This is The Prophecy. The Prophecy is much more than seeing into the future. For The Prophecy sees without the limits of time. For The Prophecy sees what is, what was, and what always shall be.
The United States Geological Survey says the 3.3 magnitude quake hit several mikes south of the town of Ormstown, Quebec a little after 5:30 A.M. There are some slightly conflicting reports, as the Montreal Gazette reports that the quake was a 3.6 magnitude. Ormstown is located around 20 minutes north of the New York border.
The Times Union says the quake was felt as far south as the town of Ticonderoga in Essex County, and as far west as the city of Ogdensburg on the New York-Ontario border. The effects were also felt as far north as Montreal.
Some strike even closer to home. In April 2017, a 1.3 tremor occurred around two and half miles west of Pawling. In early 2016, an even smaller quake happened near Port Chester and Greenwich, CT. In the summer of 2019, a quake struck off the New Jersey coast.
Listen to Middays With Hopkins weekdays from 10AM to 2PM on 101.5 WPDH. Stream us live through the website, Alexa-enabled device, Google Home or the WPDH mobile app.
Ukraine’s spymaster believes Russia has finished preparations to blow up Europe’s largest nuclear plant – and all that awaits is the order to go ahead based on the military situation.
Ukraine’s spy chief sounded the alarm that Russia has finished preparations for an attack at the occupied Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant (ZNPP).
In an interview yesterday with New Statesman, Kyrylo Budanov, Ukraine’s military intelligence boss, provided unprecedented intel and insights on potential Russian readying of a nuclear incident in southern Ukraine.
The ZNPP is Europe’s largest nuclear power plant and one of the ten largest in the world. It is on the southern shore of the Dnipro River some 100 kilometers upstream from the destroyed Kakhovka dam, and its diminished reservoir, and 100 kilometers from the current frontline in western Zaporizhzhia region.
ZNPP has been occupied by Russian forces since February 2022.
Budanov said the decision to blow up ZNPP has already been taken by Russia. He told the media outlet he was confident the plan is fully “drafted and approved” and that the only element missing is the order to go ahead, depending on military circumstances.
Since Russian President Vladimir Putin apparently visited Dagestan on June 28, even Russian bloggers have questioned if it was really him.
“Technical means could be used to speed up the catastrophe,” Budanov said to New Statesman.
It is not clear if the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was granted access to these units during its visit on 15 June.
The prospect of a staged “accident” at ZNPP has been raised before, including by President Zelensky on June 22, but Budanov told New Statesman that this time is different.
“The situation has never been as severe as now,” he said.
Two Scenarios for Nuclear Incident
Budanov described two scenarios for a Russian-made nuclear incident. He said the first would be to blow up ZNPP if Russian forces get ousted from the left bank of the Dnipro River. Russia would then create a zone of destruction and exclusion as a way to prevent Ukraine from advancing. The strategy may also serve as a threat not to attack Russian positions.
The second scenario involves Russia using a nuclear disaster as a “preventive measure,” in Budanov’s words. The goal in this case would be to stop Ukraine’s offensive before it starts and to freeze the line of contact as it exists. If Russia is convinced that it cannot stop a Ukrainian advance any other way, it would activate what Zelensky in his address called “a terrorist attack with radiation leakage.”
Zelensky: “Radiation has no borders”
On June 22, President Zelensky said that he had shared information about a potential terrorist act with partners including the United States China, Europe, Brazil and India.
“Radiation has no state borders. Whomever it will hit is deterred only by the direction of the wind,” he said.
“This time it should not be like Kakhovka,” he said, referring to the hydroelectric dam Moscow blew up earlier this month.
“The world has been warned, so the world can and must act.”
Zelensky separately said that allies and the international community are not sufficiently paying attention to the ZNPP situation and not taking sufficient steps to mitigate a staged incident.
At Ministry of Health facilities in the city of Zaporizhzhia, teams are preparing for a worst-case scenario. Three rounds of training had already been held in case the nuclear power plant is targeted, according to local officials.
