Preparing For A Nuclear Attack From The Third Horn (Daniel 8:8)

Major terror attack against India could trigger Nuclear war: experts

The Morung Express

Washington, February 26 (PTI): Pakistan may use nuclear weapons against India if the latter goes for a large scale military assault against it in retaliation for a major terror attack emanating from across the border, two top American experts have warned US lawmakers.

Given the presence of a strong government in New Delhi and the pressure on it from Indian citizens in the event of a repeat of 26/11 type terror attack, the ties between the two neighbours have greater danger of escalating towards a devastating nuclear warfare, in particular from Pakistan.

Such a dangerous scenario can only be avoided by the US working with Islamabad to ensure that there is no further large scale terror attack on India emanating from Pakistan, two top American experts – George Perkovich and Ashley Tellis – told members of the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Strategic Forces during a hearing yesterday.

“South Asia is the most likely place nuclear weapons could be detonated in the foreseeable future. This risk derives from the unusual dynamic of the India-Pakistan competition,” said Perkovich, vice president for Studies Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

“The next major terrorist attack in India, emanating from Pakistan, may trigger an Indian conventional military riposte that could in turn prompt Pakistan to use battlefield nuclear weapons to repel an Indian incursion. India, for its part, has declared that it would inflict massive retaliation in response to any nuclear use against its territory or troops,” he said.

“Obviously, this threatening dynamic – whereby terrorism may prompt conventional conflict which may prompt nuclear war – challenges Indian and Pakistan policy-makers. India and Pakistan both tend to downplay or dismiss the potential for escalation, but our own history of close nuclear calls should make US officials more alert to these dangers. The US is the only outside power that could intervene diplomatically and forcefully to de-escalate a crisis,” Perkovich said.

Tellis said the most useful US contribution towards preventing a Pakistani use of nuclear weapons in such a scenario – and the Indian nuclear retribution that would result thereafter – would be to press Pakistan to exit the terrorism business or risk being left alone (or, even worse, the object of sanctions) if a major Indian military response ensues in the aftermath of any pernicious terrorist attack.

Both the experts, who are from the Carnegie, told members of the Senate sub-committee that Pakistan today has more nuclear weapons than that of India.

How Babylon Handed Iraq Over to Iran (Daniel 8:3)

The Tower Magazine: How Iraq Became an Iranian Client While the U.S. Watched

Iranian Hegemony

by TheTower.org Staff | 02.27.15 1:59 pm

In I Saw the U.S. Hand Iraq Over to the Iranians. Is the Whole Region Next?, which was published in the February 2015 issue of The Tower Magazine, Michael Pregent observes that not only has the United States seemingly given in to Iranian demands in nuclear negotiations, but “it is doing the same in Iraq, where the U.S. is acquiescing to Iranian influence and accepting Iranian dominance over the Iraqi government and many of the armed militias active in the country.”

During his time as a military advisor in Iraq, Pregent observed the dynamic by which Iran achieved effective control over much of Iraq’s government.

Nonetheless, General David Petraeus had some success in reaching a balance between Sunni and Shia when he was head of Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I). When he left in 2005, he left behind Iraqi army divisions in and around Baghdad that had a 55-45 percent ratio of Shia to Sunni.

Before Petraeus took command of MNF-I in 2007, I had the opportunity to brief him on the changing sectarian make-up of the ISF under his predecessor—General Martin Dempsey. The divisions in and around Baghdad were now over 90 percent Shia and mostly militia-affiliated. Petraeus was shocked.

This shift in the sectarian makeup of the security forces was the result of a 2006-2007 purge of Sunni commanders, leaving a sectarian military force that saw few distinctions between any Sunni man of military age and the Sunni insurgency. Extra-judicial killings in Baghdad skyrocketed, with somewhere between 25-50 percent of prisoners being summarily executed, and bound Sunni men dumped around Baghdad in an attempt to terrify Sunnis out of supporting al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and its affiliates.

