nighty night… (updated) (updated again)

This is Seattle, Washington, USA in the year 2017. Personally I’d have gone with a left hook over a right cross, but otherwise this is an entirely satisfactory outcome.

According to Buzzfeed, some unidentified folks saw this swastika-wearing twat riding a bus and harassing a black man.
As is now routine, a photo was posted online via Twitter, and further Twitter postings revealed that he was then seen haranguing passers-by on a street corner.

Then this happened.

Just to be clear, the official position of 9thousandfeet.com on matters of this kind is that it would be infinitely preferable if people didn’t walk around wearing swastikas and saying hateful  and stupid shit.

But when they do, a reaction like we see here—while justifiably illegal—is entirely understandable.

 

UPDATE;    The video has been pulled down from YouTube. No idea who pulled it, or why.  Meanwhile, plenty videos of cops shooting unarmed black people in the back, and a recent one of cops driving a car in reverse into a crowd of demonstrators in St Louis, remain unmolested.

 

Lets try this one, and see how long it lasts;

UPDATE #2;
The Stranger is now reporting that the original video was taken down by YouTube as violation of “YouTube’s policy on harassment and bullying.”
Naturally several other copies were immediately uploaded to the site, where most of them still remain. I guess we’ll see if YouTube can continue to pull them faster than people can upload them.

The Stranger also adds that swastika guy threw a banana at someone prior to getting punched, and that Seattle police issued a statement saying that officers responded to a report of someone wearing a swastika armband and “instigating fights”, and when the officers arrived they found the man on the ground.
No further reports were received, and the swastika guy left after removing the armband and declining to provide further details.

 

UPDATE #3

YouTube keeps pulling the videos down, and people keep putting copies back up.  I just re-set so a current copy will play.

I’m not going to keep monitoring this game of whack-a-mole though. The Buzzfeed link in the article above still leads to a playable video if neither of the YouTube embeds will play.

…some better idea

…that will never, ever come to pass. So said a certain desperately butthurt recent general election loser re: single-payer healthcare. Tomorrow said butthurt former candidate prepares to unleash her tome in a bid to reunite the fractured, but trying, Democratic party. And apparently plans to continue the pity party / tirade throughout the fall on the tometour. Main object of wrath (among legions) of butthurt loser’s ire is a primary loser who is actually doing the job he was elected to do.

On Wednesday, Bernie Sanders releases his plan for single-payer healthcare. Yawn. He’s done this many times over the years, no? And it will never, ever come to pass. Right Nance? Right Di? Chuck? Right Cory, Kamala, Lizzie? But wait…the latter three, as well as Jeff Merkley, are presumably 2020 hopefuls. And they’ve also signed on as co-sponsors for the bill. And shoot me now, even Max Baucus approves and says it’s time. (And i say gee thanks, asshole.)

There has already been kicking and screeching of course. I’ve been at the NYT because i’m a patriot and my country needs me over there, it’s filled to bursting with wankers. Tomasky said recently over there that this is not the way to go, let’s just tweak O’Care. Krugman says that progressives shouldn’t be worring their economically illiterate heads about this, let’s just go back to the safe space and fix O’Care, and focus on paid leave instead. Leonhardt echoes Krugman.

You know what? It’s probably not going to happen anytime soon. But as the butthurt loser was unable to grasp, you start by asking for the the sun, moon, stars, and a pony. And you might get the stars. It’s going to be hard. But 4 possible candidates for 2020 are on record here, they won’t be able to backtrack it without a major hit to cred. Old fossils are going to be toast. And you know what? It’s seriously on the fucking table. Which it wouldn’t be if no one bothered to try. So i’ll be waiting for those numbers, Bern.

In other news – as we all know, Trump kicked DACA back to congress for a permanent fix. Absolutely the right thing to do, that’s whose job it was in the first fucking place. While they’re all screeching themselves blue in order to avoid doing their job casting an actual vote that may or may not be held against them next election. It’s hard to stand for something. Do your fucking job and pass it. I suspect that it will pass.

But. Tomasky had a NYT column postulating a trade for the wall that some other liberal commenters supported to save DACA. He recommended absolutely no way, and i agree. The wall is beyond stupid. But they’re going to have to give up something. What to watch out for – Guiterrez shooting off his trap and saying, no, the inch isn’t good enough, we want the whole mile or we’ll shut down the gov’t. Badly enough to chance blowing it for the DACA kids? Do i need to remind you that your party has gotten slaughtered the last 4 elections, and this issue had a lot to do with at least the past 2 or 3?