“We knew the Russians could blow up the Kakhovka dam and we know they could target ZNPP,” Taras Tyshchenko, a local health administrator, told The Independent.
“This incident will not be a local or even a national one. It is a global incident. It will have a significant impact on the environment not only in the Zaporizhzhia region, the Dnipro region, or in Ukraine as a whole,” he said. “This will be an incident that can definitely affect all our neighboring countries, especially those that have access to the Black Sea.”
A full-scale evacuation of the area under Ukrainian control surrounding ZNPP could be triggered within 15 minutes of the first reports of an explosion, according to Tyshchenko.
“Why they are doing this, only Russia knows,” Tyshchenko said.
Ukraine suffered the world’s worst nuclear accident in 1986 when it was part of the Soviet Union. Clouds of radioactive material spread across much of Europe after an explosion and fire at the Chornobyl nuclear power plant.
June 27, 2023 11:08 ISTGet Rediff News in your Inbox: email
The coup attempt has weakened Putin’s position and in desperation he may well sanction the use of nukes, points out Colonel Anil A Athale (retd).
IMAGE: Fighters of the Wagner private mercenary group atop an armoured vehicle in the Russian city of Rostov-on-Don, June 24, 2023. Photograph: Reuters
The possible use of tactical nuclear weapons by Russia has becomes a real possibility.
If that happens, the repercussions of the first-ever use of nuclear weapons since the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings in August 1945 by the Americans can change the world profoundly.
We will then enter a phase where use of nukes will be legitimised and serve as an example in any future conflict.
The West and Ukraine may see the weakening of President Putin’s position as an opportunity to inflict a battlefield defeat on Russia.
That would be a grave mistake, for a cardinal principle of the nuclear era is that a nuclear power can never be defeated as it will have no choice but to use nukes.
This failure of deterrence is unacceptable.
All theories of nuclear war have postulated these scenarios and the consensus is that in a nuclear realm it is the weaker power that has the greatest incentive to use nukes.
Ukraine or the West have no answer to Russia’s tactical nukes, and it could be a game changer.
Use of nukes by Russia will force Ukraine to sue for peace on Russian terms or else face unprecedented destruction.
The West could in theory give nukes to Ukraine. But that will trigger a Russian strategic response against the West and lead to Armageddon and destruction of the world as we know it.
None should forget that in the field of strategic nuclear weapons Russia is equal to the US.
IMAGE: Ukrainian soldiers fire a BM-21 Grad multiple launch rocket system at Russian troops in the Zaporizhzhia region, June 25, 2023. Photograph: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty/Serhii Nuzhnenko via Reuters
Ukraine has put plans in place to evacuate residents of several oblasts in the event Russia carries out an attack at the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, Ombudsman Dmytro Lubinets said on national television, the Ukrainian media outlet New Voice reported.
Earlier on June 23, Ukraine’s military intelligence chief Kyrylo Budanov said that Russia had completed preparations for an attack on the nuclear plant and had mined the plant’s cooler. Lubinets also warned that there was a “real possibility” of an attack taking place.
The International Atomic Energy Agency, however, has said that no new mines were discovered during a recent visit by its chief Rafael Grossi. The White House has also said it sees no nuclear threat in Ukraine at the moment.
The Institute for the Study of War, a D.C.-based think tank has assessed that Russia may be signaling that is willing to carry out an attack in an effort to dissuade Ukraine from attempting counteroffensive operations in the area.
In preparation for any incident, Lubinets said that Ukraine has set up separate evacuation headquarters in the oblasts surrounding the plant and has made plans to evacuate any residents who live within a 30-50 kilometer radius of the plant.
“All medical supplies have been prepared and logistical routes where people will be accommodated and how they will be transported have been worked out. In the event of such a situation, not only state mechanisms will be involved, but also volunteer groups,” Lubinets said, as cited by New Voice.
The Ombudsman added that following Russia’s destruction of the Kakhovka dam in Kherson Oblast, people in Russian-occupied areas affected by the flooding were not properly evacuated.