General Dempsey was in charge while this process was taking place. Asked about it by advisors and analysts, Dempsey replied, “I make no distinction between Shia and Sunnis. I only see them as Iraqis.” This was a noble position to take, and would have been correct if the rule of law had been in place and militia membership seen as a disqualification for service. But there was no rule of law, and the Sunnis did not share Dempsey’s views. This misunderstanding came at a high price. The purged and executed Sunni officers were the exact Iraqis we needed—those who were willing to fight both AQI and Shia militias at great personal risk. Now, they were targeted and killed by both of them.

Pregent’s experiences have prompted him to look beyond just Iraq or the nuclear negotiations:

Having witnessed this jarring turn of events, it is important to point out that this is not simply an Iraqi issue. It is a regional issue. The Iranian government believes that the U.S. wants a nuclear deal so badly that it will tacitly approve Iran’s activities throughout the Middle East—including in Syria and Yemen—by downplaying Iranian influence or ignoring it altogether. At the same time, Iraqi politicians cite the slow pace of America’s “strategic patience” as a reason to welcome Iranian support. But support comes with a price, and it is a price that will be paid not only by Iraq, but also the U.S. itself.

In a related article for The Daily Beast, co-written with Michael Weiss, Pregent argued that Iran’s influence in Iraq was making it “impossible” for the United States to counter the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria effectively.

Nebuchadnezzar Is Running To The Fire

Obama rushing toward risky nuclear deal with Iran
The Detroit News

B99246771Z.1_20150226170511_000_G2GEVF43.2-0

The Iranian navy is shown blowing up a replica of a U.S. carrier. AP Photo/Tasnim News

The emerging nuclear deal with Iran could be the capstone of an Obama administration foreign policy record that has made every possible mistake, from its reset with Russia to a Middle East strategy that managed to drive Israel and the Palestinians even further from peace.

Concerns about the talks with Iran, which Secretary of State John Kerry and his Iranian counterpart described this week as progressing toward agreement by the March 24 deadline, are coming from all corners and every political viewpoint.

The fear is that President Barack Obama is ready to make any deal for the sake of a deal, and is conceding too much wiggle room for the Iranians to continue their nuclear ambitions.

The Washington Post, in an editorial, summed up the major red flags this way:

■The initial goal of dismantling Iran’s ability to make a nuclear weapon has given way to acceptance of Iran’s capabilities, which the White House now hopes can be restricted.
■The Obama administration has acquiesced to Iran’s desires to increase its influence in the region.
■The president is planning to implement any deal it makes with Iran unilaterally, without seeking congressional approval.

Former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Schultz are warning the administration is giving away too much, and seems outmatched at the negotiating table.

Kissinger rightly warns that a deal that leaves open a path for Iran to produce a nuclear weapon risks triggering the start of an arms race in the region, with other countries rushing to obtain their own bombs.

The administration has taken the unusual step of cutting off Israel from the flow of information about how the talks are coming together. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is scheduled to speak to Congress about the negotiations next month, is warning that the deal leaves Iran with too much bomb-making capacity.

The administration appears ready to allow most of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure to remain intact. Rather than extending the distance between Iran and a nuclear weapon, the deal would keep the Iranians within a year to 15 months from being able to produce a bomb.

Obama believes a vigorous inspection regime can detect an Iranian breakout. But given the size of Iran’s nuclear program, that is a risky bet.

The White House also seems convinced that reaching a nuclear deal will pave the way for a new relationship in which the United States would partner with Iran in combatting the Islamic State and other extremist groups.

That’s wishful thinking. Though driven by different ideologies, Iran and the Islamic State share the similar goal of pushing western influence out of the Middle East. That includes the destruction of Israel.

Allowing Iran, which has been a major financier of terrorist groups, to play a larger role in the region risks destabilizing other nations, including Saudi Arabia, an important ally of the United States.

The stakes in these negotiations are high — too high for this president or any other to act unilaterally. Bypassing Congress to sign a nuclear deal — or to end the sanctions that Congress voted to approve — is unprecedented.

