War Between US and Russia is Not the Judgment (Rev 15)

Vladimir Putin Warns NO ONE Would Survive Nuclear War Between Russia and US


No country on earth would survive should the world’s most powerful nuclear states unleash their atomic weapons, Vladimir Putin has said.
His remarks form part of a series of interviews with American film director Oliver Stone.
The question of whether the human race would survive a potential global nuclear war has tormented the minds of generations, and indeed Stone, who wondered if the Russian president believes the US might emerge victorious if such a conflict were to break out.
“In a hot war is the US dominant?” the American director asked the Russian president.
I don’t think anyone would survive such a conflict, Vladimir Putin replied in a short Showtime teaser, a precursor to a documentary titled ‘The Putin Interviews’.
Putin then proves he has the pulse on Russia’s military strategy and tactics.
As part of the preview, the clip shows Stone and Vladimir Putin in the situation room where the Russian leader demonstrated that he is on top of developments playing out in the Syrian military theater.
“Pilot says he is going to make another attempt,” Putin tells the US director while showing him a live feed from a military jet on a smartphone.
Stone then asks if there’s “any hope of change” in US-Russian relations, which both countries have acknowledged are at the lowest point since the Cold War.
“There is always hope. Until they are ready to bring us to the cemetery and bury us,” Vladimir Putin replied.
Apart from the teaser, Showtime has also uploaded two separate interview segments that touched on Russia-NATO relations and the numerous assassination attempts on the Russian president.
Describing NATO an an instrument of American foreign policy, Putin said the alliance’s members inevitably become US “vassals.”
“Once a country becomes a NATO member, it is hard to resist the pressures of the US. And all of a sudden any weapons system can be placed in this country. An anti-ballistic missile system, new military bases and if need be, new offensive systems,” Putin explained.
Russia, Putin says, is forced to take countermeasures over the ever-increasing NATO threat and armed military build-up on Russia’s borders.
“We have to aim our missile systems at facilities that are threatening us. The situation becomes more tense,” Vladimir Putin said.
In the third clip, published Tuesday by Showtime, Stone claimed he had credible information that the Russian leader survived at least five assassination attempts, which Putin implied were successfully thwarted by his security team.
“I do my job and the Security Officers do theirs, and they are still performing quite successfully,” Putin said, adding, “I trust them.”
Recalling a Russian proverb, Vladimir Putin told Stone that “those who are destined to be hanged are not going to drown.”
“What is your fate sir, do you know?” Stone asked.
“Only God knows our destiny – yours and mine,” the President replied.
“One day, this is going to happen to each and every one of us. The question is what we will have accomplished by then in this transient world, and whether we’ll have enjoyed our life?”

