February 15,2017: Fill & Download for Free

The answer is “Maybe, but no guarantee”.Get ready to learn about nukes. By the time you’re done with this, you’ll be shouting at the TV next time you hear a pundit misrepresent North Korea’s capabilities.First, let’s distinguish a few things. The Israeli “Iron Dome” system is fundamentally a CRAM — counter-rocket and mortar system, that also has some theoretical capability against smaller, air launched cruise missiles (though it’s never been employed in this capacity outside naval tests).It is fundamentally incapable of defeating a ballistic missile; nor is the system even compatible with that purpose — Iron Dome will not engage incoming projectiles that are not on trajectory to hit a populated area. Well…..can’t get away with that when it’s a nuclear warhead.Let’s talk about the differences between North Korea’s types of missiles. They fall into two main types: tactical cruise missiles, and strategic ballistic missiles. Cruise missiles aren’t really the main threat — this answer will focus on ballistic missiles, which is really what we mean when we think of Cold War-esque nuclear warfare.Note the wide variety in ranges; also that only the longest range, largest members of NK’s ballistic missile arsenal have the range to hit the continental U.S. (and not even the entirety of it). That means every km of range counts — NK has to consider what missiles are capable of being launched from which sites, towards which targets. Hold that thought until later, we’ll talk about launch locations in a bit.The thing to note about ballistic missiles is, well, they’re ballistic. They go up, really high (usually sub-orbital — this is the boost phase), maneuver themselves in to position where their trajectory will carry them to the target (mid-course phase), and then come down, really fast (terminal phase). Their survivability depends on a few factors.Speed. Ballistic missiles rely on a terminal attack phase that happens in such a short period of time, a defender has little warning to notify it’s Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) batteries, and even then has minimal time (really, just one shot) to engage.Maneuverability. The re-entry vehicle for the missile — at least on more modern missiles — typically has the ability to maneuver itself. This is useful for course-correction/accuracy purposes, but also allows it to potentially evade an incoming ABM. This technology was developed by the U.S. back in the late 1970’s, and remains highly classified today. However, it’s known that U.S. Advanced Maneuverable Re-entry Vehicles are capable of making “hairpin” turns. North Korea is still a long ways off from having this capability.Countermeasures. Re-Entry vehicles will typically be equipped with countermeasures to prevent ABM defenses from successfully engaging them. These can be anything from dummy warheads to anti-radar countermeasures, jammers, etc. These too are highly classified, but typically involve balloons whose radar cross-section and flight pattern confuse interceptors. (Figuring out how to inflate a fast-moving balloon that’s re-entering the atmosphere is kind of a technical challenge).[1] However, something to be aware of is that when the U.S. tests ABM systems, the target in the test nearly always employs countermeasures of some kind.[2] There’s no evidence at this point that North Korea has any kind of program to develop re-entry vehicle countermeasures, let alone those tailored to defeat U.S. ABM defenses.Numbers. The best way to succeed is to saturate a target. But multiple launches requires multiple launchers, and that’s not very efficient (it’s also very provocative). So you want to fit multiple warheads in a single missile. We do that with MIRVs — Multiple Independently (Targeted) Re-entry Vehicles, and each one can be independently targeted at a different destination. We can fit around 12 warheads on a single missile. That means unless you can intercept the missile in the boost phase, you need at least 12 interceptors to succeed in the terminal phase, potentially across hundreds of miles between areas targeted by the warheads. Or, the warheads could be mixed with dummies/countermeasures to further increase survivability. North Korea doesn’t have MIRVs, or at least hasn’t shown evidence of them. But what they would likely move to next after mastering a unitary warhead re-entry vehicle, would be a MRV, which does not allow the warheads to be independently targeted, but does allow a wider area to be clustered several warheads from a single launch.Each of the cones is a MIRV warhead for a U.S. Peacekeeper missile. The round ring-like thing is the “MIRV bus” that carries each warhead, adjusting orbit to reach its release point.U.S. Peacekeeper MIRV warheads re-entering on terminal attack — long exposure photo to better show the effect. These all came from a single missile.So, you can see the obvious problem, right? The question we need to figure out is how, where, and when do you intercept the missile with the available assets you have in theater.Sat imagery of #DPRK Sinpo South Shipyard indicates new activity at missile test stand, according to @38NorthNK. https://t.co/0SamnfyTVF pic.twitter.com/PF5D1KxMcm— Steve Herman (@W7VOA) May 4, 2017So, now we have to look at *where* North Korea can launch missiles from.Notice how these sites are located hundreds of kilometers from each other, including on opposite sides of the peninsula? Which site is doing the testing will dictate what kind of response we are capable of delivering. It also is a determining factor in where the missile is targeted — in order to minimize warning, you also want to minimize flight time; launches against the U.S. or Japan are likely to come from the facilities along the Sea of Japan like Sinpo and Musundan-ri. These major sites are always busy — it’s not always easy to tell when a test is gearing up.Let’s look at the various types of ballistic missiles NK has. Note — there are lot of different types. I may miss some. Blame Michael Peacock or Bill Keating.SRBMs - Short range/tactical ballistic missilesKN-02 — NK’s shortest ranged tactical ballistic missile, but numerous and having some of the most advanced indigenous development. Not believed to be nuclear capable yet (though the Russian version it’s based on is) but it can launch chemical weapons and cluster submunitions. It’s also one of NK’s few solid-fueled missiles. Solid-fueled missiles have the advantage of much faster launch preparation times and greater mobility than liquid-fueled (typically fixed in a permanent location). NK has over 100 of these and has tested them at least 20 times.