Obama should step back from the table, listen to the advice of seasoned counselors, and respect Congress’ constitutional role in this process.

The Korean Nucleat Horn Grows (Daniel 7)

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
FEBRUARY 27, 2015

North Korea could be on track to have an arsenal of 100 nuclear weapons by 2020, according to a new research report. The prediction, from experts on North Korea, goes well beyond past estimates and should force renewed attention on a threat that has been eclipsed by other crises.

At the moment, the United States and five other major powers are negotiating an agreement that would constrain the nuclear program in Iran, which does not possess any nuclear weapons. North Korea, on the other hand, is estimated to have already produced 10 to 16 weapons since 2003.

The new assessment comes from Joel Wit, a former American negotiator with North Korea who is now a senior fellow with the U.S.-Korea Institute at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, and David Albright, head of the Institute for Science and International Security. They conclude that North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs have been growing since 2009 and are now “poised for significant expansion over the next five years.” That poses serious threats for other countries in Asia and for the United States.

Sanction Easing Leaves Ayatollah In Control (Daniel 8:3)

With a population of more than 78 million, Iran is the Mideast’s second-largest nation after Egypt and already the second-biggest economy after Saudi Arabia. With almost two Iranians out of three under the age of 30, many of them with higher degrees, the young, well-educated nation could soon turn into an economic powerhouse.

And for countries such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Jordan, an Iran released from its current economic restrictions and able to trade freely is a threat, in sectors from mining to the automotive industry. For the governments of those Sunni-dominated nations, those economic concerns also compound ongoing concerns over the growing political influence of Shiite Iran in places such as Iraq and Syria.

Iran has grown into its current size as an economy even under an international isolation that began in 1979, when an Islamist revolution overthrew the pro-Western regime of the Shah and the occupation of the U.S. embassy in Tehran led to the end of relationships with the U.S. Washington and the European Union took an even harsher stance in 2012, when increased sanctions imposed as Iran went forward with its nuclear program helped cause a two-year recession.

U.S. companies are prohibited from trading with Iran, and doing so remains nearly impossible for non-U.S. companies. Any foreign company not owned by a U.S. individual that trades with Iran runs the risk of being blacklisted by the U.S. and excluded from its market.

But that could change if the U.S. and Iran reach an agreement. Recent reports have indicated that U.S. officials are considering putting forward a plan that would restrict Tehran’s nuclear capabilities for 10 years in exchange for the easing of some economic sanctions. Analysts and lawyers specializing in sanctions said one of the first parts of the sanction structure to be lifted or eased would be the extraterritorial factor, which allows the U.S. government to punish third-party entities that deal with Iran.

If that happens, Iran would be able to import much-needed Western technology to help modernize the oil and gas sector that dominates its economy — and use that as leverage to drive an economic renaissance.

Right now, Iran is far behind other Middle Eastern countries in the oil and gas trade. The latest figures released by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries show that Iran produced 2.75 million barrels a day in January, 25,000 fewer per day than in December. Saudi Arabia produced by comparison almost 9.7 million barrels a day.

If Iran comes back in full onto the world oil market, an immediate effect is that Saudi Arabia’s industrial ambitions may suffer. Mohamad Aly Ramady, an economist based in Riyadh, said Saudi Arabia is using its revenue from oil and minerals extraction to help jump-start an emerging auto sector. Over the past two years, Saudi Arabia has worked with Indian-owned companies to begin car production in the city of Yanbu, but if Iran were able to export cars, it would hinder potential future sales of Saudi vehicles in the Middle East.

Iran has ranked for years in the top 15 largest car-producing nations, making 1.6 million vehicles in 2011, more than Great Britain and more than double Italy. Renewed sanctions then hit the nation over its nuclear energy program, and the ensuing economic slump slowed car production to just 740,000 in 2013. But Iran has shown it has the ability to make more cars than established industrial powerhouses, and if sanctions were eased it could sell them throughout the Middle East. That could help sink Saudi Arabia’s attempt to diversify away from a largely oil-based economy, after the kingdom has invested more than $50 billion in turning Yanbu into an industrial center.

