Preparing For Nuclear War With Russia

in Imperialism — by John Spritzler — October 25, 2016
The United States government has escalated the Cold War against Russia: demonizing Putin as the new Hitler, imposing sanctions on Russian leaders, implementing aggressive NATO military expansion to Russia’s border including installing an anti-ballistic missile “defense” that is actually a key component of an offensive nuclear strike, and threatening to impose a no-fly zone in Syria that would entail shooting down Russian aircraft. Many people have been warning that this American escalation of hostility against Russia alarmingly increases the likelihood of a U.S. war with Russia that would become a thermonuclear WWIII.
Others say that the risk of thermonuclear war is not really anything to worry about because both U.S. and Russian leaders know that a nuclear war would result in Mutual Assured Destruction (M.A.D.)–the annihilation of both nations (not to mention possibly the end of the human race)–and therefore they won’t let nuclear war break out (i.e., “Move along, nothing to see here.”)
Some Russia experts living in the United States, in contrast, have warned [ ] that Russia has the nuclear capability of killing virtually the entire American population and that:
“If there is going to be a war with Russia, then the United States will most certainly be destroyed, and most of us will end up dead.”
Russia’s nuclear retaliatory ability is described in “How Russia is preparing for WWIII” [ ], in which the author writes of one Russian missile:
“Take the Kalibr cruise-missile recently seen in the war in Syria. Did you know that it can be shot from a typical commerical container, like the ones you will find on trucks, trains or ships? Check out this excellent video [ at ] which explains this.
“Just remember that the Kalibr has a range of anywhere between 50km to 4000km and that it can carry a nuclear warhead. How hard would it be for Russia to deploy these cruise missiles right off the US coast in regular container ships? Or just keep a few containers in Cuba or Venezuela? This is a system which is so undetectable that the Russians could deploy it off the coast of Australia to hit the NSA station in Alice Springs if they wanted, and nobody would even see it coming.
How, then, can one explain presumably rational (even if evil) people such as President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton engaging in warmongering against Russia that has no actual justification in International Law, when this warmongering might very well lead to thermonuclear war with Russia?
I think I know the explanation. It is provided by the following two articles, each of which is by the same two co-authors.
In 2006 Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations (whose honorary chairman is David Rockefeller) had an article titled “The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy” by Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press [ ]. The authors subsequently defended and elaborated on their 2006 article in a 2013 article in Strategic Studies Quarterly [ ] titled, “The New Era of Nuclear Weapons, Deterrence, and Conflict.” Because it is more recent, I’ll quote only from the 2013 article. The authors write:
“First, technological innovation has dramatically improved the ability of states to launch “counterforce” attacks—that is, military strikes aimed at disarming an adversary by destroying its nuclear weapons.
“Perhaps most surprising, pairing highly accurate delivery systems with nuclear weapons permits target strategies that would create virtually no radioactive fallout, hence, vastly reduced fatalities. For nuclear analysts weaned on two seeming truths of the Cold War era—that nuclear arsenals reliably deter attacks via the threat of retaliation, and that nuclear weapons use is tantamount to mass slaughter—the implications of the counterforce revolution should be jarring.
Most Cold War strategists—many of whom are still active in the nuclear analytical community today—came to instinctively associate nuclear weapons with stalemate and nuclear use with Armageddon. But nuclear weapons—like virtually all other weapons—have changed dramatically over the past four decades. Modern guidance systems permit nuclear planners to achieve “probabilities of damage” against hardened nuclear targets that were unheard of during the Cold War. And heightened accuracy also permits nontraditional targeting strategies that would further increase the effectiveness of counterforce strikes and greatly reduce casualties.”
Clearly the Russia experts cited above strongly disagree with the authors of the Foreign Affairs and Strategic Studies Quarterly articles. I do not claim to know who is right.
But what I believe is not nearly as important as what the American ruling class and its agents, President Obama and Secretary of State [and likely soon-to-be President] Clinton believe. They apparently believe that the Foreign Affairs and Strategic Studies Quarterly articles are essentially correct–that a U.S. nuclear first strike against Russia will not lead to the mass slaughter of Americans (or even of Russians) since “technological innovation” now allows the U.S. to “accurately” destroy (remember Donald Rumsfeld’s “surgical strikes” in Iraq?) Russia’s nuclear weapons with “virtually no radioactive fallout” and “vastly reduced fatalities.”
This is why it is not unreasonable or far-fetched to worry that the American ruling class is deliberately aiming to get into a WWIII with Russia (and possibly its ally, China.)
But what is the U.S. ruling class trying to achieve?
One of the main U.S. foreign policy strategists is Zbigniew Brzezinski. David Rockefeller made Brzezinski the Executive Director of the Trilateral Commission, which is the sister to the Council on Foreign Relations for the U.S., Europe and Japan, when the two of them co-founded it in 1973. In his 2016 article, “Toward a Global Realignment,” [ ] Brzezinski says:
“Russia’s own future depends on its ability to become a major and influential nation-state that is part of a unifying Europe.”
About Europe, Brzezinski says in the same article:
“The fourth verity is that Europe is not now and is not likely to become a global power. But it can play a constructive role in taking the lead in regard to transnational threats to global wellbeing and even human survival. Additionally, Europe is politically and culturally aligned with and supportive of core U.S. interests in the Middle East, and European steadfastness within NATO is essential to an eventually constructive resolution of the Russia-Ukraine crisis.”
In other words, in the new world order Europe shall remain under the economic and political hegemony of the United States ruling class, and Russia shall be a part of Europe. And since the Russian leaders today are not cooperating with this “Global Realignment” then some military force is called for; hence the warmongering.
I believe there is an even deeper reason for U.S. warmongering. The ruling elites of the world (people such as the Rockefellers and their ilk) know that a world at war is one that makes it possible for them to control people and make people accept inequality and oppression (such as being taxed to enrich the owners of the companies that sell military weapons to governments, of which the Rockefellers are top on the list) that they would otherwise not tolerate. “You must obey your leaders in this time of war when we must all unite against the foreign enemy” is a time-proven way to enforce obedience. The bogeyman enemy changes over the decades, but the need for an enemy and a war mentality is constant. If there is no handy enemy, then one must be invented, as discussed by Dave Stratman in his “Inventing the Enemy” at .
There is, thus, always a need (by the ruling elite) for an enemy and a war or credible threat of war. This is the primary strategy of social control–how the haves control the have-nots. This is why international bankers such as the Rockefellers have often funded both sides of past wars (including WWII, by the way, as discussed at and ): they didn’t care so much which side won the war; they simply needed there to be a war. The merely secondary strategic question is, “Who shall the enemy be?” and “What can we gain by winning a war against it?” It is these secondary questions that people such as Zbigniew Brzezinski address.
As long as the haves are in control, and not the have-nots, we’re going to have wars. I only hope the next war doesn’t kill us all before we remove the ruling plutocracy from power! Ideas about how we can remove the rich from power are at .
John Spritzler, editor of 

