The Prophecy is much more than seeing into the future. For the Prophecy sees without the element of time. For the Prophecy sees what is, what was, and what always shall be. 11:11 LLC
How vulnerable are NYC’s underwater subway tunnels to flooding?Ashley Fetters New York City is full of peculiar phenomena—rickety fire escapes; 100-year-old subway tunnels; air conditioners propped perilously into window frames—that can strike fear into the heart of even the toughest city denizen. But should they? Every month, writer Ashley Fetters will be exploring—and debunking—these New York-specific fears, letting you know what you should actually worry about, and what anxieties you can simply let slip away. The 25-minute subway commute from Crown Heights to the Financial District on the 2/3 line is, in my experience, a surprisingly peaceful start to the workday—save for one 3,100-foot stretch between the Clark Street and Wall Street stations, where for three minutes I sit wondering what the probability is that I will soon die a torturous, claustrophobic drowning death right here in this subway car. The Clark Street Tunnel, opened in 1916, is one of approximately a dozen tunnels that escort MTA passengers from one borough to the next underwater—and just about all of them, with the exception of the 1989 addition of the 63rd Street F train tunnel, were constructed between 1900 and 1936. Each day, thousands of New Yorkers venture across the East River and back again through these tubes buried deep in the riverbed, some of which are nearing or even past their 100th birthdays. Are they wrong to ponder their own mortality while picturing one of these watery catacombs suddenly springing a leak? Mostly yes, they are, says Michael Horodniceanu, the former president of MTA Capital Construction and current principal of Urban Advisory Group. First, it’s important to remember that the subway tunnel is built under the riverbed, not just in the river—so what immediately surrounds the tunnel isn’t water but some 25 feet of soil. “There’s a lot of dirt on top of it,” Horodniceanu says. “It’s well into the bed of the bottom of the channel.” And second, as Angus Kress Gillespie, author of Crossing Under the Hudson: The Story of the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels, points out, New York’s underwater subway tunnels are designed to withstand some leaking. And withstand it they do: Pumps placed below the floor of the tunnel, he says, are always running, always diverting water seepage into the sewers. (Horodniceanu says the amount of water these pumps divert into the sewer system each day numbers in the thousands of gallons.) Additionally, MTA crews routinely repair the grouting and caulking, and often inject a substance into the walls that creates a waterproof membrane outside the tunnel—which keeps water out of the tunnel and relieves any water pressure acting on its walls. New tunnels, Horodniceanu points out, are even built with an outside waterproofing membrane that works like an umbrella: Water goes around it, it falls to the sides, and then it gets channeled into a pumping station and pumped out. Of course, the classic New York nightmare scenario isn’t just a cute little trickle finding its way in. The anxiety daydream usually involves something sinister, or seismic. The good news, however, is that while an earthquake or explosion would indeed be bad for many reasons, it likely wouldn’t result in the frantic flooding horror scene that plays out in some commuters’ imaginations. The Montague Tube, which sustained severe damage during Hurricane Sandy. MTA New York City Transit / Marc A. Hermann Horodniceanu assures me that tunnels built more recently are “built to withstand a seismic event.” The older tunnels, however—like, um, the Clark Street Tunnel—“were not seismically retrofitted, let me put it that way,” Horodniceanu says. “But the way they were built is in such a way that I do not believe an earthquake would affect them.” They aren’t deep enough in the ground, anyway, he says, to be too intensely affected by a seismic event. (The MTA did not respond to a request for comment.) One of the only real threats to tunnel infrastructure, Horodniceanu adds, is extreme weather. Hurricane Sandy, for example, caused flooding in the tunnels, which “created problems with the infrastructure.” He continues, “The tunnels have to be rebuilt as a result of saltwater corroding the infrastructure.” Still, he points out, hurricanes don’t exactly happen with no warning. So while Hurricane Sandy did cause major trauma to the tunnels, train traffic could be stopped with ample time to keep passengers out of harm’s way. In 2012, Governor Andrew Cuomo directed all the MTA’s mass transit services to shut down at 7 p.m. the night before Hurricane Sandy was expected to hit New York City. And Gillespie, for his part, doubts even an explosion would result in sudden, dangerous flooding. A subway tunnel is not a closed system, he points out; it’s like a pipe that’s open at both ends. “The force of a blast would go forwards and backwards out the exit,” he says. So the subway-train version of that terrifying Holland Tunnel flood scene in Sylvester Stallone’s Daylight is … unrealistic, right? “Yeah,” Gillespie laughs. “Yeah. It is.” Got a weird New York anxiety that you want explored? E-mail tips@curbed.com, and we may include it in a future column.