For Jordan, the fear lies more in how a resurgent Iranian economy could translate into more regional clout.

Iran has for years intervened in volatile situations throughout the Middle East, giving cash and weapons to Shiite groups in Yemen, Lebanon, Iraq and Syria. In the latter, Iran initially propped up President Bashar al-Assad, but its intervention has turned into a fight to stop Sunni militias, including the Islamic State group, or ISIS. The humanitarian crisis created by the regime’s crackdown with Iranian support has pushed hundreds of thousands of Syrians to flee to Jordan, which is burdening the fragile Jordanian economy.

Like Jordan, Turkey also has a major stake in the wars in Iraq and Syria, and has taken in millions of Syrian refugees since the Syrian civil war began in 2011. But the government is more worried about the possibility of Iran being able again to conduct financial transactions directly, which would cut Turkish banks out of the profitable role of intermediary.

Before the U.S. and EU implemented the latest round of sanctions, Turkey’s Halkbank, 75 percent owned by the government, was one of the main hubs for handling Iranian transactions. The few countries that still imported Iranian oil, unable to pay Iran directly, turned to Halkbank to make payments. The Turkish bank is holding on to the cash until it can pay Iranian oil sellers, and lawyers said it is profiting handsomely from millions of dollars in interest. (The central bank’s main interest rate in Turkey is now at a relatively very high 10.75 percent.)

A deal with Iran that could end that bonanza for Turkey. But sanctions could remain in place, depending on the outcome of the nuclear talks.

The opposers of any agreement with Iran include many Republicans in Washington and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who will hold a speech before the U.S. Congress next week — at the Republicans’ invitation, not approved by the White House — in which he is expected to publicly criticize the White House’s efforts to broker a deal. Netanyahu has said before that a deal is going to result in Iran developing a nuclear weapon, which Israel would never allow.

“There is a minority in Washington that just does not believe any deal with Iran can be had,” said Alex Vatanka, an expert on Iran at the Middle East Institute, a think tank based in Washington. “The problem with this view is that they have not been able to put forth a credible counterstrategy short of military confrontation.”

Regardless Of The Talks, Iran Will Soon Have A Nuclear Bomb (Daniel 8:3)

What You Need to Know About the Iran Nuclear Talks

By Margaret Hartman

Last week in Geneva, U.S. and Iranian officials kicked off another round of talks in an attempt to resolve the long conflict over Iran’s nuclear program. While Iran insists it only wants to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, and has every right to do so, world powers fear the country is working to develop a nuclear bomb. Since 2003, the international community has repeatedly tried to cut a deal to curb Iran’s uranium enrichment program, and both sides are hopeful about the current negotiations. Here’s a look at how we got to this potentially historic moment, and what to expect as the final deadline approaches.

When did the negotiations begin?

The conflict over Iran’s nuclear program dates back to the ’70s (the New York Times has a handy timeline), but the current talks began with the November 2013 accord in which Iran agreed to freeze much of its nuclear activity and accept more international oversight for the first time in more than a decade. In return, six major powers — Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia, and the United States — agreed to scale back sanctions that contributed to Iran’s serious economic problems in recent years. (The group is known as the P5+1, for the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, plus Germany.)

Even as the two sides praised the deal as the dawning of a new era, there was public disagreement over what it actually meant. Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s new, more moderate president, said, “Let anyone make his own reading, but this right is clearly stated in the text of the agreement that Iran can continue its enrichment, and I announce to our people that our enrichment activities will continue as before.” However, John Kerry, the U.S. secretary of State, quickly countered that there was “no inherent right to enrich” in the deal, adding, “everywhere in this particular agreement it states that they could only do that by mutual agreement, and nothing is agreed on until everything is agreed on.”

