House Intel Chair Warns Biden of Mysterious ‘Serious National Security Threat’

originally posted by: Mantiss2021

originally posted by: Boomer1947
a reply to: Threadbarer

An Iranian nuclear weapon would be my guess.

After reading the quotes from some of the officials, as reported on CBS NEWS, I would tend to agree that an Iranian nuclear weapon, or at least a forthcoming test of such a device, is a very good guess as to the cause for this concern.


The threat was described as "not something that is going to ruin your...Wednesday", and "something that will need to factor into long-term"


A large scale cyber attack, even a Russia-backed cyber attack, would be seen as an immanent national security threat. Definitely a potential Wednesday wrecker.


A Russian space capability "asset", likewise, could/would be considered as something of a serious, real-time, "right now" threat...if not a "fait accompli" outright attack.


Whereas the detonation of an Iranian-developed nuclear test article, even if not successful, would serve to inflame the current situation in the mideast both quickly, and likely beyond the ability of the US and its allies to contain.

As to Russia's involvement vis-a-vis Turner's concern: Could it be that SIGINT has somehow intercepted details of communications between Russia and Iran discussing the immanent test, and solidifying Russia's guarantee of support for the Iranian effort?

Based on the bits of news coming in over the last hour or so, I would now go with the Russian nuclear weapons in space theory over the Iran theory. I suspect Russia is maybe looking to neutralize our first strike capability against them, which relies heavily on space-based assets. Basically, that, coupled with article 5 of the NATO treaty is the main thing constraining their ability to move against NATO countries.

obama used CIA to spy on Trump
RUSSIAN SPACE NUKES
biden's brain is broken
RUSSIAN SPACE NUKES
border is wide open
RUSSIAN SPACE NUKES
putin is open to peace talks
RUSSIAN SPACE NUKES
excess mortality is skyrocketing
RUSSIAN SPACE NUKES

originally posted by: Ravenwatcher
No nukes that would take out their own satellites - It has to be laser tech or something more precise in what they target , Did China finish that space station they were working on ?

You're right, any weapon has to cause more harm to the target than to the launcher. It might be a neutron bomb (AKA "enhanced radiation warhead"). An EMP weapon would be indiscriminate and could take out Russian assets along with our assets, depending on where it was used. Also, it has to be at relatively low altitudes to even produce a pulse. A laser could do it, but it would be difficult for the Russians to get a big enough one into space to take out spacecraft. Plus they would have to have a constellation of them to be able to handle multiple targets at the same time.

A neutron bomb in close proximity to a spacecraft deposits energy directly into the skin of the spacecraft that instantaneously vaporizes the skin, sends a shockwave through the spacecraft, and pushes the spacecraft off course. This is the same concept being studied for defense against asteroids on a collision course with the Earth. The standoff range would probably be on the order of a kilometer or so.

The fact that they would consider use of a nuclear weapon to take out some of our assets in space tells me they don't think they could hit them with an ASAT kinetic kill vehicle. You have to wonder why that is. Spacecraft can maneuver, but kinetic kill vehicles can maneuver faster. This might suggest that some of our most sensitive spacecraft already have countermeasures in them that can defeat conventional kinetic kill vehicles. I would speculate that that might be the part that is highly classified.

A SpacEx starship could put really big directed energy weapons in space and probably put enough of them to counter Russian technology. This might be why the Military last week said they might have to take over operations of a Starship sometimes to launch really sensitive systems.

Interesting times for us Rocket Scientists.

originally posted by: watchitburn
obama used CIA to spy on Trump
RUSSIAN SPACE NUKES
biden's brain is broken
RUSSIAN SPACE NUKES
border is wide open
RUSSIAN SPACE NUKES
putin is open to peace talks
RUSSIAN SPACE NUKES
excess mortality is skyrocketing
RUSSIAN SPACE NUKES

Pour one out for my homey "Jewish Space Lasers."

a reply to: chr0naut

If they can’t have high tech space tech, nobody can.