[3]Hwasong-5 - Domestic version of the Russian Scud-B missile, of Middle Eastern fame. Not believed to be fitted with nuclear warheads; mostly high explosive with some chemical and/or biological capability considered likely. It carries the warhead equivalent of a 2000-lb JDAM, but is only accurate to within a roughly half-kilometer circle from it’s target — not a precision weapon. Considered outdated by NK standards, but over 300 known to exist.[4]Hwasong-6 - Domestic version of the Russian Scud-C missile. Longer range; this was eventually exported to Iran, where it’s now produced locally (with Chinese assistance) as the Shahab-2 missile.[5] Also exported to Egypt, Yemen, Syria (which also produces domestically) and Libya — which actually turned them over to the U.S. along with their launchers. So we know quite a bit about the North Korean variant, even beyond our knowledge of the baseline Scud family. It’s even less accurate than the Hwasong-5: CEP of 1,000m. NK estimated to possess somewhere in the range of 200+ missiles.[6]Hwasong-7 - Extended range version of the Scud-C. Longer range, smaller payload. 1000km range; unknown number of missiles but probably over 50–100. [7]All of these are short range ballistic missiles, with ranges maxing out at 1000km. This makes them threats to South Korea. However, though all of these missiles are nuclear-capable in their original, Soviet versions, none of them are known to be fitted with nuclear warheads in their domestic North Korean versions. They’re all capable of chemical weapons, high explosives, and other nasty stuff though. Hwasong missiles tend to be associated with the Musudan-ri test site, due to launches from there avoiding Chinese territorial waters.Here you can see the relative differences between the Hwasong and Nodong family, all derived from the Russian Scud missile.MRBMs and IRBMsNodong-1Medium Range Ballistic Missiles have ranges in the 1000–3000km band. IRBMs have ranges between 3000–5500km. When we talk about NK as a nuclear threat, these are the ones that South Korea and Japan care about. Note: Due to the INF treaty, neither the U.S. nor Russia operate MRBM/IRBM missiles in the 500–5500km range band. Russia, recently, has decided that the INF no longer serves it’s purposes and has begun testing IRBMs and cruise missiles that violate the treaty.[8] Food for context given the source of missiles proliferated to North Korea….The Nodong-1/Rodong-1 is a North Korean reverse-engineering of the Scud into a longer-ranged, more substantial missile. It’s exported to Iran, where it’s locally produced as the Shahab-3, and Pakistan, where it was used to design the Ghauri missile. It flies much higher than the Hwasong series, reaching an apogee of 120km. It also tends to be associated with the Musudan-ri test site (along with it’s smaller Hwasong brethren). With a 1500km range, and a 2km CEP, it’s generally considered North Korea’s smallest likely nuclear-equipped ballistic missile. It can threaten essentially the entirety of Japan and South Korea. North Korea is estimated to have well over 300 of these; they’ve also exported roughly that same number, mostly to Iran and Pakistan. Noticing any trends with proliferation to aggressive, nuclear (or near-nuclear) capable “bad actors”? [9]Taepodong-1 was intended to bridge the gap between MRBMs and IRBMs. Believed to be a tech demonstrator; it’s more likely to be used for satellite launches. It comes in two-stage or three-stage varieties; only the three-stage version was ever flight tested. Range is around 2000km (two-stage) or 5,000 km (three stage). Only tested once — North Korea claims to have launched a satellite into orbit. Outside of Juche fantasyland, observers believe that the third stage malfunctioned and never made orbit.[10]Taepodong-2 is probably better classified as an ICBM, but I’m including it here — like the Taepodong-1, it’s been used for satellite launches. However this one distinctively has a re-entry capability, separate from the Unha-3 class of rockets (which are purely for space launches). It’s failed most of it’s initial tests, though one managed to get about 4,000km; however it has successfully launched two satellites into orbit (both of which ended up tumbling, only one of which was believed to have been stabilized). As a nuclear weapon it’s unlikely to be useful — it takes days to prep for launch on a well-known pad, and even if it works it is too inaccurate to hit anything, even if the re-entry vehicle were well tested.[11] It’s believed to have been offered to Iran as the Shahab-5 (or Shahab-6, improved), but that’s not been confirmed.Hwasong-10/Musudan/BM-25 is North Korea’s primary MRBM, and currently receiving active development (the original was unveiled in 2010; a previously unknown version was revealed at Juchefest 2017 about a month ago). It’s far more advanced than the rest of the Hwasong/Nodong series — using hydrazine as a propellant (compared to kerosene) it produces far more power, allowing it more range at a smaller size. It’s also expected to be more accurate — roughly 1.5km CEP at 4,000km range. However, it had a troubled start — early tests exploded violently, did not launch, or otherwise spectacularly failed. Only one test was believed to have succeeded — it only traveled 400km (believed to have been cut short intentionally due to the unusual launch angle being likely to provoke a military response). It’s had several tests in which it travelled a few hundred km but then broke apart — not considered successes. This is the first missile that directly threatens U.S. soil — it can hit Guam. The Soviet missile it’s believed based on was very capable, and carried a three-warhead MIRV; the NK variant has a unitary warhead. We’re going to be concerned with this thing when it starts working.ICBMs - Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (and SLBMs - Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles)These are the big daddy missiles with ranges exceeding 5500km (ICBM) or capable of worldwide delivery (SLBM) — making them threats to the U.S. mainland, and though they are main thing people think of when they hear “Nuclear War with North Korea” they are the least numerous and the bigger threat is an MRBM/IRBM attack to South Korea.KN-08 (occasionally Hwasong-13/Nodong-3) - Believed to be road-mobile ICBMs with a potentially 9,000km range. However, also believed to be so inaccurate that it could only threaten the largest of West Coast U.S. cities….maybe. With luck. The DOD claims it has never been tested; however North Korea arms control experts believe it was tested twice, just before the 2016 U.S. presidential debates. The first test was a failure, the missile did not launch though the motor ignited,and showed that the launcher