India’s New Intercontinental Nuke

Implications for the region
India tested its Agni-V intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) in its final operational configuration from Wheeler Island off Odisha on December 26, 2016, paving the way for its eventual induction into the Strategic Forces Command (SFC) after user-trials, reported Times of India (TOI).
The nuclear-capable Agni-V, according to Indian media, quoting Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) officials, can even reach the northernmost parts of China with its strike range of over 5,000-km. Agni-V, was test-fired from its canister on a launcher truck. The DRDO official claimed that “All the test parameters of the missile, which was tested for its full range, were successfully achieved and the missile splashed down near Australian waters.”
TOI also reported that this fourth and final experimental test of the three-stage Agni-V, comes after a gap of two years due to minor technical tweaking required in the ballistic missile as well as the need for India to exercise some strategic restraint when it was seeking entry into the 48-country Nuclear Suppliers Group (which was thwarted by China) and the 34-nation Missile Technology Control Regime (which India joined earlier this year). The tri-Service SFC, established in 2003 to manage India’s nuclear arsenal, will have to conduct at least two user-trials before the 50-tonne missile is produced in adequate numbers for induction.
Indian media reports that while the 17-metre tall Agni-V was tested in an “open configuration” in April 2012 and September 2013, the third test in January 2015 saw it being fired from a hermetically sealed canister mounted on a Tatra launcher truck. DRDO claims that the missile’s canister-launch version makes it even deadlier since it gives the armed forces requisite flexibility to swiftly transport and fire the missile from anywhere they want. Apparently this is a requirement for India’s much touted “Cold Start Strategy”, which has already been successfully countered by Pakistan by developing lethal battlefield tactical nuclear weapons.
Analysts opine that once the Agni-V is inducted, India will join the super exclusive club of countries with ICBMs (missiles with a range of over 5,000-5,500km) alongside the US, Russia, China, France and the UK.
Apart from the shorter-range Prithvi and Dhanush missiles, the SFC has inducted the Agni-I, Agni-II and Agni-III missiles. While these missiles are mainly geared towards Pakistan, the Agni-IV and Agni-V are specifically meant for deterrence against China. Beijing, of course, is leagues ahead in terms of its missile and nuclear arsenals.
But the Indian defence establishment believes the Agni-V is sufficient to take care of existing threat perceptions. Indian media also claims that DRDO has also done some work on developing “maneuvering warheads or intelligent re-entry vehicles” to defeat enemy ballistic missile defence systems, as well as MIRVs (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles) for the Agni missiles. An MIRV payload basically means a single missile is capable of carrying several nuclear warheads, each programmed to hit different targets.
Social media savvy Narendra Modi, the Indian Prime Minister, tweeted gleefully: “Successful test firing of Agni V makes every Indian very proud. It will add tremendous strength to our strategic defence.”
Amidst the entire chest thumping and back slapping, gloating with claims of huge success, India is losing sight of two important aspects. Firstly, as reported by TOI, on December 21, Nirbhay missile, touted to carry nuclear warheads to a range of 1,000km, failed for the fourth time. It had been tested four times since March 2013 but failed to achieve the set parameters. Not only it was unsuccessful in yielding the expected results, the missile had to be destroyed in the air as it had deviated from its path and was termed as ‘utter failures’.
Nirbhay, which had been in the making for almost a decade, was meant to provide the Indian armed forces with nuclear-tipped land-attack cruise missiles (LACMs). If it had been a success, India would have been in a position to counter the much dreaded Pakistani Babur LACM.
DRDO, tauntingly called “Dodo” by its own officials and media, was set to be overhauled in 2005 by then Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh to clear it of hubris, corruption and the DRDO’s own bureaucratised culture, which are to blame for its constant failures, as well as its penchant for needless publicity and reinventing the wheel. Apparently there has been no change.
Uncritical and downright wrong-headed media coverage leads to the DRDO getting credit for even missiles like the workhorse surface-to-air missile Trishul and Akash and the Nag anti-tank missile, which were to have entered service in 1993-94, and were delayed by decades. In an era in which unmanned aerial aircraft play such a key role, all that the DRDO has to boast about is the Lakshya, a minor aerial vehicle used simply as a target for air-to-air missiles. The Nishant UAV is being kept alive through artificial life-support, as is the Arjun MBT. Tejas, DRDO’s Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), plagued by various disasters, became obsolete even before it entered service.
Pakistan has expressed concerns over India’s mad race to acquire weapons of mass destruction but going by Indian record of massive technical failures, there is little to worry about. According to Indian analysts, the Pakistani missile arsenal is at least a decade ahead of Prithvi and Agni.
Corruption, sleaze and demanding kickbacks by Indian defence planners have sullied the Indian defence acquisition process to an alarming extent. Former Indian Air Force Chief, Air Chief Marshal SP Tyagi – who suffered the ignominy of recently being arrested by the Indian CBI for alleged corruption in the Rs 3,600 crore AgustaWestland VVIP choppers deal – is just the tip of the iceberg. Induction of defective weapons in all three services has led to unnecessary casualties. Readers may recall some of the major scams like the 1948 Jeeps scam, 1987 Bofors scandal (involving former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi), 1999 Kargil coffins scam, Barak Missile scandal, 1999 Tehelka.com sting operation (in which then defence minister George Fernandes was indicted), the 2009 Sudipta Ghosh case and the 2012 Tatra Trucks Scam are but a few of them.
The second aspect, which Indian planners should concern themselves with is the mass poverty in India, which is causing a high suicide rate; the poor housing facilities leading to teeming millions residing on sidewalks for generation, the lack of medical services and absence of medical amenities.
If Narendra Modi, in his blind hatred for Pakistan and China and mad desire to establish India as a major world power at the cost of the much needed welfare of his people, then the Indian media should be grilling him. Modi believes that through his belligerence against Pakistan, testing weapons of mass destruction and trying to run with the big boys of the world, he can make Indians forget their miseries. Indians themselves should question the megalomania of Modi in painting China and Pakistan as arch enemies of India, whereas both countries have extended India the olive branch to peace and have invited India to join in regional development projects which will uplift the quality of life of Indian masses rather than squander scarce resources in amassing weapons of mass destruction.