With tensions high across the disputed region of Kashmir, Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States has warned of a serious threat of escalation 75 years after his nation’s first war with India, and this includes the looming possibility that the two rivals could turn to their strategic arsenals should a fight erupt.
“That risk is always there,” Ambassador Masood Khan told Newsweek. “Pakistan and India are nuclear weapons states and the situation in the Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir is very, very turbulent.”
Khan’s comments coincided with the so-called “Black Day” observed by many Kashmiris and others across the globe in support of their separatist cause. The date harks back to October 27, 1947, two months after the United Kingdom’s partition of India and Pakistan when troops of a newly independent India arrived in the Kashmiri capital of Srinagar to aid Hindu Maharaja Hari Singh as he faced an armed Muslim revolt in the midst of attempted neutrality between the two newly independent states.
Students hold placards as they march to mark “Black Day” commemorating the arrival of the Indian army into now-India-administered Jammu and Kashmir in 1947, during a protest in Lahore, Pakistan, on October 27. Arif Ali/AFP/Getty Images
The conflict led to the first Indo-Pakistani war, but it would not prove the last. The two nations fought three more major conflicts with even more frequent clashes occurring across the Line of Control dividing them in Kashmir.
While ties between Islamabad and New Delhi have fluctuated over the years, they’ve been particularly strained since Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi dissolved India-administered Jammu and Kashmir’s semi-autonomous status in August of 2019 and ordered a crackdown to stem a three-decade insurgency he has widely blamed on Pakistan.
Now, Khan said the situation “is deteriorating” as he accused India of orchestrating population transfers to settle Hindus into the majority-Muslim region and of committing an array of human rights violations.
But even as the situation approached a critical point, he appealed for both bilateral and international mediation to improve ties with New Delhi and avoid further escalation.
“It is the responsibility of the two countries to come to a peace table to resolve outstanding issues,” Khan said. “But the risk is that right now there is no diplomatic contact between India and Pakistan at all, no diplomatic conduit. This is perilous.”
“The two sides should be communicating and talking,” he added, “especially because of the precarious situation in the Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir.”
As demonstrations arose in Pakistan on Thursday, India celebrated the day as a victory. Indian troops held a ceremony featuring jet fighters and a reenactment of their landing in Srinagar three-quarters of a century ago.
Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh praised the legacy of the operation as well as Modi’s 2019 repeal of Article 370, which ensured Jammu and Kashmir’s special status, saying the territory had now entered “a new era of peace and progress.”
Violence was never too far away, however, amid fresh unrest that same day in which police in India-administered Jammu and Kashmir said a militant was killed in Kulgam district. Another, said to be a member of the Lashkar-e-Taiba Islamist militant group, was captured alive a day earlier after clashes during a counterterrorism operation in Baramulla district that left one Indian soldier dead and a search for a Pakistani national, according to local law enforcement.
The latest strife came just a day before the two-day Special Meeting of the United NationsSecurity Council Counter-Terrorism Committee was set to be held in Mumbai on Friday.
In his remarks, Singh also argued that Pakistan was “fully responsible for inhuman incidents against innocent Indians” in Pakistan-administered Azad Kashmir and “will face the result of its atrocities.”
“Today, the region of J&K and Ladakh is touching new heights of development,” he added. “This is just the beginning. Our aim is to implement the resolution unanimously passed in Indian Parliament on February 22, 1994 to reclaim remaining parts, such as Gilgit and Baltistan.”
The two regions are located on Pakistan’s side of the Line of Control. And as Indian officials, such as External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, continued to lodge accusations that Pakistan was supporting militant groups, Khan rejected this narrative and portrayed the conflict as one of an unarmed people facing one of the world’s strongest militaries.
He accused India of having “hubris” due to “its great power status” through which India assumes “it would get away with whatever it is doing in Kashmir.”
“But this may not be true at all in the long run, as this might affect the general dynamics of Indian polity as well,” he added. “I mean, if you’re imposing injustice in the occupied territory that pattern can travel to other parts of India. That pattern had manifested in the form persecution of Muslims and other minorities in India itself.”