itself will actually be destroyed by the missile’s exhaust. The second test was also considered a failure, but the missile may have actually flown for some short time.KN-14 is an updated KN-08 “on steroids”, as arms control observers have termed it. It’s believed to have a 10-12,000km range, capable of hitting central-U.S. or Canada targets (like Toronto/Chicago) but not East Coast targets like Washington, DC.KN-08 is believed to have been fitted with nuclear warheads (unitary) as of 2015; it’s presumed KN-14 would be as well.Pukguksong-1 (PGS-1)/KN-11 is a submarine launched missile believed to have some similarity to the Musudan. It’s successfully been tested through the entirety of a flight, as well as water launches; one such flight flew 500km directly up to the Japanese Air Defense Identification Zone. It appears to be solid-fueled, which limits its range to less than 1,000km, though this is also not that bad of a problem for a submarine. However, though NK has demonstrated that it can successfully launch from underwater, it did so from a submerged barge, rather than the torpedo tube or vertical launch cell of an actual ballistic missile submarine. PGS-1/KN-11 is mostly notable for being a scary advancement in NK’s solid fuel technology. It’s utility as an SLBM is somewhat limited due to North Korea’s obsolete submarine fleet.[12]Pukguksong-2 (PGS-2/KN-15) — as of February 2017, this is one of the newest threats in the NK arsenal. It’s a land-based version of the KN-11, probably with a 2,000km range. Cold-launching prevents the transporter/erector/launcher vehicle from being damage; solid-fuel allows it to quickly prepare for launch in a matter of tens of minutes rather than hours or days. It’s carried on a tracked launcher, giving it increased off-road capability compared to most other NK ballistic missiles (carried by wheeled vehicles, if they’re even road-mobile). Given the success of the KN-11, this is the scariest threat in their arsenal. Though technically not an ICBM (it’s an MRBM), I’m including it here as an SLBM derivative. [13]Both KN-11 and KN-15 missiles are believed to be capable of carrying nuclear warheads once entered into full operational service.An unknown, undesignated missile first shown at JucheFest 2017, that appears to bear some resemblance to the Chinese DF-21A.[14]An unknown, undesignated missile first shown at JucheFest 2017, that appears to bear some resemblance to the Soviet Topol-M. [15]“KN-17” (provisional designation), also believed to be a “Nodong with (control) vanes”, first shown at JucheFest 2017. Believed to be an anti-ship variant of the Nodong. Tested three times — the first pinwheeled off the pad, one exploded shortly after launch, the third flew a short distance and crashed.Wow. That’s a lot. But it’s really easy to remember — most of the missiles have major problems, don’t go very far, aren’t very accurate, and tend to be very unreliable; they’re all basically variations on obsolete Russian missiles. And NK really only has a handful that are solid fueled — the kind we really need to worry about.Now can you see how the range and details of the missile make a huge difference as to how much of a threat it really is (and to whom)? Well, turns out the ranges involved and types of missiles launched will dictate how we shoot them down.It’s a bit difficult to tell from the above graph, but each of those arcs represents the flight trajectory of a class of ballistic missiles. The big arc at the top is ICBMs. As you can see, their boost phase alone powers them through a higher altitude and longer distance than the entire flight path of a SRBM — roughly 1000km apogee. The sheer altitudes involved, and flight times, mean that different weapons systems will intercept at different stages of the flight.MIM-104 Patriot family (particularly, PAC-3) — you may be familiar with this from the Gulf War, or Operation Iraqi Freedom. You may have heard stories about how it wasn’t that great back in ‘92. What you probably haven’t heard is that after tons of improvements, it’s still the most effective, battle-proven anti-ballistic missile system out there, with over 100 ballistic missiles destroyed in combat operations since 2014, per Raytheon. We’re really good at this — only the Israelis have the kind of experience we do at the ABM mission, even compared to the Russians with their vaunted S-400 system.The Patriot missile system, particularly the anti-ballistic missile focused PAC-3, has a long and storied record of shooting down Scud-type missiles over the past 30 years. North Korea’s Hwasong series would be swatted out of the sky by these. South Korea operates two brigades of PAC-2’s and PAC-3’s. It’s primarily going to be used against SRBMs, where it can engage them at most stages of flight. MEADS or Medium Extended Air Defense System, is the replacement in development. Based on the PAC-3, it’s already successfully destroyed simultaneously ballistic missiles from multiple directions in testing.SM-3 and SM-6 missiles - the ship-launched surface-to-air missile made famous by the Aegis defense system. When we park a destroyer or cruiser off the coast, we’re also placing these in range, along with the powerful AN/SPY-1 radar to detect the incoming missiles. SM-3 missiles have much longer range than Patriot, and can engage exo-atmospheric targets including satellites. South Korea is considering acquiring the system as well. Intercepts have been successfully tested up to around 250km altitude. SM-6 missiles have better anti-aircraft capabilities than the SM-3, but are restricted to the terminal phase for anti-missile defense.THAAD - You’ve probably heard of this, because it’s political drama right now. Capable of interoperating with the Aegis missile system and Patriot missiles, THAAD intercepts missiles in the terminal attack stage, at high altitude, over a wide area — Terminal High Altitude Area Defense. It covers the area above Patriots, but below SM-3. It’s also likely the most useful land-based system for countering North Korea, given the operating envelope.Ground Based Midcourse Defense - Worth a mention — it is designed for defeating advanced ICBMs, including those with the ability to re-target in mid-flight. Though mainly intended as a hedge against Russia/China, the Obama administration ordered the procurement of additional interceptors to be placed in Alaska and radars placed in Japan, as a response to North Korea’s missile tests — something that greatly angered China, at the time. It’s the highest altitude system, theoretically capable of hitting incoming ICBMs in the midcourse phase, beyond the range of THAAD and SM-3.So yeah — we have plenty of systems capable of intercepting a North