India Now Has Precision Nuclear Weapons

Here’s All You Need To Know About Agni-1P, India’s New ‘Pakistan Killer’ Missile

Here’s All You Need To Know About Agni-1P, India’s New ‘Pakistan Killer’ Missile

File Picture: Agni-1
The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is developing a new, Pakistan-centric nuclear missile that will be equipped with sophisticated technology used in intermediate range ballistic missile (IRBM) such as Agni-IV. The new missile, Agni-1P, will replace Prithvi and Agni-1, developed with relatively low-end technology in the early 1990s, and will reportedly have a range of 300 to 700 kilometres.
If reports in the media are true, the Agni-1P will be a two-stage, solid propellant missile with both stages comprising composite rocket motors, guidance systems with electro-mechanical actuators, and inertial navigation systems based on advanced ring-laser gyroscopes.
With new findings, DRDO has now mastered the technology, and with what it has called ‘backward integration of technology,’ now plans to replace missiles that have low accuracy.

The New Nuclear Age (Revelation 15)

Playing a Game of Chicken with Nuclear Strategy
Cross-posted with TomDispatch.com
Once upon a time, when choosing a new president, a factor for many voters was the perennial question: “Whose finger do you want on the nuclear button?” Of all the responsibilities of America’s top executive, none may be more momentous than deciding whether, and under what circumstances, to activate the “nuclear codes” — the secret alphanumeric messages that would inform missile officers in silos and submarines that the fearful moment had finally arrived to launch their intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) toward a foreign adversary, igniting a thermonuclear war.
Until recently in the post-Cold War world, however, nuclear weapons seemed to drop from sight, and that question along with it. Not any longer. In 2016, the nuclear issue is back big time, thanks both to the rise of Donald Trump (including various unsettling comments he’s made about nuclear weapons) and actual changes in the global nuclear landscape.
With passions running high on both sides in this year’s election and rising fears about Donald Trump’s impulsive nature and Hillary Clinton’s hawkish one, it’s hardly surprising that the “nuclear button” question has surfaced repeatedly throughout the campaign. In one of the more pointed exchanges of the first presidential debate, Hillary Clinton declared that Donald Trump lacked the mental composure for the job. “A man who can be provoked by a tweet,” she commented, “should not have his fingers anywhere near the nuclear codes.” Donald Trump has reciprocated by charging that Clinton is too prone to intervene abroad. “You’re going to end up in World War III over Syria,” he told reporters in Florida last month.
For most election observers, however, the matter of personal character and temperament has dominated discussions of the nuclear issue, with partisans on each side insisting that the other candidate is temperamentally unfit to exercise control over the nuclear codes. There is, however, a more important reason to worry about whose finger will be on that button this time around: at this very moment, for a variety of reasons, the “nuclear threshold” — the point at which some party to a “conventional” (non-nuclear) conflict chooses to employ atomic weapons — seems to be moving dangerously lower.
Not so long ago, it was implausible that a major nuclear power — the United States, Russia, or China — would consider using atomic weapons in any imaginable conflict scenario. No longer. Worse yet, this is likely to be our reality for years to come, which means that the next president will face a world in which a nuclear decision-making point might arrive far sooner than anyone would have thought possible just a year or two ago — with potentially catastrophic consequences for us all.
No less worrisome, the major nuclear powers (and some smaller ones) are all in the process of acquiring new nuclear arms, which could, in theory, push that threshold lower still. These include a variety of cruise missiles and other delivery systems capable of being used in “limited” nuclear wars — atomic conflicts that, in theory at least, could be confined to just a single country or one area of the world (say, Eastern Europe) and so might be even easier for decision-makers to initiate. The next president will have to decide whether the U.S. should actually produce weapons of this type and also what measures should be taken in response to similar decisions by Washington’s likely adversaries.
Lowering the Nuclear Threshold
During the dark days of the Cold War, nuclear strategists in the United States and the Soviet Union conjured up elaborate conflict scenarios in which military actions by the two superpowers and their allies might lead from, say, minor skirmishing along the Iron Curtain to full-scale tank combat to, in the end, the use of “battlefield” nuclear weapons, and then city-busting versions of the same to avert defeat. In some of these scenarios, strategists hypothesized about wielding “tactical” or battlefield weaponry — nukes powerful enough to wipe out a major tank formation, but not Paris or Moscow — and claimed that it would be possible to contain atomic warfare at such a devastating but still sub-apocalyptic level. (Henry Kissinger, for instance, made his reputation by preaching this lunatic doctrine in his first book, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy.) Eventually, leaders on both sides concluded that the only feasible role for their atomic arsenals was to act as deterrents to the use of such weaponry by the other side. This was, of course, the concept of “mutually assured destruction,” or — in one of the most classically apt acronyms of all times: MAD. It would, in the end, form the basis for all subsequent arms control agreements between the two superpowers.
Anxiety over the escalatory potential of tactical nuclear weapons peaked in the 1970s when the Soviet Union began deploying the SS-20 intermediate-range ballistic missile (capable of striking cities in Europe, but not the U.S.) and Washington responded with plans to deploy nuclear-armed, ground-launched cruise missiles and the Pershing-II ballistic missile in Europe. The announcement of such plans provoked massive antinuclear demonstrations across Europe and the United States. On December 8, 1987, at a time when worries had been growing about how a nuclear conflagration in Europe might trigger an all-out nuclear exchange between the superpowers, President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.