“Civilians in the occupied territories will suffer the most (in the event of an accident at the Zaporizhzhia plant),” he said.
US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman introduced a bipartisan resolution reaffirming the US commitment to preventing a nuclear Iran.
Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-TX) along with Congressmen Brad Schneider (D-IL), Doug Lamborn (R-CO), Jared Golden (D-ME), Joe Wilson (R-SC), Brad Sherman (D-CA), Rich McCormick (R-GA), and Kathy Manning (D-NC)introduced the resolution on Tuesday, June 27.
A flurry of media reports in recent weeks indicated that the Biden administration has been holding indirect and possibly direct talks with the Islamic Republic of Iran to hammer out an interim, limited nuclear deal that would offer financial rewards in exchange for some limits on Iran’s uranium enrichment.
Many members of Congress are concerned that the administration intends to reach an unwritten agreement with Tehran to avoid Congressional review. A 2015 law requires any deal with Iran that would result in sanctions reduction to be presented to Congress.
“In the face of unprecedented nuclear provocations from the Iranian regime, it is vital the United States make clear that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable,” said McCaul in an announcement about the bipartisan resolution.
The United States Capitol building
“I am proud to lead this bipartisan resolution declaring with no ambiguity that Iran must not be able to obtain a nuclear weapon, and that the United States is willing to use all means necessary to prevent a nuclear Iran. Nothing is off the table.”
The resolution also says that the US should “recognize and support the freedom of action of partners and allies, including Israel to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”
Past and present Israeli governments have repeatedly threatened to launch a military attack against Iran if they see the imminent danger of nuclear weapons. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that his government will not recognize any international agreements, if it concludes that Israel faces the danger of a nuclear Iran.
Rep. McCaul had sent a letter to the President June 15 saying, “I am disturbed by recent revelations that the Administration has re-engaged in ‘proximity talks’ with the Iranian regime, and that the results of these discussions have included the apparent greenlighting of sizable payments to Iran.”
He was referring to the White House allowing Iraq to release more than $2.7 billion in Iran’s frozen funds earlier this month.
McCaul urged Biden to respect the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 (INARA), which was enacted during the finalization of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015 to allow Congress to oversee dealings with Tehran. The Obama administration decided not to make the JCPOA nuclear deal a treaty, given opposition in Congress at the time and agreed to INARA to neutralize opposition among lawmakers.
The administration has denied it has reached any new deals with Iran, including an interim unwritten agreement, but many media sources and Israeli politicians have indicated that some sort of an agreement has been discussed.
China, according to “fragmentary” U.S. intelligence reports, is about to establish a “joint military training facility” with Cuba on that island.
Chinese military personnel are already listening in on American communications from the Lourdes base near Havana and three other Cuban locations. Two of those locations have been known for some time: Bejucal and Santiago de Cuba. These facilities, it appears, have been in operation for all or most of this century.
“What is missing is the strategic aim of China’s economic influence, which, in my opinion, goes beyond simply having a strong trade relationship with Latin America,” Joseph Humire of the Center for a Secure Free Society told Gatestone. “At its core, the People’s Republic of China is focused on gaining geopolitical leverage over countries in Central and South America to be used in an eventual conflict with the United States.”
China, with that leverage, is obtaining permission to build in this hemisphere military installations that can be used to attack the American homeland or the U.S. military, should China launch its invasion of Taiwan, Japan or some other target. China, for instance, is developing what looks like a naval base at the tip of Argentina, at strategic Tierra del Fuego.
Moreover, China’s troubled container port in Freeport, Bahamas, about 90 miles from Palm Beach, Florida, could end up hosting Chinese naval vessels.
It also may not be long before China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) bases substantial forces on Cuba, only 94 miles from Key West, Florida.
“For a near-term war, China would use Cuba as a base for projecting and facilitating massive cyberattacks and espionage operations while working with Cuba’s formidable intelligence services to undertake a range of ‘wet’ operations, from assassinations to attacks on U.S. installations, even civilian facilities such as gas stations,” said Richard Fisher of the International Assessment and Strategy Center to Gatestone.