Korean missile at all major phases of their attack. We’re capable of identifying and destroying much of their longest-ranged arsenal before it even can be prepped for launched. But while an attack against the U.S. would be highly unlikely to be successful at this time (due to the lack of any serious, tested, solid-fueled ICBM with a working re-entry vehicle) it’s likely some would get through in an attack against regional allies like South Korea, or Japan. It’d be unlikely that we could guarantee stopping all missiles in a dedicated attack.How about Cyber Warfare?Not really a thing, surprisingly, in this context. Because ballistic missiles tend to lack sophisticated electronics (for a number of reasons including security, hardening against damage, flight stresses, etc.) there isn’t really often much to hack. Cyberwarfare in the North Korean nuclear context is usually what’s referred to as “left-of-launch” oriented, or targeted at disrupting the launch before it even begins. And there’s many fun ways we can do that. There’s even a group known to be experts on this. There have been loads of discussions on the difficulties of a cyber attack to stop a nuclear launch — from the short time window, to identifying launch locations in time. It’s well known we’ve tried cyber attacks on North Korea’s nuclear arsenal; it’s just unclear whether they worked or whether NK tests failed naturally. I can think of worse problems to have.THAAD launch.So, if you’re still with me, thanks for sitting through more than you’d ever thought you’d want to know about the nuclear standoff on the Korean peninsula. If you liked this post, follow me on Twitter, and subscribe to Defense Quorum, Quora’s premiere blog on military, security, intelligence, diplomatic, and national security affairs, from Quora’s military, intel and natsec veterans community.Footnotes[1] Targets and Decoys[2] https://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/targets.pdf[3] KN-02 "Toksa" | Missile Threat[4] Hwasong-5 ('Scud B' Variant) | Missile Threat[5] Shahab-2 (Scud-C variant) | Missile Threat[6] Hwasong-6 ('Scud C' Variant) | Missile Threat[7] Hwasong-7 ('Scud ER' Variant) | Missile Threat[8] US briefs Nato on Russian 'nuclear treaty breach' - BBC News[9] No Dong 1 | Missile Threat[10] Taepodong-1 | Missile Threat[11] Taepodong-2 (Unha-3) | Missile Threat[12] KN-11 (Pukkuksong-1) | Missile Threat[13] KN-15 (Pukkuksong-2) | Missile Threat[14] North Korea Military Parade April 15,2017 - Full Video[15] North Korea Military Parade April 15,2017 - Full Video

2017 Berkeley protests - Wikipedia“2017 Berkeley protestsFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to navigationJump to search2017 Berkeley protestsAttendees of the April 15 rallyLocationBerkeley, California, U.SThe 2017 Berkeley protests refer to a series of protests and clashes between organized groups that occurred in the city of Berkeley, California in the vicinity of the University of California campus. Violence has occurred predominantly between anti-Trump counter-protesters, including activists such as socialists, anarchists, and antifa groups;[1][2]and pro-Trump and far-right-wing activists, including the alt-right, white supremacists and neo-Nazis.The first event occurred on February 1, when Trump supporter Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to give a speech at the university. Two later incidents on March 4 and April 15, were pro-Trump rallies met by counter-protesters. Another rally occurred on April 27, hosted by Kyle "Based Stickman" Chapman, Brittany Pettibone, Lauren Southern, and others at Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park. This was scheduled after a planned speech by Ann Coulter was cancelled. A "Say No To Marxism" rally planned to be held in the same park on August 27 was officially canceled by the organizers, but still drew both Trump supporters and counter-protesters.Protests and clashes continued into the month of September, with a campus visit from conservative radio host Ben Shapiro and the return of Yiannopoulos for "Berkeley Free Speech Week". Security for the September events, though "Free Speech Week" was officially canceled by the organizers, cost the university hundreds of thousands of dollars.Contents1Timeline1.1February 11.2March 41.3April 151.4April 271.5August 271.6September1.6.1September 141.6.2September 24–272Aftermath3References4External linksTimeline[edit]February 1[edit]On February 1, Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to make a speech at the University of California, Berkeley at 8:00 pm. Prior, more than 100 UC Berkeley faculty signed a petition urging the university to cancel the event.[3]Over 1,500 people gathered on the steps of Sproul Hall to protest the event. The university had been a non-violent, student gathering until a group of 150 black bloc protesters slowly entered the crowd and interrupted the protest.[4][3]The interrupting protesters, which included Antifa activists and some who identified themselves as members of the left-wing group By Any Means Necessary,[5][6]set fires, damaged property, threw fireworks, attacked members of the crowd, and threw rocks at the police.[3]Within twenty minutes of the start of the violence, the Yiannopoulos event was officially canceled by the university police department due to security concerns, and protesters were ordered to disperse.[4][7]The protests continued for several hours afterwards, with some protesters moving into downtown Berkeley to break windows at several banks, a Starbucks, a Target, a Sprint store, and a T-Mobile store.[8][6]Among those assaulted were a Syrian Muslim, who was pepper sprayed and hit with a rod by a protester who said "You look like a Nazi",[9]and Kiara Robles, who was pepper sprayed while being interviewed by a TV reporter.[10]One person was arrested for failure to disperse, and there was an estimated $100,000 in damage.[11]March 4[edit]See also: March 4 TrumpA pro-Donald Trump march in Berkeley on March 4 billed as "March 4 Trump" resulted in seven injuries and ten arrests after confrontations with counter-protesters. Police confiscated several weapons from attendees of the rally, including baseball bats, bricks, metal pipes, pieces of lumber, and a dagger.[12][13]April 15[edit]On April 15, several groups, including approximately 50 members of the right-wing group Oath Keepers, held a pro-Trump rally and were met by counter-protesters, including Antifa activists.[14][5]Planned speakers included Brittany Pettibone and Lauren Southern.[15]The event was organized as a free speech rally by Rich Black, who also organized the March 4 Trump event.