Wouldn’t need to counter inertial reaction force, just gently spread it out in opposite direction, at high orbit, let gravity do the rest.

Would be so much debris it would essentially end manned space flight, and satellite investments for awhile.

I've said it on this site for years.

Space Vampires.

From Outer Space.

Hate to be proven right.

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: Mantiss2021

originally posted by: Boomer1947
a reply to: Threadbarer

An Iranian nuclear weapon would be my guess.

After reading the quotes from some of the officials, as reported on CBS NEWS, I would tend to agree that an Iranian nuclear weapon, or at least a forthcoming test of such a device, is a very good guess as to the cause for this concern.


The threat was described as "not something that is going to ruin your...Wednesday", and "something that will need to factor into long-term"


A large scale cyber attack, even a Russia-backed cyber attack, would be seen as an immanent national security threat. Definitely a potential Wednesday wrecker.


A Russian space capability "asset", likewise, could/would be considered as something of a serious, real-time, "right now" threat...if not a "fait accompli" outright attack.


Whereas the detonation of an Iranian-developed nuclear test article, even if not successful, would serve to inflame the current situation in the mideast both quickly, and likely beyond the ability of the US and its allies to contain.

As to Russia's involvement vis-a-vis Turner's concern: Could it be that SIGINT has somehow intercepted details of communications between Russia and Iran discussing the immanent test, and solidifying Russia's guarantee of support for the Iranian effort?

Based on the bits of news coming in over the last hour or so, I would now go with the Russian nuclear weapons in space theory over the Iran theory. I suspect Russia is maybe looking to neutralize our first strike capability against them, which relies heavily on space-based assets. Basically, that, coupled with article 5 of the NATO treaty is the main thing constraining their ability to move against NATO countries.

No Screaming dementia man should possess first nuke strike capability. Common sense.

So disappointing to see all the talking heads running with the Russia nukes in space hogwash.

Another Chinese spy balloon nothingburger it looks like…

Will Putin have the cajones to call these accusations hogwash? I doubt it…

So glad I finally fixed the warp charge flux mitigators on my jumpship.
I'll send y'all some Neptune diamonds if you ask nicely enough.
Good luck with the fake invasion!

1. ETs have made known their advertence to nuclear testing in space for the cosmological effect. The Chairman probably knows about this. The Russians are probably talking about their "right" to use to defend interests and have spooked the IC. This capability is not new, of course, decades old.

2. The current story makes no sense. I am no physicist, but how can you detonate a device or have an EMP without killing our own capability? Unless, I am incorrect, why would the Chairman do this with knowledge that the everyone would understand this?

3. I am no Putin expert but if he want to end the war sooner than later, he makes an irrational decision and decides to exercise the capability as he has previously threatened. Of course, this action would show everyone what a psychopath, despite the prognostications of Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson, he really is. And of course, we really don't know if Putin has even further threatened space detonations or if this is a way to garner attention to the necessity of continuing to fund the Ukraine War.

I would be very careful about what the MSM is putting out and even more careful of the intelligence. I would also be careful of Putin.

a reply to: Threadbarer

It's the fearmongers stirring up public fear to support direct intervention and confrontation in Ukraine before Russia destroys us with laser weapons from space.

originally posted by: WeMustCare

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: Mantiss2021

originally posted by: Boomer1947
a reply to: Threadbarer

An Iranian nuclear weapon would be my guess.

After reading the quotes from some of the officials, as reported on CBS NEWS, I would tend to agree that an Iranian nuclear weapon, or at least a forthcoming test of such a device, is a very good guess as to the cause for this concern.


The threat was described as "not something that is going to ruin your...Wednesday", and "something that will need to factor into long-term"


A large scale cyber attack, even a Russia-backed cyber attack, would be seen as an immanent national security threat. Definitely a potential Wednesday wrecker.


