CV32

Read the Politico article, did ya? Notice how the 'football' always goes with the President regardless of whether the SECDEF is there. The President alone can order the use of nuclear weapons, and although the SECDEF confirms same, there is nothing to say that an uncooperative SECDEF will end the matter. Sole authority remains with the President by virtue of the Atomic Energy Act, which is exactly the way it was intended in the wake of WWII.

This is the home of Harpoon these days, so we are glad you found it too.

While such orders are filtered through the SECDEF typically, he is not necessarily a required component. So the President does not require the consent of the SECDEF.

The America ARG and 15th MEU were in Singapore recently but were supposed to be heading west to relieve the Bataan ARG in the Middle East. The Bonhomme Richard ESG and 31st MEU were in the Coral Sea, so its possible they might move north. Both the Roosevelt and Vinson CSGs were off the coast of California. The Reagan CSG was operating east of Japan. I don't know if the THAAD battery at Guam has been reinforced, but it would not surprise. Meanwhile, it may be tough to ignore four incoming Hwasong-14 IRBMs, even if they are intended to splash down outside territorial waters, more especially if they look to overfly the island. That said, I think there has to be a strong impetus to ignore them. Engaging them means a challenging target set, expending a lot of expensive interceptor missiles, and risking a loss of credibility if you don't knock down all of them (which is highly likely). The DPRK may never fire any missiles at all. Let's hope that is what happens. [i moved your comment here to keep the discussion centralized.]

North Korea’s “not quite” ICBM can’t hit the lower 48 states (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists)

Why North Korea Is Planning Long-Range Missile Flight Tests Over Japan and Toward Guam (The Diplomat)

Nothing crazy about still having your copy of HC97 (or earlier!).

GAO Report to Congress on F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Modernization Efforts (pdf)

USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) Commissioning Publication (Faircount Media)

Regime Change in North Korea: Be Careful What You Wish For (38 North)

China Carries Out Flight Test of Anti-Satellite Missile (Washington Free Beacon) Dong Neng 3 (DN-3)

Survivability in the Digital Age: The Imperative of Stealth (Mitchell Institute, pdf)

What Next for North Korea’s ICBM? (38 North)

As I said, there are few attractive options to do otherwise. The latest Hwasong-14 (KN-20) tests appear to have been all about the propulsion system. Achieving intercontinental range is all well and good, but you have to put something on top of that rocket if you want to actually hit something. The tests offer little proof of a useful throw weight, let alone the ability of a re-entry vehicle to survive to detonation.

Of course, its welcome. Discussion about current events is the purpose of this sub forum. The USA (and others) have few viable options for dealing with the DPRK. A pre-emptive conventional strike against nuclear, missile and C2 facilities would likely prompt the bombardment of Seoul, if not all out war on the peninsula. A nuclear strike (whether pre-emptive or retaliatory) against the DPRK - in addition to the above - also runs the risk of inciting a Chinese or Russian knee jerk reply, and will undoubtedly cause a humanitarian and environmental disaster that would spill over into both the ROK and PRC. Continued, increased sanctions against the DPRK haven't worked largely because of China. China has been a largely unhelpful partner in pressuring the DPRK because it has a keen self-interest in keeping the Hermit Kingdom under its wing and exploiting it as a buffer in the region. Doing nothing allows the DPRK to perfect and expand its delivery systems, and always holds a large risk of exporting technology to other rogue nations with which it has a longstanding relationship (e.g. Iran).

3D interactive tour of the destroyer USS Zumwalt here

Latest GE versions are here

Finalising S-400 agreement with Russia, Turkey rejects NATO interoperablity argument (Jane's)

Fallout feared as Britain grapples with joint strike fighter ‘flaws’ (The Australian) How we can solve the F-35 JSF disaster (The Australian)

North Korea's New KN19 Coastal Defense Cruise Missile: More Than Meets the Eye (The Diplomat)

Please try the latest version uploaded.

Officials Say Little About F-35 Helmet Glitch in Night Landing Video (DefenseTech)

New BVRAAM may have entered PLAAF service (Jane's)

Pratt & Whitney Faulted as Biggest F-35 Engine Deal’s Cost Rises (Bloomberg)

I didn't want to give it away for anyone ... but there are plenty of 'spoiler alerts' in this thread. Like you, I laid waste to the Chinese bases from the start, not losing any units. When I moved southwest, to engage bases in the South China Sea, I was set upon by antiship ballistic missiles. The carrier was badly damaged.