Russia is prepared to wipe out Babylon

Vladimir Putin’s nuclear weapons ‘could WIPE OUT all of America’s east coast in ONE SWIPE’

VLADIMIR Putin’s nuclear stockpile could completely destroy the east coast of the US in one clean swipe should the Russian leader launch an attack on the West, an expert has warned.
A staggering 112.6million people could be at risk of extermination from the deadly missiles.
Russia has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons

Experts estimate Russia has 55 of the deadly weapons, but only five would be needed to destroy the East Coast of the US.The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki would look like “popguns” in comparison to the demolition the Satan missiles could inflict.

Dr Paul Craig Roberts, who served under Ronald Reagan administration, claimed the bombs would “wipe out three quarters of New York state for thousands of years”.

The Satan bomb are said to be capable of carrying up to 20,000 kilotons of nuclear material – making it one thousand times more powerful than the Nagasaki warhead.A direct hit on New York would kill 4.5million people, injuring 3.6million and would spread radioactive material more than 600 miles away.

The devastating machinery will also allow for 10 smaller weapons, weighing around 550 kilotons, to be dropped across a much wider area and, making it almost impossible to intercept.
Tensions have escalated between the two nations
The atomic bombs that Washington dropped on these helpless civilian centres while the Japanese government was trying to surrender, were mere popguns compared to today’s thermo-nuclear weapons
Dr Paul Craig Roberts
Dr Roberts said: “The atomic bombs that Washington dropped on these helpless civilian centres while the Japanese government was trying to surrender, were mere popguns compared to today’s thermo-nuclear weapons.“One Russian SS-18 wipes out three-quarters of New York state for thousands of years.