[16][17]At Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park a "large number of fights" broke out, smoke bombs and fireworks were thrown into the melee, and pepper spray was used in the crowd.[18][19]According to the Los Angeles Times, "Both groups threw rocks and sticks at each other and used a large trash bin as a battering ram as the crowd moved around the perimeter of the park."[18]Eleven people were injured, six of whom were hospitalized, including one person who was stabbed.[18]Police "seized a handful of cans of peppers [sic] spray, some knives, and dozens of sign and flag poles, skateboards, and other blunt objects" from members of the crowd. 20 people were arrested.[19]A Reuters reporter estimated that between 500 and 1,000 people were in the park at the peak of the rally.[20]Various far-right activists in the crowd held up antisemitic signs,[21][22]and some made Nazi salutes and used other neo-Nazi symbolism.[23][19]During the event, Nathan Damigo—a 30-year-old California State University, Stanislaus student and the founder of the white supremacist group Identity Evropa—punched a female counter protester in the face and then ran into the crowd. The attack was captured on video and prompted calls for Damigo's arrest or expulsion.[24][25]Cal State Stanislaus stated that they would investigate Damigo.[25]Also during the event a former Diablo Valley College professor allegedly attacked three protesters with a bike lock, hitting them on the head and causing "significant injuries". He was subsequently arrested on three counts of assault with a deadly weapon.[26][27][28]April 27[edit]On April 18, 2017, administrators at UC Berkeley canceled a planned April 27 appearance on the campus by conservative columnist Ann Coulter, citing safety concerns. Coulter tweeted on April 19 that she would be coming to Berkeley to speak on that date regardless.[29][30]On April 20, the University stated that they would host Coulter on May 2 at a "protected venue" that would be disclosed at a later date.[31]Coulter declined to reschedule, noting that she was unavailable on May 2 and that UC Berkeley had no classes scheduled for that week, and said she would hold her speech on April 27 with or without the university's consent. She later said that she did not intend to speak, but said she might attend the April 27 event.[32][33]right wing activist Brittany Pettibone delivered remarks promising that conservatives will refuse to stand down, which was met with applause from the crowd. Vice co-founder Gavin McInnes read Ann Coulter's planned speech at the event.[34]Other speakers at the rally included Lauren Southern, a conservative-libertarianwriter.[35][36][37][38]There was concern the gathering would turn violent based on "social media feeds of militant left-wing and right-wing activists abuzz with plans to proceed with demonstrations and counter-demonstrations over the Coulter-Berkeley controversy."[39]The International Socialist Organization organized an "Alt-Right Delete" rally at Sproul Plaza. About 150 people attended the rally and 70 police officers monitored the situation.[34]Several hundred attended a "Freedom of Speech" rally at the Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park in Berkeley. The demonstrations were relatively peaceful; however, there was some tension as five were arrested, one for a weapons violation and another for drug possession.[40]August 27[edit]Between 2,000 and 4,000 people attended a "Rally Against Hate" counter-protest against a far-right "Say No To Marxism" rally scheduled for Martin Luther King Civic Center Park in Berkeley on August 27. The counter-protest was part of a larger nationwide backlash against far-right movements in the aftermath of a deadly white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia earlier that month. The "Say No To Marxism" rally was cancelled due to safety concerns and only small number of anti-Marxism protestors showed up.[41][42][43]Scheduled attendees at the far-right rally included Augustus Invictus, Jack Posobiec and Kyle Chapman (none of whom attended), Johnny Benitez, organizer of an "America First" rally in Laguna Beach, and Irma Hinojosa of Latinos for Trump.[44][45]The rally followed a largely peaceful counter-protest held the day before in nearby San Francisco, in response to a rally that was organized then later cancelled by Patriot Prayer.[45]The Berkeley counter-protest drew supporters mostly from area labor unions, churches, and liberal activist groups, as well as black-clad antifa activists. Five hundred police officers were present. Police banned weapons and projectiles, and set up a barricade of dump trucks to protect the crowd from vehicles.[45][42]The counter-protest was initially peaceful until about 100 masked black-clad anti-fascists carrying shields and sticks broke through police lines, bypassing security checks. The Berkeley police chief had ordered his officers to abandon the park, arguing that confronting the antifa activists would have led to more violence.[42]The masked protesters targeted the small number of right-wing activists attending the announced rally, in some cases pepper-spraying and chasing them away, or beating them.[45][46][42]Joey Gibson of Patriot Prayer, also present at this rally, was escorted out by the police after being attacked, and Hinojosa and others required police escorts to exit safely. Anti-fascists threatened to break the cameras of journalists who recorded them.[45]Afterwards, the counter demonstrators marched to the nearby Ohlone Park where they dispersed.[47]13 people were arrested on various charges, including assault with a deadly weapon and felony assault. One officer and six other people were injured with two taken to local hospitals for treatment.[48][49]September[edit]Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin asked UC Berkeley in August 2017 to cancel conservatives’ speech plans slated for September 24–27 in prevention of violent civil unrest.[50]In September 2017, Cal Chancellor Carol Christ said: "Call toxic speech out for what it is, don’t shout it down, for in shouting it down, you collude in the narrative that universities are not open to all speech. Respond to hate speech with more speech";[51]and, president of the University of California system, Janet Napolitano, said: "I think some of these speakers are coming deliberately to provoke...a response. But nonetheless they’re coming to speak, they’re coming to put forward controversial and noxious ideas. Colleges and universities are places where noxious ideas are expressed. So how you...protect that value, that’s the challenge that we face."[52]September 14[edit]On September 14, conservative radio host Ben Shapiro gave a speech at the campus, which was covered by a crew for the political documentary No Safe Spaces.