The nations were supposed to negotiate a more comprehensive deal within six months, but unsurprisingly they missed that deadline. Diplomats gave themselves another four months to hash out the details, and then in November 2014 they pushed back the deadlines again, agreeing to settle on a political framework by March 31, 2015, and finalize the technical details by June 30, 2015.

What does each side want?

The negotiations are incredibly complex, but broadly, the two sides are haggling over the limits on Iran’s ability to produce nuclear material and how long those restrictions would be in place. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been extremely critical of the talks, said the only acceptable deal would be one that leaves Iran with “zero enrichment, zero centrifuges, zero plutonium, and of course an end to ICBM development,” but the P5+1 isn’t pushing for zero enrichment. Instead, the agreement would cap how many centrifuges, the machines that enrich uranium, Iran could operate.

Iran has about 19,000 centrifuges, 10,000 of which are operating, and the U.S. has reportedly offered to let Iran enrich uranium with around 6,500 centrifuges. (Some of these reports on the terms of the negotiations came via the Israeli media, prompting concerns that Netanyahu’s office was leaking the figures, and further straining the U.S.-Israeli relationship.) The Obama administration has argued that those reports are misleading, since Iran’s nuclear capabilities would depend on the types of centrifuges they’re allowed to operate and the permitted size of their enriched uranium stockpile, not just the number of centrifuges.

The U.S. initially wanted restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activities to remain in place for up to 20 years, while Iran was pushing for less than 10 years. The Associated Press reported this week that one plan under consideration would place Iran’s uranium enrichment program under strict controls for a decade, then gradually ease restrictions over the next five years if Iran complies with the terms of the agreement. As the New York Times notes, “that would allow the Iranians to say the tough constraints would last for only 10 years and the Americans to say they had a 15-year agreement.”

Kerry and Obama have both said that they would only accept a deal with a “breakout time” of at least a year — meaning that if Iran decides to violate the terms of the agreement, it will take a year for it to produce enough fuel for a nuclear weapon. (Of course, that’s a complicated calculation, and there’s disagreement over how much time it would take Iran to make a bomb.) “We have always said that we would have a one-year breakout time for a double-digit number of years and that remains the case,” a senior U.S. official said on Monday, though according to The Wall Street Journal, they would not elaborate on whether the deal would allow a shorter “breakout time” after the first decade.

Another sticking point is the fate of Iran’s existing nuclear facilities. Officials say its underground enrichment facility at Fordo may be turned into a research facility, and its heavy-water reactor at Arak, may be redesigned to produce less plutonium, another potential fuel for nuclear bombs.

Iranian officials have suggested that they expect sanctions to be quickly lifted once a deal is reached, but P5+1 want them removed gradually as Iran proves it’s meeting its obligations.

What role does the U.S. Congress play?

The Obama administration says the agreement does not require congressional approval because it’s not a treaty, but rolling back sanctions on Iran would require cooperation from legislators. Obama can repeal the sanctions imposed via 26 executive orders, but not the ten statutes passed by Congress.

Congressional Republicans, along with some Democrats, are skeptical of the Iran agreement and angry that they are being cut out of the process. Bipartisan legislation introduced last month, despite a veto threat from Obama, would impose new sanctions on Iran if a deal is not reached by the June deadline.

The debate is sure to intensify next week when Prime Minister Netanyahu addresses Congress, but Kerry said while testifying before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee this week that lawmakers should wait to see the deal before taking new action against Iran. “The president has made clear — I can’t state this more firmly — the policy is Iran will not get a nuclear weapon,” Kerry said. “And anybody running around right now, jumping in to say, ‘Well, we don’t like the deal,’ or this or that, doesn’t know what the deal is. There is no deal yet.”

Where do things stand now?

Negotiations between Kerry and Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in Geneva ended Monday. “These talks have been productive,” said State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki. “There’s still more work to do.” Talks are set to resume next week at a location to be determined.

What happens if they don’t reach a deal?