With the relationship between Islamabad and New Delhi virtually frozen, Khan argued that the two governments should work to find a venue to outline and resolve their issues once and for all.
“We in Pakistan, the people of Jammu and Kashmir, believe in diplomacy,” Khan said. “We think that the right vehicles are the United Nations or we should have peace tables in Srinagar or Muzaffarabad, the capitals of India-occupied Jammu and Kashmir and Azad Kashmir, or Delhi or Islamabad or a third country.”
Indian Border Security Force (BSF) commandant Jasbir Singh (L) presents sweets to Pakistan’s Rangers wing commander Aamir (2R) on the occasion of the Hindu festival of Diwali at the India-Pakistan Wagah border post, about 20 miles from Amritsar on October 24. Though longstanding rivals with a bloody history, the nations have managed to come together over the years, both for annual ceremonies along their border and in formal talks, though diplomacy is currently frozen. NARINDER NANU/AFP/Getty Images
Such an effort at the U.N., he said, may finally lead to a breakthrough on the territory’s status, which remains unofficially disputed in the eyes of the international body, even as India reserved the right to govern its side of the Line of Control the way it saw fit.
“If it is their territory, as they claim, then go to the United Nations hold a referendum and the people of Jammu and Kashmir will decide whose territory it is. And if the people decide in their favor, then they can impose their writ,” Khan said. “But if the people of Jammu and Kashmir make an alternative choice, that they would rather join Pakistan, then India should respect that verdict.”
But Khan also acknowledged what he saw as a lack of international focus on the issue, given the multitude of crises plaguing the geopolitical climate.
“The international community’s bandwidth about Jammu and Kashmir has shrunk because of many other factors,” Khan said, “such as the Ukraine war, and also many other international developments.”
“So, nobody’s talking, for instance, in the United Nations or around the United Nations about the resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute or the right to self-determination of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, which was promised to them by the United Nations Security Council,” he added. “We must revive multilateral diplomacy to ascertain the wishes of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.”
Even the latent nuclear threat posed by tensions between two rivals who have been known to go to war—the only two nuclear powers to have openly done so, albeit through conventional arms—has been overshadowed by the rhetoric on weapons of mass destruction being put forth by far more powerful nations.
As Russian President Vladimir Putin warned he would use nuclear weapons to defend his nation’s territory amid perceived threats by Western powers backing Ukraine, President Joe Biden has repeatedly warned his counterpart in the Kremlin that the United States would take action.
“Nuclear weapons are developed for deterrence, you deter your adversaries and enemies from attacking you, you secure yourself,” Khan said. “But when you’re talking about the use of nuclear weapons, you have to demonstrate the utmost responsibility and restraint. Rhetoric about use of nuclear weapons comes cheap, but its consequences are disastrous, catastrophic.”
In fact, Khan warned, “even if a small weapon, hypothetically speaking, was used in any theater, that would lead to a nuclear winter.”
“Just one part of the world will not be affected; it will be the entire globe,” he said. “And it would have a detrimental impact on climate change, food security or there would be a nuclear winter, but it would impact people’s health adversely.”
Indian army soldiers take part in a 75th-anniversary function reenacting the 1947 landings of Indian troops in Srinagar, at Budgam airfield in Srinagar on October 27. The date, mourned among many Kashmir separatists and Pakistanis, is celebrated in India as a victory. TAUSEEF MUSTAFA/Getty Images
Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal recently became the subject of controversy between Washington and Islamabad when Biden referred to Pakistan as “maybe one of the most dangerous countries in the world” because it had “nuclear weapons without any cohesion” during a reception with Democratic senators.
Though White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre dismissed the ensuing fallout by saying Biden’s words were “nothing new” for the U.S. leader’s position, the State Department contradicted the president’s remarks, saying “the United States is confident of Pakistan’s commitment and its ability to secure its nuclear assets.”
The Pakistani Foreign Ministry, for its part, fired back at the time, expressing its “disappointment and concern” over “the unwarranted remarks, which were not based on ground reality or facts.” The statement defended Pakistan as “a responsible nuclear state” with an “impeccable stewardship of the nuclear program and adherence to global standards and international best practices” as acknowledged by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
“The real threat to international peace and security was posed by violation of global norms by some states, repeated nuclear security incidents without any accountability, and arms race between leading nuclear weapon states and introduction of new security constructs that disturb regional balance,” the statement said.