[53]No one wearing masks or with weapons was allowed on campus,[54]and the Berkeley City Councilauthorized the police to use pepper spray, a weapon that had been banned in the city for twenty years.[55]The campus also set up concrete barriers and metal detectors, with a UC spokesman stating that about $600,000 was spent on security for Shapiro's speech.[56]Hundreds gathered off campus at a "Refuse Fascism" rally to protest the event. Police made nine arrests; there was no major violence.[56]September 24–27[edit]Protesters and police officers fill Sproul Plaza on September 24, 2017.Police wearing riot helmets fill the intersection of Bancroft and Telegraph.A dozen commentators with right-wing political leanings, including Milo Yiannopoulos, Steve Bannon, Ann Coulter, Pamela Geller, David Horowitz, and Erik Prince, were extended invitations by the UC Berkeley student group Berkeley Patriot to participate in what it terms "Free Speech Week" in Berkeley September 24–27. Nearly two hundred professors and graduate students signed the open letter "Boycott the Alt-Right @UCBerkeley" calling for a boycott of campus for the four days of the planned events to ensure community members' "physical and mental safety."[57]A UC Berkeley spokesman stated that the cost of security for Free Speech Week will exceed $1 million.[58]Sproul Locked Down During Free Speech WeekPrior to the slated event, some students members of Berkeley Patriot filed a complaint with to the U.S. Department of Justice alleging, among other things, that the university had "arbitrary and irrational bureaucratic hurdles on student groups which seek to exercise their First Amendment rights by holding public debates."[59]Having not signed contracts with various invitees for them to appear and having already backed out of its only reserved, indoor venues, on September 23, Berkeley Patriot officially notified the campus that they were canceling all Free Speech Week activities.[60][61][62]Milo Yiannopoulos stated that afternoon that he and other speakers would still come to campus and hold a "March for Free Speech" at noon on Sunday.[63]About 300 protesters, including former U.S. Army soldier Chelsea Manning, participated in a peaceful march to the campus on Saturday.[61]On September 24, Yiannopoulos, Cernovich and Geller arrived outside Sproul Hall and Yiannopoulos spoke very briefly without a sound system and sang the U.S. national anthem.[64]Hundreds of protesters and supporters surrounded the police barricades that were erected that morning around Sproul Plaza. Attendees were permitted into the plaza only after passing through a single metal detector; approximately 150 people saw Yiannopoulos speak, while hundreds more waited in line. An "unprecedented" number of police officers were brought in, costing the university an estimated $800,000. Police banned weapons and face masks. Afterward, anti-Trump protesters, mocking Yiannopoulos's speech, chanted, "Immigrants are here to stay, Milo had to run away."[65][66]Berkeley police reported at least 11 arrests, but no injuries or damage to buildings.[67]UC Berkeley spokesman Dan Mogulof said afterwards that the media event amounted to "the most expensive photo op in the university’s history."[68]On September 25, protesters holding a rally against white supremacy demonstrated at Wheeler Hall on the Berkeley campus. One person was arrested for wearing a mask to conceal his identity.[69]On September 26, fights broke out near Sproul Plaza between conservative and liberal groups, including Patriot Prayer and By Any Means Necessary (BAMN). The groups fought inside an "empathy tent" and then began marching to People's Park, where Kyle "Stickman" Chapman and others from Patriot Prayer spoke about a war on whites and a "battle for Berkeley". Police made three arrests, among them BAMN spokeswoman Yvette Felarca.[70]Aftermath[edit]Following the February 1 protest, a lawyer representing a local police union criticized the police administration for their "hands off" policy which prevented officers from preventing crime or making arrests. A police representative responded that they did not want to further escalate violence, and that the campus police were inexperienced in dealing with black bloc tactics.[71]According to Berkeley Police chief Margo Bennett, they were waiting for reinforcements to come from Oakland Police and the Alameda County Sheriff before dispersing the crowds.[72]Following the February events, President Trump criticized UC Berkeley on Twitter, asserting that it "does not allow free speech" and threatening to de-fund the university.[73][74]After the April events, several news organizations noted that the fighting demonstrated an increasing use of violence between members of both the far-right and the far-left.[23]On June 6, 2017, Larry Klayman filed a lawsuit on the behalf of Robles, who alleges the university and others violated her First Amendment rights when she was attacked with pepper spray while being interviewed.[75][76][77][78]In July 2017, Robles voluntarily dismissed her lawsuit.[79]After the August events, Jesse Arreguin, the mayor of Berkeley, suggested classifying the city's Antifa as a gang.[80]Nancy Pelosi (D–California) condemned the violence allegedly perpetrated by Antifa protesters, writing that "the perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted."[81]In January 2018, four people who were attacked while trying to attend a speech due to be given Yiannopoulos filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit against the University of California, Berkeley. The lawsuit alleged that campus and city officials failed to prepare for the rioting despite sufficient warning, and as a result would-be attendees were left vulnerable to assault by left-wing protest groups.[82]References[edit]Jump up^ "Woman Punched During Berkeley Protest Describes Melee". Retrieved May 6, 2017.Jump up^ "Heavy Police Presence Keeps Berkeley Coulter Protests Peaceful". Retrieved May 6, 2017.^ Jump up to:a b c Fuller, Thomas (February 2, 2017). "A Free Speech Battle at the Birthplace of a Movement at Berkeley". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved April 27, 2017.^ Jump up to:a b "Milo Yiannopoulos event canceled after violence erupts". UC Berkeley News. February 1, 2017. Retrieved February 2,2017.^ Jump up to:a b "Behind Berkeley's Semester of Hate". New York Times. August 4, 2017. Retrieved August 7, 2017.