing in low-fission, high-fusion, sub-kiloton tactical
nuclear technology,” he said. “It appears that they are putting a big effort…in both miniaturizing
the warheads and using sub-kiloton low-yield warheads.”
Why is that significant ? By shrinking the warhead, you can shoot it out of a wider variety of guns,
including, potentially, 152-millimeter tank cannons.
The Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyer USS Mustin (DDG 89) fires a Tomahawk Land Attack
Missile during a 2014 exercise. The US Is About to Stop Buying Tomahawk Missiles, Like the Ones
That Hit Syria.
A U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor approaches a U.S. Air Force KC-10 Extender from the 908th
Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron before aerial refueling during a Combined Joint Task Force -
Operation Inherent Resolve mission Feb. 12, 2017. Can US Warplanes Evade Russian Air Defenses ?
THE DRONES OF ISIS:
Stockholm Attack a Reminder We Have No Way to Fight Low-Tech Terror.
North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un watches a ballistic rocket launch. What Are America’s Options
on North Korea ?
“They’ve announced that the follow-on tank to the Armata will have a 152-millimeter gun missile
launcher. They’re talking about it having a nuclear capability. And you go, ‘You’re talking about
building a nuclear tank, a tank that fires a nuke?’ Well, that’s the implication,” said Karber.
Hix says that the use of tactical battlefield nuclear weapons, even very low-level ones, is not part
of official Russian military doctrine, but it is a capability that they are increasingly eager to show
off (and discuss) to intimidate neighbors and adversaries.
“They certainly exercise the use of those weapons in many of their exercises, including the one
that participated in the parking of 30,000 to 40,000 soldiers on the Ukrainian border right before
[the 2014 invasion of] Crimea. That coercive intimidation is a part of their design,” he said.
And while even Soviet generals may have shied away from using tactical nukes, Blix said, Putin’s
military is “a lot more inclined philosophically to see the utility of them.”
Patrick Tucker is technology editor for Defense One. He’s also the author of The Naked Future:
What Happens in a World That Anticipates Your Every Move? (Current, 2014). Previously, Tucker
was deputy editor for The Futurist for nine years. Tucker has written about emerging technology
As always, I strongly recommend that you first read, research, and study material completely
yourself about a Subject Matter, and then formulate your own Opinions and Theories.
Any additional analyses, interviews, investigations, readings, research, studies, thoughts,
or writings on any aspect of this Subject Matter ?
Bear in mind that we are trying to attract and educate a Whole New Generation of JFK
Researchers who may not be as well versed as you.