“It was essential to maintain the positive trajectory of Pakistan-US relations and the close cooperation between the two sides to build regional and global peace,” it added.
Khan echoed the need for stronger ties between the two nations, who have a long history of partnership, both through the Cold War and the “War on Terror.” And he said it was important to define these relations beyond simply the scope of regional issues such as the rivalry with India.
And when it comes to the potentially devastating effects of weapons of mass destruction, he said “one has to be very responsible, particularly the big nuclear weapon states because their pronouncements are monitored very, very closely.”
“And therefore, they should act as a role model for other nuclear weapon states or non-nuclear weapon states,” he added. “So I would say demonstration of restraint and responsibility is of utmost importance.”
Newsweek has contacted the Indian Embassy in Washington, D.C., for comment.
The Biden Administration unveiled a new defense strategy Thursday that puts the U.S. military on a Cold War-footing with China and Russia, detailing a plan to confront two nuclear peer adversaries for the first time in history with a multi-year build-up of modernized weaponry, enhanced foreign alliances and a top-to bottom overhaul of the American nuclear arsenal.
The 80-page document serves as the Administration’s roadmap for global security for the decades to come, and makes clear the U.S. faces two powerful but very different competitors. It characterizes China as a long-term “pacing challenge” with its growing power projection in the Pacific region, while deeming Russia to be an immediate “acute threat” amid its ongoing war with Ukraine and continual threats to launch a nuclear strike.
“We chose the word ‘acute,’ carefully,” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told reporters at the Pentagon. “Unlike China, Russia can’t systemically challenge the United States over the long-term, but Russian aggression does pose an immediate and sharp threat to our interests and values.” In recent weeks, Russian missile strikes on civilian targets in Ukraine and unfounded claims of a pending “dirty bomb” detonation have sparked fears the world is inching ever closer to the brink of nuclear war. The Administration has deep concerns about the conflict escalating, Austin said, but remains committed to continuing to support Ukraine with weapons and the means to defend itself.
“It would be the first time that a nuclear weapon has been used in over 70 years, so that certainly has a potential of changing things in the international community,” Austin said. “We’re going to continue to communicate that any type of use of a weapon of that sort, or even the talk of the use of a weapon of that sort, is dangerous and irresponsible.”
China, meanwhile, is depicted in the strategy document as the “most consequential strategic competitor for the coming decades.” The U.S. says Beijing is actively seeking to weaken U.S. alliances with Asian partners, building up its military and nuclear forces and threatening invasion of the U.S.-allied island of Taiwan. China “is the only competitor out there with both the intent to reshape the international order, and increasingly the power to do so,” Austin said.
The Administration has determined that Beijing is planning a threefold increase in nuclear warheads to 1,000 by 2030, while simultaneously constructing hundreds of new silos capable of launching long-range ballistic missiles, potentially targeting the U.S. and its far-flung nuclear forces. While the U.S. has more than 10 to 1 advantage over China in the number of nuclear warheads and the weapons to deliver them, the Pentagon sees a need to prepare for the decades ahead. The Chinese nuclear build-up is an unprecedented challenge for the military, which since the end of World War II has only had to focus on deterring one near-peer adversary—formerly the Soviet Union, now Russia—from launching a nuclear attack.
“I do not want to suggest that this is a solved or closed problem and that we now have the answers,” a senior defense official, who wasn’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter, told reporters. “This is new territory for us… How do you successfully fight one adversary, while having enough reserve to hold the other bay? And just the second part of that cannot be a solution where if China has 1,000 (nuclear warheads) and Russia has 1,000, that we need 2,000, because that is an arms race that nobody should want to be in.”
The strategy laid out by Austin largely breaks from President Joe Biden’s campaign pledge to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. strategy. There are a few nods in the direction of disarmament, including directives to stop developing a nuclear-armed sea launched cruise missiles, retire the largest gravity bomb, the B83, in the U.S. arsenal, and eliminate the declared policy to hold onto nuclear weapons as a “hedge against an uncertain future.” But there is no drastic change that non-proliferation experts were hoping for.