President Obama said earlier this month that if a deal can’t be reached by the current deadline, another extension is unlikely. “The issues now are sufficiently narrowed and sufficiently clarified. We’re at a point where they need to make a decision,” Obama said. “[We] are presenting to them a deal that allows them to have peaceful nuclear power but gives us the absolute assurance that is verifiable that they are not pursuing a nuclear weapon.”

The president said the failure of the negotiations would not put the U.S. on “immediate war footing” with Iran, but there could be serious consequences for all parties, from the resumption of Iran’s efforts to build a nuclear weapon to sanctions that further cripple its economy and a greater risk of war across the Middle East. “We need to seize this opportunity,” said Foreign Minister Zarif. “It may not be repeated.”

Preparing For A Nuclear Attack From The Third Horn (Daniel 8:8)

Major terror attack against India could trigger Nuclear war: experts

The Morung Express

Both the experts, who are from the Carnegie, told members of the Senate sub-committee that Pakistan today has more nuclear weapons than that of India.

Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty Was Just A Short Delay Of The Prophecy (Rev 16)

BY RAMESH THAKUR

In contrast to the total and scandalous failure of its 2005 predecessor, the Eighth Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference of May 2010 was a modest success.

In sum, there were grounds for optimism that there would be significant forward movement on the nuclear disarmament, nonproliferation and security agendas.

By the end of 2012, as reported in my Centre’s inaugural “Nuclear Weapons: The State of Play” report, much of this sense of optimism had evaporated. By the end of 2014, as our followup report “Nuclear Weapons: The State of Play 2015″ documents, the fading optimism has given way to pessimism.

North Korea conducted its third nuclear test in early 2013 and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) is yet to enter into force.

We are no closer to resolving the challenge posed by North Korea and a comprehensive agreement on Iran eluded negotiators by the extended deadline of Nov. 24, 2014. The push for talks on a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East called for by earlier NPT conferences has stalled and the region remains highly volatile.

New START was signed and ratified, but the treaty left stockpiles intact and disagreements about missile defense and conventional-arms imbalances unresolved. Nuclear weapons numbers have decreased overall but increased in Asia; nuclear-weapons programs in India, Pakistan and China have accelerated; and fissile material production to make still more warheads is not yet banned.

Cyber threats to nuclear weapons systems have intensified, outer space remains at risk of nuclearization, and the upsurge of geopolitical tensions over the crisis in Ukraine produced flawed conclusions about the folly of giving up nuclear weapons on the one hand, and open reminders about Russia’s substantial nuclear arsenal, on the other.

The peoples of the world recognize the dangers of nuclear arsenals. Curiously, however, their concerns and fears find little reflection in the media coverage or in governments’ policy priorities.

As part of the Global Attitudes survey conducted by the U.S. Pew Research Center from March 17 to June 5, 2014, a total of 48,643 respondents in 44 countries were asked which one of the following five poses the gravest threat to the world: nuclear weapons, inequality, religious-ethnic hatred, environmental pollution, or AIDS and other diseases?

Nuclear weapons was chosen as the top threat in 10 of the 44 countries polled (including two nuclear-armed states Russia and Pakistan), and as the second gravest threat in another 16 (including China).

The regional breakdown of the median responses shows that nuclear weapons were considered to be the top threat to the world by 20 percent of the people in the Middle East, 19 percent in Europe, 21 percent in Asia, 26 percent in Latin America, 22 percent in Africa, and 23 percent even in the U.S.

No Latin American country has nuclear weapons The continent’s anti-nuclear commitment was reinforced by the negotiation of the regional nuclear-weapon-free zone in 1967 under the Treaty of Tlatelolco, which consolidates and deepens the NPT prohibitions on getting the bomb.

Since then virtually the entire Southern Hemisphere has embraced additional comparable zones in the South Pacific, Southeast Asia and Africa.

Consequently looking out at the world from our vantage point, we see no security upsides by way of benefits from nuclear weapons; only risks.