And as for the folks who say (roughly paraphrased) – those kids are each worth more than 10 of those white heartland kids, let’s deport them and keep DACA kids blah blah blah? All i can say is – Hi, I’m Steve Bannon and I approve this message.

Antifa

Review of Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook by Mark Bray

A couple of weeks ago 9k suggested that I post a review of a book I was reading – Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook by Mark Bray. Here it is. No doubt brief and incomplete but my take based on an initial reading. Not sure that I’ll be rereading it anytime soon though.

Mark Bray is a historian of human rights, terrorism, and political radicalism in Modern Europe and was one of the organizers of Occupy Wall Street. He teaches at nearby, to me at least, Dartmouth College.

The book appears to be well researched with copious references and notes, and uses interview material with activists in the USA and Europe. However the author is at pains to note that antifa is also active throughout the rest of the world. Some of the interviews were conducted anonymously using pseudonyms, and some of these through secure and encrypted channels for an element of intrigue and mystery. The book’s release was hurried in response to Trump’s election and it shows in its abrupt ending, and that it is more of a detailed history and discussion of the movement than a Handbook in the mode of Rules for Radicals.

On opening the book sets out to define fascism and anti-fascism – or antifa. It proposes that fascism is hard to pin down. That it isn’t doctrinal but charismatic, is united by faith and myth, and often co-opts left ideology, strategy, imagery and culture when it suits. Like many things, fascism is best understood in retrospect but several key features are noted for the sake of subsequent understanding. Fascism:

  • Is political behavior obsessed with community decline, humiliation and victimhood
  • Is compensated by a cult of unity, energy and purity
  • Is mass-based, nationalistic and militant, and in uneasy collaboration with traditional elites
  • Abandons democratic liberties and pursues redemptive violence without ethical or legal restraints with the aim of internal cleansing and external expansion

The KKK is defined as fascist, and the Jim Crow south.

Bray says that it would be too simple to define anti-fascism as opposition to the definition and examples above since it obscures an understanding of anti-fascism as a method of politics, a locus of individual and group self-identification, and a transnational movement that adapted preexisting socialist, anarchist, and communist currents to a sudden need to react to the fascist menace.

Antifa is presented as part of a continuum of Revolutionary Socialism from the mid 19th century, through the early 20th, interwar years and beyond. It is Marxist with heroes and icons such as Rosa Luxemburg and the Spartacus League. It rejects bourgeois liberal democracy. It is an illiberal politics of social revolutionism applied to fighting the Far Right, not just literal fascists.

Pre WW2 was a time of many factions on the right and left with often as much infighting over doctrine and symbols as against the other side.  Note is made of a Soviet policy change in the mid 1930s towards encouraging the left to participate in liberal democracies and not ferment revolution. And that was typical of the swings, confusion and fragmentation on the left that gave fascism room to grow.

Post WW2 saw some resurgence of right wing street militancy in UK and Europe that was met head on by antifa but it involved small groups on either side and went without much notice. The post Soviet collapse saw the growth of skinheads, football hooligans and neo-Nazis in Europe, particularly in the former communist bloc but also in the Nordic countries. Youth unemployment and immigration were likely catalysts.

Skinheads joined the antifa side too and along with others were often based around particular squats and pubs and clubs, with many groups forming and joining together and then dissolving. Overall numbers were small on both sides with many antifa not being members of a group at all but autonomen who coalesced spontaneously for counter demonstrations. Concern was expressed over the inherent machismo of young men spoiling for a brawl, on both sides, and with or without a deeper motive. Feminist antifa, or fantifa is seen as an antidote.

Like Occupy, neo-nazis and antifa are largely street movements. The fascist’s goal is to be an intimidating presence in a neighborhood or on-the-street and antifa’s is to physically oppose them by pre-occupying the space, blocking or otherwise preventing access to the space or disrupting the fascist’s occupation of the space. In traditional freedom of speech countries like the UK and USA the authorities will only intervene in demonstrations if there is a breach of the peace. Antifa often tries to provoke that breach in order to force the authorities to intervene and disperse the fascists.

It was noted that as neo-nazis move into participatory politics – e.g. the Front National in France – street conflict of the Black Bloc kind doesn’t work and can be counterproductive. Also that in the case of Trump, there needs to be different approaches to those who voted for him because of his misogyny, raceism, ableism and Islamaphobia and those who did in spite of.

