The increasing risk of nuclear war (Revelation 15)

WORLD WAR 3 FEARS ESCALATE: U.S. TO BUILD 400 NUKES, CALLS RUSSIA ‘LOOSE CANNON’ THREAT TO WORLD PEACE

OCTOBER 1, 2016

Norman Byrd

The United States announced this week that it would begin refurbishing its nuclear missile systems, an overhaul that is estimated to take roughly 20 years to complete, in a direct response to the upgrades made to the nuclear capabilities of Russia, China, and North Korea. And it did not push aside fears of a looming World War 3 when Defense Secretary Ash Carter made a speech at a nuclear missile silo this week where he called upon NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) members to “refresh their nuclear playbook.” In what looks to be nothing short of a re-establishment of the Cold War, events appear to signal a return to the days of nuclear weapons deterrence policies and the constant fear of some state player triggering World War 3.

As Agence France Presse (AFP) reported earlier in the week, the U.S. has plans to switch out over 400 intercontinental ballistic missiles in the next two decades, completely replacing the Minuteman III nuclear-tipped missiles now in secret silos across the U.S. with an as yet unnamed modern missile system. It is part of a refurbishing program of the military’s “nuclear triad (missiles, submarines, and bombs),” and its estimated cost is around $1 trillion, spent over the next 30 years.

“The Russians, the Chinese, the North Koreans are upgrading all of their systems,” an Air Force official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told AFP. He went on to say that since the other powers were “upgrading all of their legs of the triad,” he did not believe that “in that environment, I am not sure it makes sense” to do nothing.

The Minuteman III missile system has been in place since the 1960s (some of the missiles and silos since the 1950s). As another Air Force official noted, a number of the vendors who constructed and equipped the nuclear weapons silos have gone out of business over the years. Finding replacement parts have become extremely difficult, so some type of refurbishing operation was in order.

But the modernization of the nuclear weapons of the U.S. would not in itself prompt fears of World War 3 and a multinational war that could lead to a potential nuclear exchange. Proper maintenance of war ordnance is as much a nod to safety as it is to preparedness. The political rhetoric that followed did.

Speaking to a group of “missileers” — Air Force airmen who handle the operations of land-based nuclear weapons — at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter stated, according to the Daily Star, that Russia was as much a “loose cannon” threat to global security as North Korea with regard to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s emphasis on a resurgent Russia.

Carter said that NATO should not only “refresh their nuclear playbook” but also “plan and train like we would fight to deter Russia from thinking it can benefit from nuclear use in a conflict with NATO.”

Talk of a limited nuclear exchange in a constrained or localized war setting has become a point of acceptability of late, a tone that sparks fears in the hearts of those who would avoid World War 3 scenarios at all costs. With think tanks like the Atlantic Council, as reported by the Inquisitr, warning that Russia could invade and take over the Baltic States in a matter of days “with no warning,” fears that Russian military officials might resort to such nuclear tactics have proliferated. And then there was recently retired NATO Supreme Allied Commander Gen. Breedlove, who warned the NATO nations, according to a separate Inquisitr report, that they were woefully unprepared for a concentrated Russian attack, that a sustained military offensive, coupled with Russia’s air and naval superiority, could potentially see Russia in control of helpless Europe with the Atlantic Ocean as a patrolled buffer zone to keep the U.S. and Canada from providing assistance.

Carter told the missileers, “It is a sobering fact that the most likely use of nuclear weapons today is not the massive ‘nuclear exchange’ of the classic Cold War-type, but rather the unwise resorting to smaller but still unprecedentedly terrible attacks, for example by Russia or North Korea. We cannot allow that to happen, which is why we’re working with our allies in both regions to innovate and operate in new ways that sustain deterrence and continue to preserve strategic stability.”

World War 3 sabre-rattling is nothing new between Russia and the United States, of course. The two superpowers have played the game of nuclear brinkmanship since shortly after 1949, when Russia detonated its first atomic bomb. Although the end of the Cold War and the break-up of the Russia-dominated Union of Soviet Socialist Republics saw a lessening of tensions between the world’s two foremost nuclear superpowers, the rise of the Russian Federation under the leadership of Vladimir Putin has brought all the militarization and political posturing back into play.