^ Jump up to:a b David, Carlo; Dinkelspiel, Frances (February 2, 2017). "Chaos erupts, protesters shut down Yiannopolous events, banks in downtown vandalized". Berkeleyside. Retrieved April 27,2017.Jump up^ Mele, Christopher (February 1, 2017). "Berkeley Cancels Milo Yiannopoulos Speech, and Donald Trump Tweets Outrage". The New York Times. Retrieved February 2, 2017.Jump up^ Kell, Gretchen (February 2, 2017). "Campus investigates, assesses damage from Feb. 1 violence". Berkeley News. Berkeley News.Jump up^ Ramaiyer, Malini (February 2, 2017). "How Violence Undermined the Berkeley Protest". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved April 27, 2017.Jump up^ "Woman pepper sprayed by Berkeley protester". Fox News 5 NY. Retrieved April 27, 2017.Jump up^ Bodley, Michael (February 2, 2017). "At Berkeley Yiannopoulos protest, $100,000 in damage, 1 arrest". SFGate. Retrieved February 3, 2017.Jump up^ Wang, Amy B. "Pro-Trump rally in Berkeley turns violent as protesters clash with the president's supporters". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 15, 2017.Jump up^ Barmann, Jay (March 5, 2017). "Pro-Trump Rally In Berkeley Turns Predictably Messy, 10 Arrested". SFist. Archived from the original on March 7, 2017. Retrieved March 10, 2017.Jump up^ St. John, Paige; Grad, Shelby (April 16, 2017). "How Berkeley became epicenter of violent Trump clashes". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved April 17, 2017.Jump up^ Dizikes, Cynthia (April 16, 2017). "Arrests made as protesters clash at pro-Trump rally in Berkeley". SFGate. Retrieved April 27, 2017.Jump up^ "Free Speech Rally in Berkeley results in several injuries, 20 arrests". The Daily Californian. April 15, 2017. Retrieved April 20, 2017.Jump up^ Ellis, Ralph; Marco, Tony (April 16, 2017). "Trump supporters, opponents clash in Berkeley". CNN. Retrieved April 17, 2017.^ Jump up to:a b c St. John, Paige (April 15, 2017). "Hundreds of Trump supporters and counter-protesters clash at Berkeley rally". Los Angeles Times.^ Jump up to:a b c Sciacca, Annie; Lochner, Tom; Lochner, Nate; Treadway, Chris (April 16, 2017). "20 arrested, 11 injured in Trump-related rallies in downtown Berkeley". Mercury News.Jump up^ Randewich, Noah (April 16, 2017). "Trump supporters, opponents clash in California park". Reuters. Retrieved April 15,2017.Jump up^ Yuhas, Alan; Gambino, Lauren (April 15, 2017). "Arrests at violent Berkeley Trump protests while tax marches stay calm". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved April 17, 2017.Jump up^ David Neiwert (April 17, 2017). "Far Right Descends on Berkeley For 'Free Speech' and Planned Violence". Hatewatch. Southern Poverty Law Center.^ Jump up to:a b Lennard, Natasha (April 15, 2017). "The Violent Clashes In Berkeley Weren't 'Pro-Trump' Versus 'Anti-Trump'". Esquire.Jump up^ Sheffield, Matthew. "Trolling for a race war: Neo-Nazis are trying to bait leftist "antifa" activists into violence — and radicalize white people". Salon. Retrieved May 27, 2017.^ Jump up to:a b Branson-Potts, Hailey (April 17, 2017). "Cal State Stanislaus to investigate white supremacist student who punched woman in Berkeley melee". Los Angeles Times. ISSN 0458-3035. Retrieved April 17, 2017.Jump up^ Kelly, George (May 24, 2017). "Bay Area college professor used U-shaped bike lock in beating, police say". The Mercury News. Retrieved May 26, 2017.Jump up^ A man clobbered protesters with a bike lock at a Berkeley rally, police say. The Internet went looking for him., Washington Post, June 3, 2017Jump up^ Former Professor Charged With Assault During Berkeley Trump Event, CBS News San Francisco, May 26, 2017Jump up^ Asimov, Nanette (April 19, 2017). "UC Berkeley orders cancellation of Ann Coulter speech". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved April 19, 2017.Jump up^ "Ann Coulter appearance canceled over security concerns at UC Berkeley". The Guardian. April 19, 2017. Retrieved April 19,2017.Jump up^ Yuhas, Alan (April 20, 2017). "Ann Coulter event is back on after UC Berkeley finds 'protected venue'". The Guardian. Retrieved April 20, 2017.Jump up^ Asimov, Nanette (April 20, 2017). "Ann Coulter rejects Cal offer to switch date of speech". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved April 20, 2017.Jump up^ Svrluga, Susan; Wan, William; Dwoskin, Elizabeth (April 27, 2017). "There was no Ann Coulter speech. But protesters converged on Berkeley". The Washington Post. Retrieved August 27, 2017.^ Jump up to:a b McLaughlin, Eliott C.; Yan, Holly; Hassan, Carma. "Berkeley protests: No Ann Coulter, but demonstrators gather". CNN. Retrieved April 28, 2017.Jump up^ "Coulter blames UC Berkeley for cancellation of her talk". Berkeleyside. April 26, 2017. Retrieved April 27, 2017.Jump up^ Taylor, Tracey (April 26, 2017). "Mayor forced on the defensive as city becomes ground zero for extremists". Berkeleyside. Retrieved April 27, 2017.Jump up^ Svrluga, Susan; Wan, William; Dwoskin, Elizabeth (April 26, 2017). "Ann Coulter speech at UC Berkeley canceled, again, amid fears for safety". Washington Post. Retrieved April 27, 2017.Jump up^ Bauer-Wolf, Jeremy (April 26, 2017). "Ann Coulter will back out of Berkeley talk". Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved April 27, 2017.Jump up^ "UC Berkeley is still bracing for the worst after Ann Coulter canceled a contentious speech". Business Insider. Retrieved April 27, 2017.Jump up^ Svrluga, Susan; Wan, William; Dwoskin, Elizabeth (April 27, 2017). "There's no Ann Coulter speech planned. But protesters converged on Berkeley". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 28, 2017.Jump up^ Bowman, Emma (August 28, 2017). "Scattered Violence Erupts At Large, Left-Wing Berkeley Rally". NPR. Retrieved August 28,2017.^ Jump up to:a b c d Swenson, Kyle (August 28, 2017). "Black-clad antifa attack peaceful right wing demonstrators in Berkeley". The Washington Post. Retrieved August 28, 2017.Jump up^ By paul elias and jocelyn gecker, associated press (2017-08-28). "Black-clad anarchists swarm anti-hate rally in California - ABC News". ABC News. Retrieved 2017-09-07.Jump up^ "With far-right, anti-fascist groups expected to clash in Bay Area, police plan overwhelming force, zero tolerance". Los Angeles Times. August 25, 2017.^ Jump up to:a b c d e "Counter-demonstrators vastly out number Trump supporters at Berkeley rally". Los Angeles Times. August 27, 2017.Jump up^ Elias, Paul (August 28, 2017). "Anarchist rampage in Berkeley renews free speech debate". Associated Press. Retrieved August 28, 2017.Jump up^ "Berkeley Calms as Counterprotesters Declare Victory". Mother Jones. August 27, 2017. Retrieved August 28, 2017.Jump up^ "Berkeley police release names of those arrested at Sunday rally". San Francisco Examiner. 