In addition, the PLA could deploy anti-ship cruise missiles in Cuba both to hit U.S. Navy bases in Florida and block the movement of American vessels. China might also put surface-to-air missiles on Cuba, potentially to shoot down planes over the southeast United States.
How about a second Cuban Missile Crisis, this time with the Chinese instead of the Soviets? China’s leaders are brazen, as the spy balloon incident of January and February suggests. Would they deploy ballistic missiles and other weaponry there?
Fisher thinks they will. “In the medium term, look for China to facilitate Cuba’s acquisition of ballistic missiles, which will at a minimum force a U.S. defensive response that will tie down the U.S. military, reducing U.S. chances of success in other theaters,” he says.
Ballistic missiles can carry nuclear warheads. While Americans think of nukes as defensive instruments to deter attacks, Chinese war planners view them as offensive weapons, to compel submission. In other words, China thinks it can prevent others from coming to the aid of, say, Taiwan, by threatening nuclear destruction of their homelands.
Periodically throughout this century, China’s generals and civilians have made unprovoked threats to incinerate Americans cities. American presidents have brushed off the warnings, ignoring the hostile words.
That is no longer a good idea, if it ever was. The Pentagon in a November 2022 report forecast that China would quadruple its warheads from about 400 then to 1,500 by 2035.
The Chinese military is moving swiftly. The PLA, in three separate fields in the northern part of the country, is building at least 250 and perhaps as many as 360 silos, which appear designed to take the DF-41 missile. A DF-41 has a maximum range of 9,300 miles — putting all of America in range from those three locations — and can carry, some believe, 10 warheads apiece.
“For decades, they were quite comfortable with an arsenal of a few hundred nuclear weapons, which was fairly clearly a second-strike capability to act as a deterrent,” Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall stated in testimony in March, referring to China.
As Kendall testified, “I don’t think I’ve seen anything more disturbing in my career than the Chinese ongoing expansion of their nuclear force.”
So as China increases its arsenal, it’s clear that Beijing no longer seeks only a “minimal deterrent.” The rapid buildup, therefore, suggests the Chinese military is building an offensive “war-fighting” capability.
With all the additional silos in China, why would the People’s Liberation Army need missiles in Cuba? Think shorter flight times — meaning less warning time.
Moreover, U.S. missile defenses — and radars — are currently oriented to attacks from over the Arctic, from the north. Cuba gives China venues for southern attacks.
All this means that, thanks to Cuba, a war in Asia will be fought on, near, and over the American homeland — perhaps with nukes.
Gordon G. Chang is the author of The Coming Collapse of China, a Gatestone Institute distinguished senior fellow, and a member of its Advisory Board. Follow Gordon G. Chang on Twitter.
Wagner Group chief Yevgeny Prigozhin’s weekend rebellion has shone a harsh spotlight on the apparently fragile state of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s regime. While Prigozhin soon agreed to stand down and ordered his mercenary army to halt its advance on Moscow, the warlord-led uprising highlights, yet again, the imminent and existential risks that an aggressive and unstable nuclear power poses to the world.
Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began last year—and especially since it became clear that Putin wouldn’t secure the quick victory he apparently expected—a nightmare scenario has loomed. Putin could be driven from power, leaving behind a fragmented Russia where various warlords compete for power—including control of the world’s largest nuclear arsenal.
When Prigozhin accused Russia’s military of attacking Wagner Group encampments, seized control of Russia’s Southern Military District headquarters in Rostov-on-Don and ordered his mercenaries to march on Moscow, such a scenario appeared likely. But though this particular coup didn’t materialise, there’s no guarantee that another won’t follow, especially in light of the support Prigozhin seems to enjoy among some segments of Russia’s population.
But even if Putin remains in the Kremlin, Russian nuclear weapons pose an imminent risk. After all, it is the threat of nuclear escalation that has prevented the West from intervening militarily to defend Ukraine and has forced NATO to calibrate carefully the timing and nature of military support for Ukrainian fighters.