As for the Slippery Slope and Who Decides arguments that antifa is anti free speech the author presents, without saying if he agrees with them or not, several counter arguments and justifications:

  • Fascists have no right to speak or be heard
  • There can be no toleration of intolerance and no platform for fascists
  • Antifa are stopping organizing and therefore the possible growth of dangerous fascism and not speech as such
  • For discriminated against and marginalized groups, to be merely tolerated, grudgingly accepted or accepted with criticism is still to be harmed, and they have a right to silence those doing the harm
  • Historically antifa have been good judges of fascists having often been victims of them or close to victims of them, and although anti-capitalist and revolutionary they have usually stopped after their immediate targets have been defeated or withered away. They have not then gone after the next most right wing target and instead have retreated to other activities or disbanded. They aren’t very good revolutionaries
  • And besides antifa is disdainful of liberal free speech where the right to speak and not be heard is worthless to all but the powerful. …rights promoted by capitalist parliamentary government are not inherently worthy of respect
  • Free speech is abstract – the fight against white supremacy, hetero-patriarchy, class oppression, genocide is real
  • Antifa have no tolerance for agreeing to disagree. They can’t accept intolerant opinions as simple political disagreements
  • Also that Antifa’s revolutionary, anarchistic, utopian, bottom-up aims are fundamentally in favor of real free speech

A discussion of liberal anti-fascism, or the belief in the inherent power of civil society and government institutions to stop full-blown fascism, considers why the threat is not taken more seriously. The author proposes that most people see fascism as an all or nothing prospect. That is full-blown Nazi Germany and genocide or not at all. Few believe a fascistic regime will emerge in the USA, and the author agrees that this belief is probably justified in spite of the left’s hand wringing over Trump, but small doses still hurt victims and should be resisted forcefully. It was also noted that historically, perhaps counter intuitively, fascism tends to rise with the success of the politically participating left.

The closest the book comes to a handbook is a list of five historical lessons and many pages of advice from those interviewed.

Five historical lessons:

  • Fascist revolutions have never succeeded. Fascists gained power legally
  • Interwar anti-fascists mistakenly treated fascism as a variant of counter revolutionary politics
  • Socialist and communist leadership were slower to recognize the threat of fascism than their rank and file
  • Fascism steals from left ideology, strategy, imagery and culture
  • It doesn’t take many fascists to make fascism

Some suggestions for effective activism not involving physical Black Bloc violence include:

  • Working with marginal groups to prevent them being co-opted by fascists. Interestingly, Furbies, Bronies (men who like My Little Pony apparently) and football fan clubs were specifically mentioned – something Freudian there
  • Providing support to vulnerable and marginalized groups
  • Doxxing or outing of identified fascist individuals and pushing the culture to shame and disown them, and/or get them fired
  • Pressuring venues to cancel fascists events
  • Boycott businesses associated with fascists
  • Participating in training and propaganda
  • Contesting the dismantling of taboos against the oppression of feminism, black liberation and queer liberation
  • A goal would be to make those who voted for Trump uncomfortable to share that they did. You can’t always change beliefs but you can make them politically, socially, economically, physically costly to articulate

An interesting read but I’m still inclined to believe that antifa and those they oppose are very small and marginal groups with minimal influence even if they garner lots of press coverage occasionally.

(9/9/17 – a few edits for readability)

an eclipse on the prairie

I deliberately didn’t take any photo equipment at all on this trip, except for the camera on the phone, so no fiddling with filters and tripods and all the rest for taking pictures of the sun and moon.

I did, however, feel the urge to snap this shot simply because it was so unexpected.  The sky at the horizon looked like this in every direction (this is looking more or less to the north), and the result of that in combination with the indescribable whiteness of that ring of light surrounding the moon at full totality was both spectacular and a little disorienting.

I suspect a contributing factor was the slight smokey haze across the entire state of Wyoming and beyond as a result of various wildfires now burning across Idaho and other states, something not at all uncommon in the summertime out west. Still, for a couple of minutes, this was how it looked, with various birds of several species flapping around in confusion both on the ground and in the air.

The “structures” you see in the photo are the campsites of just a few of the many thousands of other people who showed up on public lands across the west. A few thousand travelers from all over managed to find this particular patch of prairie—a very large Bureau of Land Management tract just to the west of Casper, Wyoming—where I saw license plates from dozens of states including Alaska and more than a few from various provinces in Canada.