That historic agreement — the first to eliminate an entire class of nuclear delivery systems — banned the deployment of ground-based cruise or ballistic missiles with a range of 500 and 5,500 kilometers and required the destruction of all those then in existence. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation inherited the USSR’s treaty obligations and pledged to uphold the INF along with other U.S.-Soviet arms control agreements. In the view of most observers, the prospect of a nuclear war between the two countries practically vanished as both sides made deep cuts in their atomic stockpiles in accordance with already existing accords and then signed others, including the New START, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 2010.
Today, however, this picture has changed dramatically. The Obama administration has concluded that Russia has violated the INF treaty by testing a ground-launched cruise missile of prohibited range, and there is reason to believe that, in the not-too-distant future, Moscow might abandon that treaty altogether. Even more troubling, Russia has adopted a military doctrine that favors the early use of nuclear weapons if it faces defeat in a conventional war, and NATO is considering comparable measures in response. The nuclear threshold, in other words, is dropping rapidly.
Much of this is due, it seems, to Russian fears about its military inferiority vis-à-vis the West. In the chaotic years following the collapse of the USSR, Russian military spending plummeted and the size and quality of its forces diminished accordingly. In an effort to restore Russia’s combat capabilities, President Vladimir Putin launched a multi-year, multi-billion-dollar expansion and modernization program. The fruits of this effort were apparent in the Crimea and Ukraine in 2014, when Russian forces, however disguised, demonstrated better fighting skills and wielded better weaponry than in the Chechnya wars a decade earlier. Even Russian analysts acknowledge, however, that their military in its current state would be no match for American and NATO forces in a head-on encounter, given the West’s superior array of conventional weaponry. To fill the breach, Russian strategic doctrine now calls for the early use of nuclear weapons to offset an enemy’s superior conventional forces.
To put this in perspective, Russian leaders ardently believe that they are the victims of a U.S.-led drive by NATO to encircle their country and diminish its international influence. They point, in particular, to the build-up of NATO forces in the Baltic countries, involving the semi-permanent deployment of combat battalions in what was once the territory of the Soviet Union, and in apparent violation of promises made to Gorbachev in 1990 that NATO would not do so. As a result, Russia has been bolstering its defenses in areas bordering Ukraine and the Baltic states, and training its troops for a possible clash with the NATO forces stationed there.
This is where the nuclear threshold enters the picture. Fearing that it might be defeated in a future clash, its military strategists have called for the early use of tactical nuclear weapons, some of which no doubt would violate the INF Treaty, in order to decimate NATO forces and compel them to quit fighting. Paradoxically, in Russia, this is labeled a “de-escalation” strategy, as resorting to strategic nuclear attacks on the U.S. under such circumstances would inevitably result in Russia’s annihilation. On the other hand, a limited nuclear strike (so the reasoning goes) could potentially achieve success on the battlefield without igniting all-out atomic war. As Eugene Rumer of the Carnegie Endowment of International Peace explains, this strategy assumes that such supposedly “limited” nuclear strikes “will have a sobering effect on the enemy, which will then cease and desist.”
To what degree tactical nuclear weapons have been incorporated into Moscow’s official military doctrine remains unknown, given the degree of secrecy surrounding such matters. It is apparent, however, that the Russians have been developing the means with which to conduct such “limited” strikes. Of greatest concern to Western analysts in this regard is their deployment of the Iskander-M short-range ballistic missile, a modern version of the infamous Soviet-era “Scud” missile (used by Saddam Hussein’s forces during the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988 and the Persian Gulf War of 1990-1991). Said to have a range of 500 kilometers (just within the INF limit), the Iskander can carry either a conventional or a nuclear warhead. As a result, a targeted country or a targeted military could never be sure which type it might be facing (and might simply assume the worst). Adding to such worries, the Russians have deployed the Iskander in Kaliningrad, a tiny chunk of Russian territory wedged between Poland and Lithuania that just happens to put it within range of many western European cities.
In response, NATO strategists have discussed lowering the nuclear threshold themselves, arguing — ominously enough — that the Russians will only be fully dissuaded from employing their limited-nuclear-war strategy if they know that NATO has a robust capacity to do the same. At the very least, what’s needed, some of them claim, is a more frequent inclusion of nuclear-capable or dual-use aircraft in exercises on Russia’s frontiers to “signal” NATO’s willingness to resort to limited nuclear strikes, too. Again, such moves are not yet official NATO strategy, but it’s clear that senior officials are weighing them seriously.
Just how all of this might play out in a European crisis is, of course, unknown, but both sides in an increasingly edgy standoff are coming to accept that nuclear weapons might have a future military role, which is, of course, a recipe for almost unimaginable escalation and disaster of an apocalyptic sort. This danger is likely to become more pronounced in the years ahead because both Washington and Moscow seem remarkably intent on developing and deploying new nuclear weapons designed with just such needs in mind.
The New Nuclear Armaments