In fact, Putin has repeatedly reminded the West to tread lightly. In 2014—the year Russia invaded the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine and annexed Crimea—Russia altered its military doctrine to include first use of nuclear weapons in response to a conventional attack that threatens the existence of the Russian state. Four years later, Putin reiterated his commitment to that principle. Yes, it would be a ‘global catastrophe,’ he explained, but a world without Russia need not exist at all.
Putin has ramped up his nuclear sabre-rattling. Last September, his speech announcing the annexation of four more Ukrainian oblasts was peppered with blistering denunciations of America’s military record—including its status as the only country ever to have used nuclear weapons.
Earlier this month, Putin again confirmed his willingness to use nuclear weapons to protect the ‘existence of the Russian state’, its ‘territorial integrity, independence and sovereignty’. He also noted that he considers Russia’s massive arsenal to be a ‘competitive advantage’ against NATO. In February, Russia withdrew from New START, its last remaining nuclear-arms-control treaty with the US.
Putin’s provocative nuclear rhetoric has lately been echoed by other high-profile Russians. In a recent commentary, the honorary chair of Russia’s Council for Foreign and Defense Policy, Sergei Karaganov, made the case for pre-emptive nuclear strikes. By hitting ‘a bunch of targets in a number of countries,’ he argued, Russia could ‘bring those who have lost their mind to reason’ and ‘break the West’s will’.
Even coming from a hawk like Karaganov, that is a shocking proposition. But perhaps more worrying are similarly incendiary statements from historically moderate figures. Dmitri Trenin—the former director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, who had long been considered a voice of reason in Russia—now advocates inserting the ‘nuclear bullet’ into the ‘revolver drum’. Trenin suggests that a pre-emptive strike could ‘dispel the mythology’ about NATO’s collective-defence clause and lead to the alliance’s dissolution.
To be sure, some dissenting voices have emerged. Figures such as Fyodor Lukyanov, chair of the presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy; Ivan Timofeev, director-general of the Russian International Affairs Council; and Alexei Arbatov of the Russian Academy of Sciences have challenged Karaganov’s logic.
But such arguments must be couched in patriotic terms, because Russia is now gripped by Soviet-style repression, exemplified by the recent detention of Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich and the outrageous prison sentence of opposition figure Vladimir Kara-Murza. In Russia, internal repression has historically often linked to external aggression.
For now, Putin says that Russia does not need to use nuclear weapons—at least not to defend the Russian state’s existence. But a warlord like Prigozhin might disagree. In any case, the use of lower-yield ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons in Ukraine appears increasingly likely. With its conventional arsenal nearing exhaustion, Russia recently delivered a tranche of such weapons to the territory of its closest ally, Belarus, and plans to send more.
In April, a third of Russians surveyed by the Levada Center thought that their leaders were prepared to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, though 86% of Russians believe that nuclear weapons should not be used under any circumstances. Last week, US President Joe Biden acknowledged the ‘real’ threat that Russia will deploy tactical nukes.
Such a move would make the world a far more dangerous place—especially if Putin is allowed to get away with it. If the West submits to Russian nuclear blackmail, further attacks could be expected, in Moldova and beyond.
The war in Ukraine has raised the spectre not only of Russia’s disintegration, but also of a nuclear confrontation akin to the 1962 Cuban missile crisis—one that may prove impossible to defuse. In this context, the West must use every tool at its disposal to take the temperature of Russian domestic discourse and gauge the severity of Russia’s ‘nuclear fever’.
Of course, as Prigozhin’s mutiny showed, anything can happen in Russia. And as Cold War Kremlinologists learned after decades of reading the tea leaves, it’s impossible to determine whether public statements and debates are indicative of a new consensus among the political and military elites. But the stakes are too high not to try.