“It largely continues the nuclear deterrence strategy and posture, including capability added in the Trump Administration. It is unclear how it reduces the role of nuclear weapons as the President directed,” says Leonor Tomero, who served as Biden’s Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for nuclear and missile defense before leaving in October 2021. “There is an urgent need to reduce the risk of nuclear war, especially at a time when nuclear tensions are higher than they have been for years.”
The risks of miscalculation and of unintended rapid escalation could lead to nuclear weapons use, Tomero says. “These new threats require clear solutions and practical steps to adapt and strengthen deterrence to reduce these risks,” she says.
Right now, the U.S. and Russia are limited on the number of strategic warheads and delivery systems until February 2026 under a bilateral treaty known as New START. China, however, is not part of that agreement and has shown no signs of wanting to rein in their nuclear weapons programs, which raises questions about whether continued nuclear arms reductions by other countries will be possible.
“There are repeated references to adjusting U.S. posture in the future, which tees-up a future Administration to increase the size of the arsenal or resume nuclear testing,” says Jeffrey Lewis, an analyst with the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of Strategic Studies.
The advancement of non-nuclear weapons systems, such as hypersonic missiles, as well as space-based and cyber capabilities are also concerning to the administration. The strategy calls for “building enduring advantages,” involving investments in the Defense Department’s workforce, improvements in weapons-buying processes and preparing for climate change. Other challenges discussed in the document emanate from Iran and North Korea, and “violent extremist organizations,” which is military jargon for terrorist groups.
The Biden team’s focus on Moscow and Beijing is consistent with the U.S. national security complex’s desire to pivot from the morass of violence and counter-terrorism operations in the Middle East and engage in Great Power competition. Each Administration is mandated by Congress to issue a new national defense strategy every four years, and two versions are drawn up: one secret, one public. The document released Oct. 27 marked the first time the strategy also included the so-called Nuclear Posture Review and Missile Defense Review, which shape funding allocations for the coming years. “By weaving these documents together,” Austin said, “we help ensure that the entire department is moving forward together and matching our resources to our goals.”
Mohammed Shia al-Sudani speaks during the parliamentary session to vote on the new government in Baghdad on Thursday [Iraqi Parliament Media Office via AP]
Iraq’s parliament approves new government
After more than a year of political deadlock, Iraq will be ushering in a new government led by Mohammed Shia al-Sudani.
Iraqi lawmakers approved a new cabinet after a year-long crisis triggered by contested elections.
Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, 52, who previously served as Iraq’s human rights minister as well as minister of labour and social affairs, will head the new government.
“The government of Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani has obtained the confidence of the National Assembly,” his office said in a statement after the vote on Thursday.
A majority of the 253 lawmakers present voted to appoint 21 ministers with two posts — the construction and housing ministry and the environment ministry — remaining undecided. Despite those two unresolved appointments, the approved cabinet lineup constitutes a quorum.
Al-Sudani was chosen earlier this month to form a new government following months of infighting between key factions that paralysed political life for months.
The movement of firebrand cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, al-Sudani’s rival in Iraq’s majority Shia camp, refused to join the government.
“Our ministerial team will shoulder the responsibility at this critical period, in which the world is witnessing tremendous political and economic changes and conflicts,” the statement said.
Those changes will “add new challenges to our country, which is already suffering from accumulated crises that have had economic, social, humanitarian and environmental impacts on our citizens”, it added.
Al-Sudani, nominated on October 13, had the backing of the Coalition for the Administration of the State, which includes the Coordination Framework, an alliance of powerful pro-Iran Shia factions that hold 138 out of 329 seats in parliament.
Other members include a Sunni grouping led by Parliament Speaker Mohammed al-Halbousi and two key Kurdish parties.
Under a power-sharing system adopted in Iraq in the aftermath of the 2003 United States-led invasion, cabinet posts are shared between Iraq’s ethnic communities.
Iraq held early elections more than a year ago as a result of mass anti-government protests that began in October 2019 in Baghdad and across southern Iraq calling for the overhaul of the political system.
Following the election, which gave a plurality to the alliance led by al-Sadr, political infighting delayed the forming of a government for more than a year, driven largely by a rivalry between al-Sadr and Iran-backed former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
The Biden Administration unveiled a new defense strategy Thursday that puts the U.S. military on a Cold War-footing with China and Russia, detailing a plan to confront two nuclear peer adversaries for the first time in history with a multi-year build-up of modernized weaponry, enhanced foreign alliances and a top-to bottom overhaul of the American nuclear arsenal.