Indeed it helps to conceptualize the nuclear weapons challenge in the language of risks. Originally many countries acquired the bomb in order to help manage national security risks.

As the four famous strategic heavyweights of Henry Kissinger, Sam Nunn, William Perry and George Shultz — all card-carrying realists — have argued in a series of five influential articles in The Wall Street Journal between 2007 and 2013, the risks of nuclear proliferation and terrorism posed by the existence of nuclear weapons far outweigh their modest contributions to security since the end of the Cold War.

Viewed through this lens, the nuclear risks agenda has four components:

• Risk management.•

We must ensure that existing weapons stockpiles are not used; that all nuclear weapons and materials are secured against theft and leakage to rogue actors like terrorist groups; and that all nuclear reactors and plants have fail-safe safety measures in place with respect to designs, controls, disposal and accident response systems.

• Risk reduction.•

This means strengthening the stability-enhancing features of deterrence, such as robust command and control systems and deployment on submarines. As part of this, it would help if Russia and the U.S. took their approximately 1,800 warheads off high-alert, ready to launch within minutes of threats being supposedly detected.

If other countries abandoned interest in things like tactical nuclear weapons that have to be deployed on the forward edges of potential battlefields and require some pre-delegation of authority to use to battlefield commanders. Because any use of nuclear weapons could be catastrophic for planet Earth, the decision must be restricted to the highest political and military authorities.

• Risk minimization• .

There is no national security objectives that Russia and the U.S. could not meet with a total arsenal of under 500 nuclear warheads each deployed in the air (a few), on land (some), and at sea (most). And if all the others froze their arsenals at current levels, this would give us a global stockpile of 2,000 bombs instead of the current total of nearly 16,400.

Ratifying and bringing into force the CTBT, concluding a new fissile material cutoff treaty, banning the nuclear weaponization of outer space, respecting one another’s sensitivities on missile defense programs and conventional military imbalances etc. would all contribute to minimizing risks of reversals and setbacks.

None of these steps would jeopardize the national security of any of the nuclear-armed states; each would enhance regional and international security modestly; all in combination would greatly strengthen global security.

• Risk elimination.•

Successive blue ribbon international commissions, from the Canberra Commission through the Tokyo Forum, Blix Commission, and Evans-Kawaguchi Commission, have emphatically reaffirmed three core propositions.

As long as any state has nuclear weapons, others will want them. As long as they exist, they will be used again someday, if not by design and intent, then through miscalculation, accident, rogue launch or system malfunction. Any such use anywhere could spell catastrophe for the planet.

The only guarantee of zero nuclear weapons risk, therefore, is to move to zero nuclear weapons possession by a carefully managed process.

The Pakistan Horn Will Fulfill Prophecy (Daniel 8:8)

Major terror attack against India could trigger Nuclear-war

Posted on Feb 26 2015 – 4:43pm by <a href="https://www.ibcworldnews.com/author/prem/" style="-webkit-transition: background-color, color; border: 0px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin: 0px; outline-style: none; padding: 0px; transition: background-color, color; vertical-align: baseline;" title="

View all posts by IBC World”>IBC World

11035467_10153200326377160_5404480922806466965_n

Pakistan may use nuclear weapons against India if the latter goes for a large scale military assault against it in retaliation for a major terror attack emanating from across the border, two top American experts have warned US lawmakers.

Such a dangerous scenario can only be avoided by the US working with Islamabad to ensure that there is no further large scale terror attack on India emanating from Pakistan, two top American experts. George Perkovich and Ashley Tellis, told members of the powerful Senate Armed Services Committe and Sub committee on Strategic Forces during a hearing yesterday.

“Obviously, this threatening dynamic, whereby terrorism may prompt conventional conflict which may prompt nuclear war – challenges Indian and Pakistan policy- makers. India and Pakistan both tend to downplay or dismiss the potential for escalation, but our own history of close nuclear calls should make US officials more alert to these dangers.