Story by: (Author NameStaff Sgt. Raymond Drumsta – 138th Public Affairs Detachment Dated: Thu, Nov 5, 2009 This map illustrates the earthquake fault lines in Western New York. An earthquake in the region is a likely event, says University of Buffalo Professor Dr. Robert Jacobi. TONAWANDA, NY — An earthquake in western New York, the scenario that Exercise Vigilant Guard is built around, is not that far-fetched, according to University of Buffalo geology professor Dr. Robert Jacobi. When asked about earthquakes in the area, Jacobi pulls out a computer-generated state map, cross-hatched with diagonal lines representing geological faults. The faults show that past earthquakes in the state were not random, and could occur again on the same fault systems, he said. “In western New York, 6.5 magnitude earthquakes are possible,” he said. This possibility underlies Exercise Vigilant Guard, a joint training opportunity for National Guard and emergency response organizations to build relationships with local, state, regional and federal partners against a variety of different homeland security threats including natural disasters and potential terrorist attacks. The exercise was based on an earthquake scenario, and a rubble pile at the Spaulding Fibre site here was used to simulate a collapsed building. The scenario was chosen as a result of extensive consultations with the earthquake experts at the University of Buffalo’s Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER), said Brig. Gen. Mike Swezey, commander of 53rd Troop Command, who visited the site on Monday. Earthquakes of up to 7 magnitude have occurred in the Northeastern part of the continent, and this scenario was calibrated on the magnitude 5.9 earthquake which occurred in Saguenay, Quebec in 1988, said Jacobi and Professor Andre Filiatrault, MCEER director. “A 5.9 magnitude earthquake in this area is not an unrealistic scenario,” said Filiatrault. Closer to home, a 1.9 magnitude earthquake occurred about 2.5 miles from the Spaulding Fibre site within the last decade, Jacobi said. He and other earthquake experts impaneled by the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada in 1997 found that there’s a 40 percent chance of 6.5 magnitude earthquake occurring along the Clareden-Linden fault system, which lies about halfway between Buffalo and Rochester, Jacobi added. Jacobi and Filiatrault said the soft soil of western New York, especially in part of downtown Buffalo, would amplify tremors, causing more damage. “It’s like jello in a bowl,” said Jacobi. The area’s old infrastructure is vulnerable because it was built without reinforcing steel, said Filiatrault. Damage to industrial areas could release hazardous materials, he added. “You’ll have significant damage,” Filiatrault said. Exercise Vigilant Guard involved an earthquake’s aftermath, including infrastructure damage, injuries, deaths, displaced citizens and hazardous material incidents. All this week, more than 1,300 National Guard troops and hundreds of local and regional emergency response professionals have been training at several sites in western New York to respond these types of incidents. Jacobi called Exercise Vigilant Guard “important and illuminating.” “I’m proud of the National Guard for organizing and carrying out such an excellent exercise,” he said. Training concluded Thursday.
Russia’s Mobile Nuclear Weapons. Image Credit: Russian Federation.
Russia’s nuclear arsenal has long been a concern for the Pentagon in terms of both sheer size and technological capacity. Indeed, Russian President Putin could launch a nuclear strike that could surely kill everyone on planet Earth if he wished – when factoring in the size of his arsenal and radioactive fallout.
and it is now further expanding with the prospect of hypersonic nuclear weapons and new ICBM modifications enabling a single missile to carry multiple warheads.
Sheer numbers, when it comes to Russia’s nuclear arsenal, have long been a concern both in terms of tactical and conventional nuclear weapons.
Russia’s ICBM arsenal, for instance, is growing much larger and being modernized for continued relevance. The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation estimates that Russia has 306 strategic ICBMs, able to carry as many as 1,185 nuclear warheads.
The Center further specifies that both Russia’s SS-27 mod 1 (Topol-M) and SS-27 Mod 2 (Yars) are capable of carrying multiple nuclear warheads. An ICBM with multiple re-entry vehicles presents new threat dimensions as it can hold multiple targets at risk from a single ICBM. Russia also has the Sarmat SS-X-30 in development, which is slated to be larger and more lethal than previous warheads and has publicly demonstrated what could be a paradigm-changing and extremely dangerous nuclear-capable hypersonic missile called the Avangard.