The 80-page document serves as the Administration’s roadmap for global security for the decades to come, and makes clear the U.S. faces two powerful but very different competitors. It characterizes China as a long-term “pacing challenge” with its growing power projection in the Pacific region, while deeming Russia to be an immediate “acute threat” amid its ongoing war with Ukraine and continual threats to launch a nuclear strike.
“We chose the word ‘acute,’ carefully,” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told reporters at the Pentagon. “Unlike China, Russia can’t systemically challenge the United States over the long-term, but Russian aggression does pose an immediate and sharp threat to our interests and values.” In recent weeks, Russian missile strikes on civilian targets in Ukraine and unfounded claims of a pending “dirty bomb” detonation have sparked fears the world is inching ever closer to the brink of nuclear war. The Administration has deep concerns about the conflict escalating, Austin said, but remains committed to continuing to support Ukraine with weapons and the means to defend itself.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly discussed the possible use of nuclear weapons in the eight-month-old war and this week observed nuclear drills, called Grom or “Thunder” exercises, involving Russian submarines, bombers and ballistic missile launches inside Russia. Austin shot-down speculation that the war games were subterfuge for a real nuclear attack, saying U.S. intelligence had not observed any indication that such preparations were taking place. He added that senior Russian officials had privately said there are no plans to use a nuclear device in Ukraine, but the U.S. remained cautious.
“It would be the first time that a nuclear weapon has been used in over 70 years, so that certainly has a potential of changing things in the international community,” Austin said. “We’re going to continue to communicate that any type of use of a weapon of that sort, or even the talk of the use of a weapon of that sort, is dangerous and irresponsible.”
China, meanwhile, is depicted in the strategy document as the “most consequential strategic competitor for the coming decades.” The U.S. says Beijing is actively seeking to weaken U.S. alliances with Asian partners, building up its military and nuclear forces and threatening invasion of the U.S.-allied island of Taiwan. China “is the only competitor out there with both the intent to reshape the international order, and increasingly the power to do so,” Austin said.
The Administration has determined that Beijing is planning a threefold increase in nuclear warheads to 1,000 by 2030, while simultaneously constructing hundreds of new silos capable of launching long-range ballistic missiles, potentially targeting the U.S. and its far-flung nuclear forces. While the U.S. has more than 10 to 1 advantage over China in the number of nuclear warheads and the weapons to deliver them, the Pentagon sees a need to prepare for the decades ahead. The Chinese nuclear build-up is an unprecedented challenge for the military, which since the end of World War II has only had to focus on deterring one near-peer adversary—formerly the Soviet Union, now Russia—from launching a nuclear attack.
“I do not want to suggest that this is a solved or closed problem and that we now have the answers,” a senior defense official, who wasn’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter, told reporters. “This is new territory for us… How do you successfully fight one adversary, while having enough reserve to hold the other bay? And just the second part of that cannot be a solution where if China has 1,000 (nuclear warheads) and Russia has 1,000, that we need 2,000, because that is an arms race that nobody should want to be in.”
The strategy laid out by Austin largely breaks from President Joe Biden’s campaign pledge to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. strategy. There are a few nods in the direction of disarmament, including directives to stop developing a nuclear-armed sea launched cruise missiles, retire the largest gravity bomb, the B83, in the U.S. arsenal, and eliminate the declared policy to hold onto nuclear weapons as a “hedge against an uncertain future.” But there is no drastic change that non-proliferation experts were hoping for.
“It largely continues the nuclear deterrence strategy and posture, including capability added in the Trump Administration. It is unclear how it reduces the role of nuclear weapons as the President directed,” says Leonor Tomero, who served as Biden’s Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for nuclear and missile defense before leaving in October 2021. “There is an urgent need to reduce the risk of nuclear war, especially at a time when nuclear tensions are higher than they have been for years.”
The risks of miscalculation and of unintended rapid escalation could lead to nuclear weapons use, Tomero says. “These new threats require clear solutions and practical steps to adapt and strengthen deterrence to reduce these risks,” she says.