It was all a very mellow scene, with people meticulously respectful of each other in terms of personal space and campsite spacing. About 200 yards, give or take, seemed to be the norm, without any guidance at all from the frequent patrols of cheerfully waving and smiling BLM employees constantly on the lookout for anyone stupid enough to think a campfire on a prairie full of tinder-dry sagebrush would be a good idea. Happily, nobody did.

Hit a couple of traffic jams on the way home, causing the first 40 miles of the return journey to take slightly upwards of a couple of hours. No big deal though. Hell, people who live in more than a few cities face that kind of thing every day of the week. Plenty of cops and highway patrol out there directing traffic. Plenty of waving, no small amount of smiling.

Home again, and I see Der Führer said some things while we were gone. Well fuck that asshole. I’m going to take a couple more days before I even look at any of that. Time to can some jalapeños anyway, and freeze up some fresh tomato sauce.

Oh, and make up a monster batch of my soon-to-be-famous Mexican Lasagna, which freezes beautifully. I’ll cobble together the recipe and post it here before the summertime supply of fresh tomatoes and poblanos winds down.

 

The March of Folly

Listening to that wonderful Monday speech by our New Fearless Leader, I was reminded of the last and best book by the late Barbara Tuchman:  “The March of Folly”.  Her thesis is that human folly is an under-studied aspect of human history.

She defined folly as a self-destructive policy or strategy, pursued for an extended period of time across years, and multiple changes of governments, and which persists in the face of repeated warnings and mounting evidence of the depth of the folly.

Her opening chapter was a hoot, a broad historical review of examples.  Then she studied, in detail, three in particular:  the final six Roman Popes who eventually forced a guy name of Marin Luther to rebel, then the self-destructive British policy towards their American colonies, from the end of the 7 Year’s War through to Cornwallis’ surrender, and finally, US policy and follies in Vietnam from the 1950’s to the 1970’s.  All three ended in disaster for the self-deluded.

Were she still with us, a fourth chapter could be written, already, concerning Afghanistan.

And Donnie is doubling down on the folly, just as our good host on these boards recently said that he tends to do.  It’s one of the consistent, predicable habits that he exhibits, that opponents can exploit.  Which is sad.  But I digress.

The Great New Policy, so far as I can tell, consists of three major planks:

  1. “Take the gloves off”, “Fight to win”, which translates to “Kill more people, faster”.
  2. “Pakistan shall immediately change its policies and practices”, and
  3. “India will be invited to help develop Afghanistan.”

OK, let’s check this out.

The first plank assumes there is some definition of “victory” as WE understand it, that can be achieved in a complex civil war within an Asian nation.  Despite the presence near the Head Cheese of one Gen. McMaster, the Army’s favorite historian of Vietnam, this plank ignores the central lesson of Vietnam – that American notions of “victory” are rarely translatable to the ground within Asian nations, especially fouled-up ones, with their own local definitions of their own conflicts.  Confusion over that simple word “victory” was a central element of our Vietnam Folly.

It also assumes that the people of Afghanistan will tolerate a long-term peace among themselves.  This ignores the reality of what that “nation” really is, a hodgepodge of at least four hostile tribal groups, with different languages, whose central entertainment is to plan their next betrayal-and-revolt.  They’ve been at it, literally, for millennia in those hills.  Alexander the Great dealt had to deal with it, in his day.  His solution was to march onwards to India, and ignore them.  He was smart to do so.

The speech barely mentioned that our NATO allies, ALL of them, have also been involved in Afghanistan.  And it assumes they will remain involved, as the body counts soar again, even as the Donald has already ruined his own standing and leverage with all of those allies – and already insulted all of them, about Afghanistan in particular.

The second plank assumes that the Pakistani Army, the only institution that matters in that country, is willing to change their decades-long policy of harboring, financing and training violent thugs, and then cease their low-level but constant warfare-by-proxy against not only Afghanistan but also Iran and India.  And they are to do this, “immediately”.  The folly in that word alone, was simply amazing.

The ISI, their military intelligence section, basically invented the “Taliban”.  They harbored UBL in a house just 740 meters from the south gate of their military academy, in the home town of the Army of Pakistan.  They protect the exiled head of the Taliban, in a compound in Quetta, and have ever since we invaded Afghanistan in 2002.  They wage war-by-proxy constantly.  But they will now change such policies, “immediately”.  Righto.