There are several critical things to consider here, one of which being the presence of sheer numbers as it can present the risk of a “bolt-out-of-the-blue” kind of attack. This is a term that refers to the possibility that an adversary could simultaneously launch a large number of ICBMs in one “salvo” to obliterate defenses and overwhelm the enemy in such a way that a response or counterattack is not possible. Should an air or sea leg of a nuclear triad be rendered inoperable as a way to counter any salvo, then the remaining deterrent is to simply ensure a corresponding massive offensive ICBM response to guarantee the destruction of the attacking country. Timing is critical here, as the targeted country would need to detect an incoming salvo quickly enough to launch its own massive salvo in response. The promise of this kind of catastrophic destruction is the foundation of strategic deterrence and the paradoxical reason why the assurance of massive destruction can actually ensure continued peace.
“Bolt-out-of-the-Blue” & The U.S. Sentinel
Sufficient numbers of effective and operational ICBMs will be critical for the U.S. nuclear deterrence posture given the scope and size of Russia’s force. The Nuclear Threat Initiative states that Russia operates a total of 466 ICBMs and submarine-launched, nuclear-capable ballistic missiles together.
Air Force Acquisition Executive Andrew Hunter has been clear that the Sentinel is on schedule and on time and slated to arrive in sufficient time, stressing that there will be no gap. This is perhaps why the Pentagon continues to test Minuteman IIIs in an effort to demonstrate that the U.S. has a functional and effective ground-fired nuclear deterrent sufficient to extend well into the next decade.
Kris Osborn is the Military Affairs Editor of 19FortyFive and President of Warrior Maven – Center for Military Modernization. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.
This Monday, August 29, at least 15 protesters died and another 28 were injured in the heart of Iraq during the violent protests that broke out after the Shiite cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, announced his resignation from national political life.
“I had decided not to intervene in political affairs, but now I announce my final withdrawal and the closure of all the institutions of the Sadrist bloc,” he said in a statement.
The tension suffered by the Middle Eastern nation has generated a political paralysis that does not allow the normal functioning of the territory and this announcement by the Shiite referent makes it difficult to return to the situation.
With protesters camping on the outskirts of the Presidential Palace, images similar to those experienced in Sri Lanka a month ago were produced, where civilians tore down fences and perpetrated the facilities of the Government headquarters.
The clashes took place in the Green Zone, the fortified area of Baghdad that includes the main administrative buildings, such as the Presidential Palace and the Government Palace, both assaulted by the Sadrists.
Previously, tens of thousands of faithful to the cleric fanned out through the streets of the Iraqi capital and southern regions. After the advance to the government facilities, the authorities announced curfews, which were ignored.
The president, Barham Saleh, called for calm after meeting with the prime minister, Mustafa al Kadhimi, and members of parliament and the judiciary.
While the United Nations stated that this moment is “extremely dangerous” and called for an end to violent acts. The United States called for “dialogue” in this “worrisome” situation, according to what the spokesman for the White House National Security Council, John Kirby, described.
Political paralysis in Iraq
The withdrawal of the Shiite cleric, Muqtada al Sadr, was the last big blow in a context where Baghdad has a frozen operation and now violent acts between followers of the religious and security forces are repeated.
The political brake has already been going on for ten months in the Arab territory due to the inexperience shown by a completely fragmented Parliament to elect a new president and form the next administration.
Al Sadr, who wanted to put together a government that would exclude those pro-Iran, insisted on calling early elections and dissolving Parliament, arguing that no politician who was present during the US invasion in 2003 should have a seat.
The Sadrist bloc, holder of 73 of the 329 seats in the Chamber, won the 2021 elections, but due to the repeated boycott of Al Sadr’s proposals, it led to the resignation of all the deputies of the space, exerting pressure in the streets.
With the camp of fans at the gates, the Executive had to suspend its work indefinitely. Not even two curfews enacted after the departure of Al Sadr twisted the will of civilians.
“The suspension of state institutions is a dangerous issue that puts the country and the interests of its citizens at serious risk,” exclaimed President Barham Saleh.
The Prophecy Blog 