A Russian space capability "asset", likewise, could/would be considered as something of a serious, real-time, "right now" threat...if not a "fait accompli" outright attack.


Whereas the detonation of an Iranian-developed nuclear test article, even if not successful, would serve to inflame the current situation in the mideast both quickly, and likely beyond the ability of the US and its allies to contain.

As to Russia's involvement vis-a-vis Turner's concern: Could it be that SIGINT has somehow intercepted details of communications between Russia and Iran discussing the immanent test, and solidifying Russia's guarantee of support for the Iranian effort?

Based on the bits of news coming in over the last hour or so, I would now go with the Russian nuclear weapons in space theory over the Iran theory. I suspect Russia is maybe looking to neutralize our first strike capability against them, which relies heavily on space-based assets. Basically, that, coupled with article 5 of the NATO treaty is the main thing constraining their ability to move against NATO countries.

No Screaming dementia man should possess first nuke strike capability. Common sense.

That's exactly how I felt about President Trump.

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: WeMustCare

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: Mantiss2021

originally posted by: Boomer1947
a reply to: Threadbarer

An Iranian nuclear weapon would be my guess.

After reading the quotes from some of the officials, as reported on CBS NEWS, I would tend to agree that an Iranian nuclear weapon, or at least a forthcoming test of such a device, is a very good guess as to the cause for this concern.


The threat was described as "not something that is going to ruin your...Wednesday", and "something that will need to factor into long-term"


A large scale cyber attack, even a Russia-backed cyber attack, would be seen as an immanent national security threat. Definitely a potential Wednesday wrecker.


A Russian space capability "asset", likewise, could/would be considered as something of a serious, real-time, "right now" threat...if not a "fait accompli" outright attack.


Whereas the detonation of an Iranian-developed nuclear test article, even if not successful, would serve to inflame the current situation in the mideast both quickly, and likely beyond the ability of the US and its allies to contain.

As to Russia's involvement vis-a-vis Turner's concern: Could it be that SIGINT has somehow intercepted details of communications between Russia and Iran discussing the immanent test, and solidifying Russia's guarantee of support for the Iranian effort?

Based on the bits of news coming in over the last hour or so, I would now go with the Russian nuclear weapons in space theory over the Iran theory. I suspect Russia is maybe looking to neutralize our first strike capability against them, which relies heavily on space-based assets. Basically, that, coupled with article 5 of the NATO treaty is the main thing constraining their ability to move against NATO countries.

No Screaming dementia man should possess first nuke strike capability. Common sense.

That's exactly how I felt about President Trump.

Do you feel the same now?

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Threadbarer

X-Ray lasers triggered by a mini-nuke?

A copper rod with a mini-nuke at one end?

X-ray laser experiments using laser-vaporized copper-foil plasmas

In the 1980s we proved that nuclear pumped X-ray lasers don't work anywhere near as well as Edward Teller hoped they would.

What a shame the talking heads are so quick to run with the Russian space nukes story, citing unnamed unverifiable sources.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: WeMustCare

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: Mantiss2021

originally posted by: Boomer1947
a reply to: Threadbarer

An Iranian nuclear weapon would be my guess.

After reading the quotes from some of the officials, as reported on CBS NEWS, I would tend to agree that an Iranian nuclear weapon, or at least a forthcoming test of such a device, is a very good guess as to the cause for this concern.


The threat was described as "not something that is going to ruin your...Wednesday", and "something that will need to factor into long-term"


A large scale cyber attack, even a Russia-backed cyber attack, would be seen as an immanent national security threat. Definitely a potential Wednesday wrecker.


A Russian space capability "asset", likewise, could/would be considered as something of a serious, real-time, "right now" threat...if not a "fait accompli" outright attack.


Whereas the detonation of an Iranian-developed nuclear test article, even if not successful, would serve to inflame the current situation in the mideast both quickly, and likely beyond the ability of the US and its allies to contain.