The third plank assumes that this Pakistani cooperation and new-found peaceableness will happen, while we encourage their major enemy India to become more deeply involved in developing Afghanistan, behind them.  Righto, again!  THAT guarantees that the second plank is a non-starter.  Look at a map to see why.

Closer relations with India, for us, is a great idea.  We really did ally with the wrong side in the 1950’s, between India and Pakistan, while the old USSR supported India.  We got the loser’s prize, an alliance with a new “nation” set up on a foul basis from the beginning, which went downhill from there and is horribly dysfunctional as a society and government.  But that fouled-up ally now owns nukes.  And those nukes are held by their field generals, in four army groups that face India, on a non-defendable long border.

There is no viable path to any American notion of “victory” in Afghanistan without fundamental changes in Pakistan, our dear and long-term ally.  And those are to occur “immediately”.

A fundamental element of any folly is “bad assumptions“.

This Great New Policy is based on a slew of them.

And again, this folly will get more Americans killed too.  And lots of Afghanis.

 

a break

I’m going to post this Vice video here just so we’re all clear about the kind of people Trump is crawfishing about condemning unambiguously and outright.

And to make it clear, though why in the hell that should be necessary and Donald J Trump can go fuck himself, that there is no such thing as a “good person” who will march alongside assholes waving swastikas and chanting WW2 era German Nazi slogans.

 

We’re off somewhere north of here to camp a few days and take a break. We’ll camp somewhere quiet along the path of the total eclipse, cook some cowboy food and throw a ball for the dog. Maybe catch a few fish and try out the new Beretta on some pop cans.

I have some thinking to do, not least because at some point it’s probably inevitable that some dipshit waving/wearing a swastika is likely to appear in my personal space, and I want to decide what I might have to do about that.

Nothing is not an option.

The only option is resistance, and it’s time for me to understand what that would mean, for me personally, in the presence of people like the ones who appear in this video. Enough is enough.

If there’s any wifi in Wyoming, I might use it.

Then again I might not.

Meanwhile, keep the lights on and try not to break the furniture, OK?

Hasta pronto.

 

 

the big gamble

It’s no secret that I continue to think that Trump, by and large, is still being underestimated. Clearly there are powerful forces aligned against him, and ongoing investigations into his connections with Russian shenanigans continue to loom threateningly on his horizon, but I’m by no means ready to assume that US political and judicial institutions will withstand Trump’s current attempts to re-shape, and in some case completely dismantle them.

Trump’s game face. As an experiment, try to reproduce this facial expression yourself, then pay attention to the kind of thinking it engenders.

The increasingly popular portrayal is that of an attention whore with the attention span of a hummingbird who is essentially in reaction mode, blundering extemporaneously from one outrageous statement to the next. And recently from one internationally dangerous provocation to the next.

I don’t think that’s what’s going on at all. I could spend all day writing about Trump’s defects of character, but it must also be said he’s bold and he’s a fighter and—this is the important part—he’s willing to undertake big gambles. And I think I see where he might be gambling now, and in a big way.

After threatening to visit “fire and fury” upon North Korea in response to further provocations and scaring the media half to death (and thus, once again, controlling them), he doesn’t back away but doubles down.

This is worth noting. He always doubles down. Always. If there is a historic example of him retreating I’m unaware of it. So I don’t think this is just Trump shooting from the hip, it’s classic Trump operating strategy.

Consider this; what if Trump actually can manage to make some “progress” with North Korea, which, to most Americans, probably means getting them to shut the fuck up and behave like we say they should. What if, as I think Trump is calculating, Kim Jong Un can be made to understand that if he, Kim, doesn’t back down he really will be destroyed, because this crazy American with another weird haircut really is not bluffing.

Listen to Trump talk about Kim Jong Un here;

“He has disrespected our country greatly. He has said things that are horrific. And with me he’s not getting away with it. He got away with it for a long time, between him and his family. He’s not getting away with it. This is a whole new ballgame.”

This is a whole new ballgame is not an off-the-cuff remark. Trump really means it.  He’s been advocating playing hardball with North Korea for years. Here he is again doubling down on the “fire and fury” thing;

“Maybe it wasn’t tough enough. They’ve been doing this to our country for a long time, for many years, and it’s about time that somebody stuck up for the people of this country and for the people of other countries. So if anything, maybe that statement wasn’t tough enough.”

Kim has figured, correctly so far, that he can talk smack all he wants, which helps him domestically, without the US going ape-shit. Trump now says those days are over. There is no rational reason not to believe he really means it.