Both countries are already in the midst of ambitious and extremely costly efforts to “modernize” their nuclear arsenals. Of all the weapons now being developed, the two generating the most anxiety in terms of that nuclear threshold are a new Russian ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) and an advanced U.S. air-launched cruise missile (ALCM). Unlike ballistic missiles, which exit the Earth’s atmosphere before returning to strike their targets, such cruise missiles remain within the atmosphere throughout their flight.
American officials claim that the Russian GLCM, reportedly now being deployed, is of a type outlawed by the INF Treaty. Without providing specifics, the State Department indicated in a 2014 memo that it had “a range capability of 500 km [kilometers] to 5,500 km,” which would indeed put it in violation of that treaty by allowing Russian combat forces to launch nuclear warheads against cities throughout Europe and the Middle East in a “limited” nuclear war.
The GLCM is likely to prove one of the most vexing foreign policy issues the next president will face. So far, the White House has been reluctant to press Moscow too hard, fearing that the Russians might respond by exiting the INF Treaty altogether and so eliminate remaining constraints on its missile program. But many in Congress and among Washington’s foreign policy elite are eager to see the next occupant of the Oval Office take a tougher stance if the Russians don’t halt deployment of the missile, threatening Moscow with more severe economic sanctions or moving toward countermeasures like the deployment of enhanced anti-missile systems in Europe. The Russians would, in turn, undoubtedly perceive such moves as threats to their strategic deterrent forces and so an invitation for further weapons acquisitions, setting off a fresh round in the long-dormant Cold War nuclear arms race.
On the American side, the weapon of immediate concern is a new version of the AGM-86B air-launched cruise missile, usually carried by B-52 bombers. Also known as the Long-Range Standoff Weapon (LRSO), it is, like the Iskander-M, expected to be deployed in both nuclear and conventional versions, leaving those on the potential receiving end unsure what might be heading their way. In other words, as with the Iskander-M, the intended target might assume the worst in a crisis, leading to the early use of nuclear weapons. Put another way, such missiles make for twitchy trigger fingers and are likely to lead to a heightened risk of nuclear war, which, once started, might in turn take Washington and Moscow right up the escalatory ladder to a planetary holocaust.
No wonder former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry called on President Obama to cancel the ALCM program in a recent Washington Post op-ed piece. “Because they… come in both nuclear and conventional variants,” he wrote, “cruise missiles are a uniquely destabilizing type of weapon.” And this issue is going to fall directly into the lap of the next president.
The New Nuclear Era
Whoever is elected on November 8th, we are evidently all headed into a world in which Trumpian-style itchy trigger fingers could be the norm. It already looks like both Moscow and Washington will contribute significantly to this development — and they may not be alone. In response to Russian and American moves in the nuclear arena, China is reported to be developing a “hypersonic glide vehicle,” a new type of nuclear warhead better able to evade anti-missile defenses — something that, at a moment of heightened crisis, might make a nuclear first strike seem more attractive to Washington. And don’t forget Pakistan, which is developing its own short-range “tactical” nuclear missiles, increasing the risk of the quick escalation of any future Indo-Pakistani confrontation to a nuclear exchange. (To put such “regional” dangers in perspective, a local nuclear war in South Asia could cause a global nuclear winter and, according to one study, possibly kill a billion people worldwide, thanks to crop failures and the like.)
And don’t forget North Korea, which is now testing a nuclear-armed ICBM, the Musudan, intended to strike the Western United States. That prompted a controversial decision in Washington to deploy THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) anti-missile batteries in South Korea (something China bitterly opposes), as well as the consideration of other countermeasures, including undoubtedly scenarios involving first strikes against the North Koreans.
It’s clear that we’re on the threshold of a new nuclear era: a time when the actual use of atomic weapons is being accorded greater plausibility by military and political leaders globally, while war plans are being revised to allow the use of such weapons at an earlier stage in future armed clashes.
As a result, the next president will have to grapple with nuclear weapons issues — and possible nuclear crises — in a way unknown since the Cold War era. Above all else, this will require both a cool head and a sufficient command of nuclear matters to navigate competing pressures from allies, the military, politicians, pundits, and the foreign policy establishment without precipitating a nuclear conflagration. On the face of it, that should disqualify Donald Trump. When questioned on nuclear issues in the first debate, he exhibited a striking ignorance of the most basic aspects of nuclear policy. But even Hillary Clinton, for all her experience as secretary of state, is likely to have a hard time grappling with the pressures and dangers that are likely to arise in the years ahead, especially given that her inclination is to toughen U.S. policy toward Russia.
In other words, whoever enters the Oval Office, it may be time for the rest of us to take up those antinuclear signs long left to molder in closets and memories, and put some political pressure on leaders globally to avoid strategies and weapons that would make human life on this planet so much more precarious than it already is.
Michael T. Klare, a TomDispatch regular, is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of The Race for What’s Left. A documentary movie version of his book Blood and Oil is available from the Media Education Foundation. Follow him on Twitter at @mklare1.
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Nick Turse’s Next Time They’ll Come to Count the Dead, and Tom Engelhardt’s latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