As to Russia's involvement vis-a-vis Turner's concern: Could it be that SIGINT has somehow intercepted details of communications between Russia and Iran discussing the immanent test, and solidifying Russia's guarantee of support for the Iranian effort?

Based on the bits of news coming in over the last hour or so, I would now go with the Russian nuclear weapons in space theory over the Iran theory. I suspect Russia is maybe looking to neutralize our first strike capability against them, which relies heavily on space-based assets. Basically, that, coupled with article 5 of the NATO treaty is the main thing constraining their ability to move against NATO countries.

No Screaming dementia man should possess first nuke strike capability. Common sense.

That's exactly how I felt about President Trump.

Do you feel the same now?

No, because when Trump was the Repub nominee in 2016 and began getting classified briefings, he asked at least 3 times "Why can't we use nuclear weapons?" As POTUS he also had to be told why we can't nuke hurricanes.

By contrast, in January of 2017, Joe said:
"Given our non-nuclear capabilities and the nature of today's threats--it's hard to envision a plausible scenario in which
the first use of nuclear weapons by the United States would be necessary. Or make sense".

I think Zerohedge pretty much called, it and we can end this thread...I was kinda hoping it was something more than the Congressman's own stupidity.

Wray briefed some group of sheriffs at an annual convention about an imminent threat so I would wager that is what he is wanting a more in depth brief on.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
Turner is requesting that Biden declassify the documents so they can be openly discussed with our allies and a plan can be put forward.

Isn't it interesting how something Top Secret isn't really secret at all?

This is all Top Secret guys but let me tell you about it...

It's like using an unnamed source, or unnamed whistle-blower as proof of it being real.

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: WeMustCare

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: Mantiss2021

originally posted by: Boomer1947
a reply to: Threadbarer

An Iranian nuclear weapon would be my guess.

After reading the quotes from some of the officials, as reported on CBS NEWS, I would tend to agree that an Iranian nuclear weapon, or at least a forthcoming test of such a device, is a very good guess as to the cause for this concern.


The threat was described as "not something that is going to ruin your...Wednesday", and "something that will need to factor into long-term"


A large scale cyber attack, even a Russia-backed cyber attack, would be seen as an immanent national security threat. Definitely a potential Wednesday wrecker.


A Russian space capability "asset", likewise, could/would be considered as something of a serious, real-time, "right now" threat...if not a "fait accompli" outright attack.


Whereas the detonation of an Iranian-developed nuclear test article, even if not successful, would serve to inflame the current situation in the mideast both quickly, and likely beyond the ability of the US and its allies to contain.

As to Russia's involvement vis-a-vis Turner's concern: Could it be that SIGINT has somehow intercepted details of communications between Russia and Iran discussing the immanent test, and solidifying Russia's guarantee of support for the Iranian effort?

Based on the bits of news coming in over the last hour or so, I would now go with the Russian nuclear weapons in space theory over the Iran theory. I suspect Russia is maybe looking to neutralize our first strike capability against them, which relies heavily on space-based assets. Basically, that, coupled with article 5 of the NATO treaty is the main thing constraining their ability to move against NATO countries.

No Screaming dementia man should possess first nuke strike capability. Common sense.

That's exactly how I felt about President Trump.

Do you feel the same now?

No, because when Trump was the Repub nominee in 2016 and began getting classified briefings, he asked at least 3 times "Why can't we use nuclear weapons?" As POTUS he also had to be told why we can't nuke hurricanes.

By contrast, in January of 2017, Joe said:
"Given our non-nuclear capabilities and the nature of today's threats--it's hard to envision a plausible scenario in which
the first use of nuclear weapons by the United States would be necessary. Or make sense".

Got it, case made.

I was just curious if you could be consistent even at the most basic of contrasts.

Yet, here you remain, woefully uniformed yet highly opinionated.

The willful ignorance is evident.