This is not the extemporaneous babbling of someone with no idea where he’s headed, these are the remarks of somebody who thinks of himself as precisely that “somebody” he’s talking about, the long awaited no-nonsense clear-sighted leader he sees himself as and whom, in his mind, we’ve all been waiting for. And I think he’s figured that however this plays out, for him personally this can be win-win.

If Kim backs down, Trump wins a victory which has eluded all the diplomatic heavy lifting for decades.  That makes Trump a winner, and on the back of that victory he can really get some traction domestically. We can hear him crowing from here, can we not? “I was right again, and all the establishment “experts” were wrong.”

There will be rallies and cheers, and accolades all around.  The media will pivot back to calling him “presidential” again. Because of course they will. Then, if Mueller’s investigation does not incontrovertibly prove election collusion, he’s home free, because any shady business dealings won’t engender enough animosity to undo him. Not in this scenario they won’t.

Now on the other hand, if Kim does not back down, Trump deploys a military strike of some kind, I’d guess conventional weapons targeted at launch facilities and military installations and maybe Kim personally.  He has to, otherwise Trump’s the one who looks like he’s backing down, and that’s just not possible. He’s never done it in his life and he’s not about to start now. So now we have a war, which drowns out everything—Mueller, Russia, shady business dealings, everything—and Trump will have no problems with that, no matter the human cost, because of course he won’t.

I’d suppose that scenario number one would be Trump’s preference, because that would bring more accolades and invoke less opposition, but I think he’s figured that either outcome helps him more than it would hurt him, and that, after all, is the principle which has guided him his whole life.

There’s still time, I suppose, for other options to emerge, perhaps with participation of third parties (Paging China. Paging the Peoples’ Republic of China. White courtesy telephone please). But if they do, they will be have to be options which give Trump a way out that he can characterize as a win, like maybe North Korea “cancelling” the Guam thing, otherwise there’s almost certainly going to be a war.

Reality Check

In the absence of much trace of understanding, in any faction of our news media, of the basics of physics and the technical side of weapons systems, here is a list of what the Dear Young Leader has – and what he does not have.  This list is based solely on public media reports and the Internet, NSA please note.

He has:

  • Nuclear bombs, apparently about 60, has enough material to manufacture more, and he’s tested them at least nine times.  So, he has bombs.
  • Missiles to throw them with, he’s demonstrated a long reach now, could reach perhaps anything in the western USA – such as the mountains of Colorado, or Las Vegas.  (Probably not Vermont, yet.)
  • And according to an intel estimate revealed yesterday, they have – reportedly – now compressed their bomb design into a package small enough to fit on top of a missile.

But.
What he does NOT have, yet:

  • A warhead (enclosing capsule) for the top of said missiles, with proven capability to be guided to land at or anywhere near a desired location, when flung on a flat long-reach trajectory.
  • A warhead with proven capability to survive re-entry into the atmosphere on that flat trajectory.  (Time is a factor here.)
  • A bomb design inside that warhead with the proven capability to detonate at the precise fraction of a second that it needs to, just before it slams back into the Earth – or indeed, to detonate at all after the rigors of re-entry.  (These are not trivial – both vibration and heat are abundant.)

Until these are acquired, they don’t really have ICBM’s – but we do.

How long will it take for the DYL to acquire these latter capabilities?

I don’t think that anyone knows.  One guess is one to two more years.  And acquiring those latter capabilities will require very  public testing.  So, we will know.

For comparison, our Trident missiles carry up to 8 warheads each, and each can be independently targeted at separate targets, with reasonable reliability.  The acronym for this is MIRV.  By contrast, the last I checked the Chinese have one big bomb on each of their missiles; they recently  tested a MIRV (with 10 warheads) but there is no evidence that this capability is deployed, e.g. installed on a weapon in a silo.

In summary, for nuclear weapons we have a sharp sword capable of inflicting precise damage in many locations at once, the Chinese have larger blunt instruments capable of hammering enormous damage upon fewer locations, and the Hermit Kingdom has nothing.  Yet.

 

speaking of art…

…which someone around here was, somewhere, sometime in the last month or so, here’s August’s cover of Mad magazine.

As someone who cut his political teeth on Mad way back when they were taking the piss out of Kennedy—to the tune of  “When I was a Lad” from Gilbert and Sullivan no less;

…and he tousled his hair so carefuleee

that now he is the ruler of the whole countreee…

I have to say it looks like they got their groove back.

You want art?  I gotcha art right here.