“Five or six of these ‘Satans’ as they are known by the US military, and the East Coast of the United States disappears.”

The Ironic Nuclear Deal (Ezekiel 17)

Al Arabiya
Tuesday, 25 October 2016
US Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif have won an international diplomatic prize for their part in a historic agreement on Iran’s nuclear program, organizers announced Monday.
The two officials, who negotiated the deal face-to-face and together with counterparts from the P5+1 powers (the United States, China, Russia, France, Britain and Germany) between 2013 and 2015, won the Chatham House Prize “in recognition of their crucial roles” to resolve “one of the most intractable diplomatic stand-offs in international affairs in the 21st century,” Britain’s Chatham House think-tank said in a statement.
The agreement – aimed at stopping Iran from using its civilian nuclear industry to develop a nuclear weapon in exchange for the lifting of sanctions against Tehran – was signed in July 2015 and implemented in January. The deal that “many thought impossible” sealed “a victory for diplomacy as well as against nuclear proliferation,” the prestigious London research center said.
In Washington, the State Department – which does not maintain full diplomatic relations with Tehran’s Foreign Ministry – said Kerry was “grateful for being selected for this prize,” stressing that the deal was “a team effort internationally, with the other members of the P5+1, as well as the European Union.”
After the deal’s signing, rumors circulated about a possible Nobel Peace Prize for the P5+1 group or Kerry and Zarif last year. The major diplomatic breakthrough helped initiate a tentative thaw in relations between the United States and Iran.
Recent Chatham House Prize recipients include former US secretary of state and current presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Burmese leader Aung San Suu Kyi and the aid organization Doctors Without Borders.
Last Update: Tuesday, 25 October 2016 KSA 09:08 – GMT 06:08

The India-Pakistan Nuclear War Draws Closer

ISLAMABAD: Two children and another civilian were killed along with a soldier in firing across the border between India and Pakistan, officials from both sides said on Monday (Oct 24), as tensions soar between the nuclear-armed rivals.
“Due to Indian unprovoked firing last night a civilian, Muhammad Latif of village Janglora, and a minor Haniya, age one and a half, embraced shahadat (martyrdom) while seven civilians were injured,” a military statement said.
The firing took place across the border between Indian-held Kashmir and Pakistan’s Punjab province in the villages of Harpal, Pukhlian and Charwah, the statement said.
Indian police said the late night heavy exchange of firing occurred in its RS Pura sector, killing an Indian border security guard and a six-year-old boy.
The Border Security Force (BSF) soldier died after he received splinters from a mortar shell fired by Pakistan rangers, Danish Rana, inspector general of police for the area, told AFP.
“The boy and the BSF soldier died during the intense exchange of small arms fire and mortars throughout the night along the border,” Rana said.
Six other civilians were also injured during the exchange, said another Indian police officer speaking on condition of anonymity.
Relations between the two countries have plummeted in recent months, with India blaming Pakistani militants for a raid on an army base in its part of disputed Kashmir in September that killed 19 soldiers.
India later said it launched “surgical strikes” across the border in Pakistan on militant targets, prompting fury from Pakistan which denied the raids took place.
Pakistani military said late Monday a strong protest was lodged with the United Nations Military Observers for India and Pakistan over the Indian firing.
Indian and Pakistani troops regularly exchange fire across their de-facto border in Kashmir, but rarely send ground troops over the line.
The overnight incident comes days after Indian border security forces said they shot dead seven Pakistani soldiers in retaliation for a ceasefire violation, with Pakistan refuting the claims.
Muslim-majority Kashmir has been divided between India and Pakistan, but claimed in full by both, since the two countries gained independence from Britain in 1947.
Since 1989 several rebel groups have been fighting Indian forces deployed in the region, seeking independence or a merger of the territory with Pakistan.