Satan: The New Nuclear Standard

Russia’s State Rocket Center named after Makeyev has declassified first photos of MS-28, Sarmat missile, better known as “Satan 2”. The nuclear capacity of the new missile is enough to wipe out the US East Coast in a few minutes.
The “Satan 2” missile appears on the website of the design bureau under the title “Experimental design work “Sarmat.” The state contract for the development of the new missile was signed in June 2011. The purpose of its creation is to ensure guaranteed and effective implementation of nuclear deterrent tasks by Russia’s strategic forces.
The new “Satan-2” missile will replace RS-36M “Satan” – the intercontinental missile nuclear complex that was developed in the 1970s by Yuzhnoye Design Bureau.
According to Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, Russia’s current SS-18 Satan warhead can destroy 3/4 of the State of New York, while 5-6 warheads will be able to wipe out all the US East Coast. One Satan-2 missile can carry up to a dozen of such warheads.
Satan 2 will be put into operation in 2018.

Babylon Will Be Destroyed In One Hour (Rev 18:17)

Michael Nunez
Russia is flexing its military muscle as tensions with the US simmer in the wake of a heated third presidential debate, where Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton called Republican candidate Donald Trump a “puppet” for Russian President Vladimir Putin. Now, Russia has declassified the first image of its new thermonuclear intercontinental ballistic missile.
The RS-28 Sarmat missile—better known as the Satan 2 nuclear missile—has finally been revealed after years of being hyped by the Russian government. According to a Russian publication aligned with the Kremlin called Sputnik, the super-nuke has a payload capable of destroying an area “the size of Texas.”
The new weapon can deploy warheads of 40 megatons, or about 2,000 times as powerful as the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagaski in 1945.
Former assistant secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy Dr. Paul Craig Roberts called the atomic bombs that Washington dropped on Japan “popguns” compared to today’s thermo-nuclear weapons. “One Russian SS-18 wipes out three-fourths of New York state for thousands of years,” he said in a blog post. “Five or six of these ‘Satans’ as they are known by the US military, and the East Coast of the United States disappears.”
To make it even more frightening, the Satan 2 is also capable of evading radar defenses and could travel far enough to strike the US East and West Coast.
The picture of the rocket was published today by chief designers at Makeyev Rocket Design Bureau. Along with photos of the rocket, the designers included the following statement (roughly translated by Google Translate).
In accordance with the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation: On the state defense order for 2010 and the planning period 2012-2013. JSC SRC Makeyev instructed to begin the development of OCD Sarmat. In June 2011, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation signed a state contract for OCD Sarmat. Prospective strategic missile systems (RKSN) Sarmat is created in order to secure and effective nuclear deterrent tasks of Russia’s strategic forces.
This rough translation can give you at least some insight into how long the engineers have been working on this missile, and it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone who has been following the US-Russia relations. In 2013, Russian announced it would begin deploying a new type of long-range missile to replace its Cold War standby, the original Satan missile. The Satan 2 missile realization of the deployment.
The original Satan missile was developed in the 1970s, as the Soviet Union achieved nuclear parity with the US in the wake of the Cold War. Those missiles are now approaching the end of their service lives. US and Russia both signed treaties in 2010 restricting the number of intercontinental ballistic missiles the countries would keep in reserve, but despite the truce, Russia said it must maintain a strong nuclear deterrent because of the US military involvement in Europe. The Satan 2 will be put into service in late 2018, and Russian officials say it will fully replace the old Satan missiles by 2020.
Russia’s decision to suddenly reveal the new missile is especially troubling as tensions between the country and US are flaring up over hacking allegations and conflict in Syria. While we don’t expect any immediate military conflicts with our NATO allies, it is certainly upsetting to know that people are actually spending time building such catastrophic weapons.