And as AFP pointed out, Russia has already begun re-outfitting its nuclear triad.

The United States has apparently decided that continued Russian military aggression in various parts of Europe and the Middle East over the past few years has reached a point where nuclear weapons deterrence rhetoric must now become part of dealing with Russia — again. And so, too, must a commitment be made to the modernization of its nuclear defense capabilities. But a nuclear stand-off, at least to a great many, is a far better alternative to limited nuclear exchanges, or worse, the nearly assured destruction of the planet should World War 3 be waged with nuclear weapons.

The End Draws Near (Revelation 9)

Risk of nuclear attack rises

DAVID MARTIN CBS NEWS

Sep 25, 2016 7:59 PM EDT

The following is a script from “The New Cold War” which aired on Sept. 25, 2016. David Martin is the correspondent. Mary Walsh and Tadd Lascari, producers.

President Obama’s nuclear strategy states that while the threat of all-out nuclear war is remote the risk of a nuclear attack somewhere in the world has actually increased. When that was written three years ago the risk came from a rogue nation like North Korea. Back then the U.S. and Russia were said to be partners but that was before Russia invaded Crimea, using military force to change the borders of Europe. And before its president, Vladimir Putin, and his generals began talking about nuclear weapons. For generations nuclear weapons have been seen as a last resort to be used only in extreme circumstances. But in this new Cold War the use of a nuclear weapon is not as unlikely to occur as you might think.

Air-launched cruise missiles being loaded onto a long range B-52 bomber at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.

David Martin: When you see it close up, it’s, it’s even bigger than you think it is.

Richard Clark: It is an impressive machine. About 185,000 pounds empty. But it’s built to carry weapons and gas.

Major General Richard Clark commands all of this country’s nuclear bombers.

David Martin: And these are the weapons?

Richard Clark: Yes sir. These are air-launch cruise missiles. It is the nuclear primary weapon for the B-52.

Clark told us these are training missiles so they are not armed with nuclear warheads.

A B-52 can carry 20 cruise missiles, six under each wing and eight in the bomb bay.

Richard Clark: So this is the rotary launcher. And it holds eight air-launched cruise missiles within the internal bomb bay of the B-52. It’s a tight fit but the way it works is the launcher rotates, allows the weapon to release and send it on its way.

David Martin: It looks like the chamber of a revolver.

Richard Clark: Same idea. Just much bigger bullets.

As the most visible arm of the American nuclear arsenal these bombers are meant to send a message to an international audience.

Richard Clark: We can put this aircraft anywhere we want, anytime we want and both our allies and our adversaries take note.

David Martin: This is basically a nuclear show-and-tell?

Richard Clark: It’s not just a show-and-tell because it will deliver.

Within the last two years B-52s have begun sending that message directly to Russia, flying missions not seen since the Cold War. It started after Vladimir Putin changed history by invading an independent country, Ukraine, and seizing its Republic of Crimea.

Phillip Breedlove: The fact that military force would be used to change an internationally recognized border in the central part of Europe that was new.

Now retired, General Phillip Breedlove was the supreme Allied commander in Europe when Russia took over Crimea. The invasion was carried out by so-called little green men – Russian soliders wearing uniforms without insignia – but looming in the background were nuclear weapons.

David Martin: Was there ever any indication that Vladimir Putin was prepared to use his nuclear weapons in any way?

Phillip Breedlove: Vladimir Putin said himself that he would considered raising the alert status of his nuclear force.

David Martin: He had considered it?

Phillip Breedlove: He said it himself.

Putin said he had given an order to his military to be prepared to increase the readiness of his nuclear forces if the U.S. and NATO tried to block his takeover of Crimea. “We were not looking for a fight,” Putin said in this interview. But “we were ready for the worst-case scenario.”

Phillip Breedlove: They see nuclear weapons as a normal extension of a conventional conflict.

David Martin: So to them nuclear war is not unthinkable?

Phillip Breedlove: I think to them the use of nuclear weapons is not unthinkable.

It says so in their military doctrine, signed by Putin in 2014, Russia “…shall reserve the right to use nuclear weapons . . . In the event of aggression . . . When the very existence of the state is in jeopardy.”