The US is the only outside power that could intervene diplomatically and forcefully to de-escalate a crisis,” Perkovich said. Tellis said the most useful US contribution towards preventing a Pakistani use of nuclear weapons in such a scenario and the Indian nuclear retribution that would result thereafter, would be to press Pakistan to exit the terrorism business or risk being left alone (or, even worse, the object of sanctions) if a major Indian military response ensues in the aftermath of any pernicious terrorist attack.

“Other than this, there is little that the United States can do to preserve deterrence stability between two asymmetrically-sized states where the gap in power promises to become even wider tomorrow than it is today,” he said. Both the experts, who are from the Carnegie, told members of the Senate sub-committee that Pakistan today has more nuclear weapons than that of India.

A Nobel Price For Peace (2 Chronicles 36)

Obama’s chilling Iran nuke lie

The Nobel Price For Peace

By Michael Goodwin

February 25, 2015 | 2:08am

Reports that President Obama agrees Iran should be free to make a nuclear bomb in about 10 years put the lie to his repeated vow never to allow an Iranian nuke. The broken promise is the international twin to his domestic whopper that you “can keep your doctor.”

You can’t, but Iran can keep its enriched uranium, making this lie an even bigger bombshell. As in, bombs away.

It is impossible to overstate the potential catastrophe of the emerging deal. If the terms reported by the Associated Press, the Wall Street Journal and others become final, it would mean the United States and leading UN powers give their blessing for the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism to have the ultimate weapon, effectively rewarding Iran for decades of criminal behavior and acts of war against America, Israel and others.

The deal also would launch a new round of nuclear proliferation among Arab states, with Saudi Arabia long promising to get a bomb if Iran does. Others fearful of Iran’s dominance are sure to follow, escalating the tit-for-tat patterns in the region into a nuclear nightmare.

In addition, an unbound Iranian nuclear industry and spreading enrichment technology make it likely that one or more of the Islamic terror groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, Boko Haram and Islamic State, is likely to get the bomb. And there is no doubt they would use it.

In short, the unfolding nuclear landscape presents the whole of mankind with unprecedented peril.

The terms of the developing agreement, as explained to reporters by negotiators, vindicates concerns that Obama would surrender to Iranian demands while claiming otherwise. He caved in with a deal that envisions a decade-long phase-out of restrictions, allowing Obama to say that there will be no bomb on his watch.

In reality, that is meaningless. The American stamp of approval for a nuclear Iran instantly reshapes geopolitical strategies.

Israel faces a new era of extreme risk, simultaneously in the cross hairs of a genocidal enemy and betrayed by its longest and closest ally. The betrayal continued even yesterday, with Secretary of State John Kerry blasting critics, presumably including Benjamin Netanyahu.

“Anyone running around right now, jumping to say we don’t like the deal, or this or that, doesn’t know what the deal is,” Kerry said in Senate testimony. “There is no deal yet.”

That’s only technically accurate because Obama and Kerry are keeping the details secret. The scam recalls how the White House hid the details of ObamaCare until the bill was passed; it’s what the FCC is doing with Internet regulations.

The timing is especially suspect, with the nuclear deal moving toward finality on the eve of Netanyahu’s planned speech to Congress next week. Iran recently said the US was “desperate” for an agreement, and the reasons are obvious. Getting Iran’s signature on a document, any document, before the visit would allow Obama to take the steam out of Netanyahu’s warning by spinning the settlement as the best possible and making it seem unstoppable.

It will be — unless Congress finds a spine. The White House says Obama does not plan to send the agreement to the Senate for ratification, arguing it falls outside the definition of a treaty.

That shouldn’t fly, given the stakes to us, Israel and our Arab allies. But that all depends on whether Democrats continue to put loyalty to Obama ahead of their duty to America’s national security.

Even a handful of Dems joining with majority Republicans would be enough to reject any terms that allow Iran to get a nuke. In doing so, those senators would be enforcing the refrain that no deal is better than a bad deal.

And make no mistake — Obama has produced a very bad deal. Bad for America, and bad for the world.