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 [ http://thesaker.is/a-russian-warning/ ] 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” [ http://thesaker.is/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 https://youtu.be/mbUU_9bOcnM ] 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 [ https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2006-03-01/rise-us-nuclear-primacy ]. The authors subsequently defended and elaborated on their 2006 article in a 2013 article in Strategic Studies Quarterly [ http://www18.georgetown.edu/data/people/kal25/publication-69263.pdf ] 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,” [ http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/04/17/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 http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/old/War/Inventing-enemy.htm .
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 https://libcom.org/library/allied-multinationals-supply-nazi-germany-world-war-2 and http://www.mit.edu/~thistle/v13/3/oil.html ): 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 http://www.PDRBoston.org .
John Spritzler, editor of NewDemocracyWorld.org 

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 Final Cold War (Daniel 8:8)

That is the consensus among military and foreign policy experts in Moscow, who have warned that Russia and the West are headed for a standoff as dangerous as the Cuban missile crisis.
The Telegraph understands the Kremlin has already made a decision to cut off diplomacy at least until after the Nov 8 US elections, in the hope of striking up a more “sincere” relationship with Barack Obama’s successor.
The move came after John Kerry, the US secretary of state, cancelled all coordination over Syria, saying Russia had ripped up months of diplomatic work.
Officials in Moscow say the Americans themselves have frequently reneged on agreed commitments.
Mr Putin made the extent of this new confrontation clear last week when he rebuked a Russian reporter who asked him why relations with Washington had collapsed because of Syria.
“It is not because of Syria. This is about one nation’s attempt to enforce its decisions on the whole world,” he said.
“Ripping it up showed how angry we are because it is related to nuclear security, and the conditions attached were a way of saying ‘go to hell’,” said Fyodor Lukyanov, chairman of Russia’s council on foreign and defence policy.
Mr Putin’s meeting with Germany’s Angela Merkel and François Hollande, the French president, in Berlin last week may suggest the Kremlin still wants to keep some diplomatic channels with Western governments open.
Russia’s goal, according to a number of military, diplomatic, and political sources in Moscow, is a grand bargain that would overturn what it sees as an unjust post-Cold War settlement.
“If we talk about the last Cold War, we are currently somewhere between the erection of the Berlin Wall and the Cuban Missile crisis,” said Lt Gen Evgeny Buzhinsky, a former head of the Russian ministry of defence’s international treaties department and now head of the PIR centre, a Moscow think tank.
“In other words, teetering on the brink of war, but without the mechanisms to manage the confrontation.”
The Russian foreign ministry on Saturday accused the Obama administration of attempting the “final destruction of relations with Russia”.
Sergei Ryabkov, a deputy foreign minister, said Moscow would retaliate in kind if the United States goes ahead with new sanctions against Russia in response to the bombing of Aleppo.
However, there is little consensus on what such a settlement should look like. Some of Moscow’s publicly stated demands, such as the roll back of Nato, are entirely unacceptable to the West.
Potential flashpoints include the Baltic, where Nato and Russia have accused one another of troop builds, and eastern Ukraine, where Russia continues to supply and direct the separatist republics of Donetsk and Luhansk.
The most dangerous flashpoint is Syria. Bashar al-Assad, the Moscow-allied Syrian president, said last week that the conflict was already turning into a direct US-Russian confrontation.
Meanwhile, Moscow is moving to extend its influence in the Middle East. Russia has already moved to improve relations with Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s government in Egypt, sending 500 troops to the country for joint military exercises this week.
There has also been speculation about reopening military bases in Cuba and Vietnam.
Those with knowledge of Russian foreign policy cautioned that Moscow was wary of getting drawn into the kind of expensive friendships it had in the Soviet era.
“In proxy situations, you invest a lot in your clients. They understand you’ve invested a lot, and they understand your motivations more than you understand theirs,” said one academic with knowledge of Russia’s Middle East policy. “That lets them manipulate you.”