28 August 2017. Retrieved 29 August 2017.Jump up^ KCRA Staff (2017-08-28). "13 arrested as clashes break out during Berkeley protests". Sacramento, Stockton and Modesto CA News and Weather - KCRA Channel 3. Retrieved 2017-09-07.Jump up^ By Matier & Ross (2017-08-28). "After melees, Berkeley mayor asks Cal to cancel right-wing Free Speech Week - San Francisco Chronicle". Home. Retrieved 2017-09-26.Jump up^ "Free Speech Week: UC Berkeley Readies for More Protests". TIME Homepage. Retrieved 2017-09-07.Jump up^ Strauss, Ben (2017-09-20). "Berkeley 'Free Speech Week' with Bannon will be costly, university president says". Politico. Retrieved 2017-09-26.Jump up^ Bond, Paul (September 14, 2017). "Ben Shapiro's U.C. Berkeley Speech Expected to Draw Protests". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved September 14, 2017.Jump up^ JOCELYN GECKER and PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press (2017-05-16). "Berkeley braces for visit by right-wing speaker Ben Shapiro". USA TODAY: Latest World and US News - USATODAY.com. Retrieved 2017-09-14.Jump up^ Park, Madison (September 14, 2017). "Berkeley amps up security ahead of speech from conservative". CNN. Retrieved September 14, 2017.^ Jump up to:a b Johnson, Lizzie; Asimov, Nanette; Veklerov, Kimberly; Tucker, Jill (September 14, 2017). "Ben Shapiro takes stage at UC Berkeley under 'extraordinary' security". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved September 14, 2017.Jump up^ Asimov, Nanette (2017-09-18). "UC Berkeley professors urge campus boycott during 'Free Speech Week'". SFGate. Retrieved 2017-09-26.Jump up^ Asimov, Nanette (September 22, 2017). "Cal student group waffles on Free Speech Week: Milo says it's still on". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved September 22, 2017.Jump up^ Svrluga, Susan. "Coulter says she assumes "Free Speech Week" at UC-Berkeley is canceled. Milo Yiannopoulos says it's on". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2017-09-26.Jump up^ Lee, Chantelle (2017-09-16). "'Failure to confirm': Berkeley Patriot loses 2 venues for 'Free Speech Week'". The Daily Californian | Berkeley's News. Retrieved 2017-09-26.^ Jump up to:a b Deruy, Emily (September 23, 2017). "UC Berkeley's 'Free Speech Week' officially canceled, appeared to be set-up from the start". The Mercury News. Retrieved September 23, 2017.Jump up^ "Confusion reigns as far-right Berkeley 'free speech week' approaches: Coulter won't be coming". LA Times. Retrieved 2017-09-26.Jump up^ McCausland, Phil; Dzhanova, Yelena (September 23, 2017). "'Free Speech Week' at UC Berkeley Canceled, Milo Yiannopoulos Blames School". NBC News. Retrieved September 23, 2017.Jump up^ Barmann, Jay. "Milo Yiannopoulos Spent 15 Minutes At UC Berkeley, Cost Them $800,000". SFist. Archived from the original on September 25, 2017. Retrieved September 26,2017.Jump up^ Tucker, Jill; Veklerov, Kimberly; Johnson, Lizzie; Asimov, Nanette (September 24, 2017). "Yiannopoulos visits Sproul for 15 minutes, UC Berkeley spends $800,000". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved September 24, 2017.Jump up^ "'We Won't Be Deterred': Milo Yiannopoulos Makes UC Berkeley Appearance Short, Pledges Return". NBC Bay Area. September 24, 2017. Retrieved September 24, 2017.Jump up^ "Yiannopoulos Appearance Called 'Most Expensive Photo Op In University History'". CBS Bay Area. September 24, 2017. Retrieved September 25, 2017.Jump up^ "How the 'Coachella of Conservatism' fizzled into an 'expensive photo opp' at Berkeley". LA Times. Retrieved 2017-09-26.Jump up^ "1 Person Cited At UC Berkeley Protest Against White Supremacy". CBS Bay Area. September 25, 2017. Retrieved September 25, 2017.Jump up^ Veklerov, Kimberly; Tucker, Jill (September 26, 2017). "Fights break out between right, left as dozens march through UC Berkeley". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved September 26,2017.Jump up^ The Associated Press (February 7, 2017). "Berkeley Police Criticized For 'Hands-Off' Approach To Violent Demonstrators". Retrieved April 27, 2017.Jump up^ Anthony, Laura (February 3, 2017). "Police criticized for lack of action during Berkeley protests". ABC7 San Francisco. Retrieved April 27, 2017.Jump up^ Savransky, Rebecca (February 2, 2017). "Trump threatens funding cut if UC Berkeley 'does not allow free speech'". TheHill. Retrieved February 2, 2017.Jump up^ Rahim, Zamira (February 2, 2017). "Trump Threatens to Yank U.C. Berkeley's Federal Funding Over Protests Against Milo Yiannopoulos". Time. Retrieved February 2, 2017.Jump up^ Cherelus, Gina (June 6, 2017). "Woman pepper-sprayed at UC Berkeley protest sues university, police". Rueters.Jump up^ "Milo Yiannopoulos fan files lawsuit against Berkeley". Associated Press. June 7, 2017. Retrieved June 7, 2017.Jump up^ Kenneally, Tim (June 6, 2017). "Milo Yiannopoulos Supporter Sues Berkeley for $23 Million". SFGate. Retrieved June 7,2017.Jump up^ McLevy, Alex (June 7, 2017). "Milo Yiannopoulos fan files lawsuit against Berkeley, George Soros, common sense". Retrieved June 7, 2017.Jump up^ Iovino, Nicholas (July 26, 2017). "Woman Drops $23 Million Suit Over UC Berkeley Protest". Courthouse News Service.Jump up^ Porter, Tom (August 29, 2017). "Berkeley's mayor wants antifa to be classified as a gang". Newsweek. Retrieved August 29,2017.Jump up^ Seipel, Brooke (August 29, 2017). "Pelosi condemns 'anitfa' after Berkeley clashes". The Hill. Retrieved August 30, 2017.Jump up^ http://www.washingtontimes.com, The Washington Times. "Four people injured by rioters at Milo Yiannopoulos event sue Berkeley". The Washington Times. Retrieved 2018-01-21.showvteAlt-rightExternal links[edit]Media related to 2017 Berkeley Free Speech Week at Wikimedia CommonsCategories:2017 crimes in the United States2017 in California2017 protests2017 riotsAlt-rightAnti-fascism in the United StatesFebruary 2017 crimesFebruary 2017 events in the United StatesMarch 2017 crimesMarch 2017 events in the United StatesApril 2017 crimes in the United StatesAugust 2017 crimesAugust 2017 events in the United StatesPolitical violence in the United StatesProtests against Donald TrumpRiots and protests at UC BerkeleyRiots and civil disorder in CaliforniaSeptember 2017 events in the United StatesNavigation menuNot logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog inArticleTalkReadEditView historySearchMain pageContentsFeatured contentCurrent eventsRandom articleDonate to WikipediaWikipedia storeInteractionHelpAbout WikipediaCommunity portalRecent changesContact pageToolsWhat links hereRelated changesUpload fileSpecial pagesPermanent linkPage informationWikidata itemCite this pagePrint/exportCreate a bookDownload as PDFPrintable versionLanguagesAdd linksThis page was last edited on 23 July 2018, at 12:08 (UTC).Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.Privacy policyAbout WikipediaDisclaimersContact WikipediaDevelopersCookie statementMobile view”