Messianic Apocalypse Is Now The Antichrist’s

The Economist
But the defeat of the jihadist group in the real world might revive realism among Sunnis
THE fate of a small rural town in northern Syria might seem inconsequential when faced with a multinational assault on the group’s main stronghold, Mosul. But few places were more central to the image of Islamic State (IS). The jihadists lauded Dabiq as the locus, as cited in an obscure Hadith, or saying of the Prophet Muhammad, of the battle of the end of days; in their vision it would host an apocalyptic showdown between the self-styled caliphate’s faithful and Western crusaders. It named its glossy English-language e-zine after the town, and beheaded its victims, like Peter Kassig, an American aid worker, in its foothills. As the day of reckoning approached, observers reported that IS had fortified Dabiq with 1,200 fighters.
In the end, IS went with barely a whimper (see map). The jihadists folded before the advance of Turkish-backed rivals after just a day’s battle. IS’s caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, had foretold of the capitulation in a dream, explained apologists. IS’s propagandists even pre-empted the fall with the launch of a new English title, Rumiya, deferring the end-of-days battle until IS reaches Rome.
IS’s eschatology—the theology of death, judgement and the ending of the world—has always been flexible. Experts see it more as a recruitment tool than a tenet of faith. “Opportunistic apocalypticism,” is how one French scholar, Jean-Pierre Filiu, has called it. Mr Baghdadi seemed more interested in state-building than doomsday. He called himself “caliph”, an earthly ruler, rather than a mythological mahdi, or messiah. But theological hype helped whip up impressionable Muslims abroad, like Mohammed Emwazi, a London dropout who executed Mr Kassig and others. “Apocalyptic motifs helped recruit people unfamiliar with the tradition. Europeans fit into that category,” says David Cook, an American professor and author of “Apocalyptic Islam”. In the words of Ibn Khaldoun, classical Islam’s greatest and most cynical historian, “The Arabs obtain power only by relying on a religious movement.”
Traditionally, Sunni Islam—Islam’s dominant sect—sought to prop up the world order. The notion of upending it was more a Shia belief, offering Islam’s suppressed and historically battered minority a hope of final redemption. At the appointed hour, their 12th imam, who disappeared in 941 to avoid the persecution Sunni despots had inflicted on his 11 predecessors, would return as al-mahdi al-muntadhar, “the awaited saviour”, and vanquish the Shias’ Sunni oppressors.
But over the past century Sunnis have come to see the world differently. Western armies upturned the old order of Islam’s Iraqi heartland, replacing Sunni masters (a minority) with non-Sunni ones (the Shia majority). Sunni confidence has turned to despair.
Jihadists like al-Qaeda had scant time for the apocalyptic, but as successive waves of jihad floundered and the Sunni lot worsened, some Sunnis adopted some of Shia Islam’s more fantastical thinking. “Millennial traits were always there in Sunni Islam but undeveloped in any great detail,” says Robert Gleave, of Exeter University. After America killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaeda’s leader in Iraq, in 2006, and put his jihadists to rout, a despondent remnant unearthed references buried in canonical compilations of Muhammad’s sayings. They unearthed alamat al-saa, or signs of the hour, including the race to construct sky-high buildings, the rising of the sun in the west and an army brandishing black banners in the east—all signs that Zarqawi’s devotees claimed to discern. Accompanying the mahdi, Jesus would return, they claimed, bearing a bloody lance.
By contrast, as Iraq’s Shias grew accustomed to power, their own apocalyptic impulse waned. “When we suffered we prayed for the imam”, says a taxi-driver from Baghdad’s teeming Shia shantytown, Sadr City. “Now that victory is here, we’ve forgotten him.” In Iran, laymen and low-level clerics have still found the notion of apocalypse useful in challenging establishment clerics. When challenged by ayatollahs, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Islamic Republic ex-president, and only layman to have held the job, would convene his cabinet in Jamkaran, one of the bling-emblazoned sites where the 12th imam is expected to return. But on the whole, Shias have tempered their talk of extra-worldly deliverance. Even Muqtada al-Sadr, a lowly but firebrand Iraqi cleric, rebranded his Mahdi Army as the Brigades of Peace.
Now that Dabiq has failed to deliver, might jihadists abort their more nihilistic ideas? Precedent suggests that, for some, failure will only redouble their flights of fancy. But from the pavements of Cairo to Karbala, Mr Cook detects a decline in apocalyptic publications. Under tighter surveillance, the more hysterical might have gone underground or found a home on the deep web. But many Sunni Iraqis are as appalled by IS’s horror movies as anyone else. Preachers in Baghdad say a new realism is taking hold. Better, perhaps, that the appointed hour waits.