Just The Tip of the Russian Nuclear Iceberg

Oren Dorell | USA TODAY22 hours ago
Worrisome signs include increased talk about using nuclear weapons, more military maneuvers with nuclear arms, development of advanced nuclear munitions and public discussion of a new war doctrine that accelerates the use of such weapons.
“Russia is exercising its military forces and its nuclear force more offensively than it used to do,” said Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists in Washington. How to respond “is hotly debated in NATO,” he said.
“Eastern European countries want a robust response, even on the nuclear side,” Kristensen said. “Western countries want NATO to take conventional steps. There’s a lack of appetite in NATO overall to go too gung-ho in the nuclear realm right now.”
The temporary deployment in Kaliningrad, which Russia retained after the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, was part of a training exercise, according to Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov.
Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite called the deployment an “open demonstration of power and aggression against not the Baltic states but against European capitals.”
A senior Obama administration official told USA TODAY the United States and its European allies are closely monitoring the situation in Kaliningrad and encouraged Russia to refrain from actions that increase tensions with its neighbors. The official did not want to be named because of the sensitivity of the matter.
The official pointed out that last month, Russia pulled out of a joint U.S.-Russian agreement to monitor each other’s disposal of plutonium fuel from dismantled nuclear weapons. Russia’s nuclear saber-rattling risks creating miscalculations and misunderstandings in a crisis, the official said.
Senior U.S. officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry, have complained about Russia’s lack of compliance with its obligations under the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty, signed in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. The treaty bars the production, testing or deployment of ground-based missiles with a range of 300 to 3,400 miles.
Russian officials have employed similar nuclear threats since the seizure of Ukraine’s Crimea province in 2014.
In March 2015, while Denmark considered participating in a NATO missile shield, Russia’s ambassador to Copenhagen, Mikhail Vanin, told the newspaper Jyllands-Posten that Danes should consider that such a move would prompt Russia to target Danish warships with nuclear missiles.
In August 2014, after the Crimean invasion, Russian President Vladimir Putin reminded an audience at a youth camp “that Russia is one of the leading nuclear powers,” and “it’s best not to mess with us.”
Analyst Peter Doran of the Center for European Policy Analysis in Washington said Russia’s foreign policy and war-fighting strategy are “evolving faster than our responses can keep up.”
Steven Pifer, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, said NATO officials and other observers disagree on whether the rhetoric and surge in nuclear activity is a bluff to counter superior NATO forces, or part of a new Russian strategy that combines nuclear threats, conventional warfare and low-yield nuclear weapons in the battlefield against NATO forces that are more numerous and technologically advanced.
“If you’re Vladimir Putin, you’re making an effort to portray Russia as a superpower,” Pifer said. “The only asset Russia has as a superpower is lots of nuclear weapons.”
Pifer said he would like to see U.S. leaders provide “more public pushback against the Russians” on the issue.
In a speech to U.S. nuclear personnel at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota last month, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said American forces are working to match the Russian threat, though he acknowledged they have some catching up to do.
“We’re refreshing NATO’s nuclear playbook to better integrate conventional and nuclear deterrence to ensure we plan and train like we’d fight and to deter Russia from thinking it can benefit from nuclear use in a conflict with NATO,” Carter said.
The most likely scenario for nuclear weapons to be used in battle is not a massive and apocalyptic exchange, Carter said, “but rather the unwise resort to smaller but still unprecedentedly terrible attacks, for example, by Russia or North Korea to try to coerce a conventionally superior opponent to back off or abandon an ally during a crisis.”
Russia’s more advanced tactical nuclear arsenal is designed to blunt the advantage provided by superior U.S. technology and NATO forces.
To counter U.S. stealth aircraft that use jamming technology to keep their exact location invisible to enemy radar, Russia has nuclear-tipped supersonic anti-aircraft missiles that would create a large enough blast in the general vicinity to take out an entire formation of allied aircraft.
Russia also has nuclear-tipped torpedoes, depth charges and missiles to counter U.S. Navy nuclear-armed submarines and aircraft carrier groups. It has plans for a nuclear-armed submersible drone that would contaminate a port with radiation so it could not be used.
The United States had many of the same tactical nuclear weapons as the Soviet Union during the Cold War, but it got rid of most of them after the Soviet collapse, said Matthew Kroenig, a professor at Georgetown University.
If there’s a conflict, Russia has a strategy to use nuclear weapons on a limited basis to force the United States and the West to back down, he said.