Right now, the U.S. and Russia are limited on the number of strategic warheads and delivery systems until February 2026 under a bilateral treaty known as New START. China, however, is not part of that agreement and has shown no signs of wanting to rein in their nuclear weapons programs, which raises questions about whether continued nuclear arms reductions by other countries will be possible.
“There are repeated references to adjusting U.S. posture in the future, which tees-up a future Administration to increase the size of the arsenal or resume nuclear testing,” says Jeffrey Lewis, an analyst with the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of Strategic Studies.
The advancement of non-nuclear weapons systems, such as hypersonic missiles, as well as space-based and cyber capabilities are also concerning to the administration. The strategy calls for “building enduring advantages,” involving investments in the Defense Department’s workforce, improvements in weapons-buying processes and preparing for climate change. Other challenges discussed in the document emanate from Iran and North Korea, and “violent extremist organizations,” which is military jargon for terrorist groups.
The Biden team’s focus on Moscow and Beijing is consistent with the U.S. national security complex’s desire to pivot from the morass of violence and counter-terrorism operations in the Middle East and engage in Great Power competition. Each Administration is mandated by Congress to issue a new national defense strategy every four years, and two versions are drawn up: one secret, one public. The document released Oct. 27 marked the first time the strategy also included the so-called Nuclear Posture Review and Missile Defense Review, which shape funding allocations for the coming years. “By weaving these documents together,” Austin said, “we help ensure that the entire department is moving forward together and matching our resources to our goals.”
In this handout photo taken from video released by Russian Defense Ministry Press Service on Wednesday, Oct. 26, 2022, a Yars intercontinental ballistic missile is test-fired as part of Russia’s nuclear drills from a launch site in Plesetsk, northwestern Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin has monitored drills of the country’s strategic nuclear forces involving multiple practice launches of ballistic and cruise missiles. The Kremlin said in a statement that all the test-fired missiles reached their designated targets.
Ballistic and cruise missiles were launched from the Arctic to Russia’s Far East, the Kremlin said.
The US was told about the drill under the terms of the New Start arms treaty.
The launches took place as Russia makes unsubstantiated claims that Ukraine was plotting to use a “dirty bomb”.
A “dirty bomb” is an explosive device mixed with radioactive material and the Russian allegations have been widely rejected by Western countries as false.
Kyiv warned the claims indicate Moscow itself could be preparing such an attack.
The last Russian nuclear drill took place five days before it invaded Ukraine.
Ahead of the latest exercise, military officials in Washington pointed out that, in notifying the US, the Russians were complying with arms control obligations.
Russia’s exercises were being held against a backdrop of a flagging campaign in southern and eastern Ukraine.
Moscow has sent troops into the key southern city of Kherson to help defend it. Russia took Kherson in the early days of the war, but recently it has come under pressure as Ukrainian troops advance.
Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu was seen on Russian TV saying that the aim of the drill was for military command and control to practise carrying out “a massive nuclear strike by the strategic nuclear forces in retaliation for the enemy’s nuclear strike”.
A Yars inter-continental ballistic missile was launched from Plesetsk cosmodrome, some 800km (500 miles) north of Moscow, and a Sineva ballistic missile was fired from the Barents Sea to the remote Kura test site in Kamchatka province in Russia’s Far East, the Kremlin said.
Image caption,One of the two missiles was launched from a nuclear-powered submarine in the Barents Sea
All missiles reached their targets, it added.
President Putin was shown on Russian TV watching a video feed of the launch. Footage was also broadcast of remarks he gave via videolink to a conference of regional intelligence services in which he doubled down on his accusations of a Ukrainian dirty bomb plot.
He also repeated other baseless allegations made by Russia in recent months against Ukraine, including that it had been turned by the US into a “testing ground for military biological experiments”.
Ukrainian Defence Minister Oleksiy Reznikov said on Wednesday that “my personal opinion is that Putin won’t use nukes”. Separately, he told US TV that Ukraine’s counter-offensive in the south had been hampered by rainy weather.
In an address to the nation in September, Mr Putin said his country had “various weapons of destruction” and would “use all the means available to us”, adding: “I’m not bluffing.”
Following the remarks, the EU’s foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, told the BBC that “it’s a dangerous moment [in the war] because the Russian army has been pushed into a corner, and Putin’s reaction – threatening using nuclear arms – it’s very bad”.
The Prophecy Blog 