Putin has personally directed nuclear exercises which have increased in both size and frequency, according to Breedlove.

David Martin: More threatening?

Phillip Breedlove: Certainly they get your attention.

David Martin: More aggressive?

Phillip Breedlove: Clearly.

And the U.S. responded with more aggressive exercises of its own. One year after Crimea four B-52s flew up over the North Pole and North Sea on an exercise called polar growl the B-52s were unarmed but that little fin on the side of the fuselage identified them as capable of carrying nuclear weapons.

Hans Kristensen: What I plotted here are the two routes for these planes.

Hans Kristensen, director of the nuclear information project at the federation of American scientists, used Google Earth to show us the message that sent Russia.

Hans Kristensen: Each bomber can carry 20 cruise missiles a maximum of them so we’re talking about potentially 80 cruise missiles that could have been launched against targets inside Russia at this particular time.

Using the cruise missiles range of 1500 miles, Kristensen plotted his own hypothetical lines showing how far they could potentially reach into Russia.

David Martin: And the end points of those red lines?

Hans Kristensen: Yes, each of them go to a facility in Russia that could be a potential target for nuclear weapons.

David Martin: The Russians would look at that and see it as a dry run for an attack on targets inside Russia.

Richard Clark: I guess they can draw the conclusions that they need to draw.

David Martin: Eighty cruise missiles in your face.

Richard Clark: It’s a lot of fire power.

David Martin: Was that the message?

Richard Clark: That’s a message for sure.

The last time American nuclear bombers flew a mission like that was during the Cold War.

Richard Clark: This was a significant exercise for us. We’re training the way we might have to fight.

It was an unmistakable warning — but Rear Admiral Steve Parode says there’s no indication the Russian military has changed its thinking about nuclear weapons.

Steve Parode: Disturbingly, in recent years there have been specific doctrinal and public statements made by other Russian leaders that indicate an evolved willingness to employ nuclear weapons in the course of conflict.

As director of intelligence for the U.S. Strategic Command, Parode spent the last two years gauging Russia’s nuclear intentions.

Steve Parode: I think that they feel that fundamentally the West is sociologically weaker and if they were to use a nuclear weapon in the course of a conflict between say NATO and Russia they might be able to shock the Western powers into de-escalating, freezing the conflict, into calling a cease fire.

David Martin: So they have a belief that they’re just tougher than us?

Steve Parode: Oh, that’s definitely true.

David Martin: And if they have to use nuclear weapons, we can’t, we can’t take it?

Steve Parode: I think that some people might think that.

Parode is not talking about the Armageddon of an all-out nuclear war which neither side could win. But the limited use of a few nuclear weapons which could convince the U.S. to back down.

David Martin: So, how would they shock us into surrender?

Steve Parode: They could strike a European target with a nuclear weapon, maybe an airfield they thought was vital to conflict between NATO and Russia.

David Shlapak: We’re looking at H-Hour. We’re looking at the, the moment before the conflict starts.

David Shlapak of the RAND Corporation directed a series of war games commissioned by the Pentagon in which Russia invaded the Baltic states of Estonia and Latvia — two of the newer members of NATO and because of their location on the Russian border two of the most vulnerable.

David Shlapak: When the fight starts, the Russians have about 400 to 500 tanks on the battlefield. NATO has none.

The red chips represent Russian forces. The blue and white are NATO.

David Martin: The relative size of the stacks kind of says it all.

David Shlapak: It does, it does. This is not a happy picture for NATO.

As the scenario unfolds, Russian forces in red are storming the capitals of Estonia and Latvia.

David Shlapak: They can get there between a day and a half and two and a half days – 36 to 60 hours.

To retake Estonia and Latvia the U.S. and NATO would have to conduct a major build-up of military forces to drive the Russians out.

David Shlapak: One of the things you would expect Russia to do would be to begin rattling the nuclear sabre very aggressively, to say, “We’re here. This is our territory now. And if you come and try to take it away from us, we will escalate.”

David Martin: Escalate. Use nuclear weapons?

David Shlapak: Use nuclear weapons.

Russia has more than 1,000 short range nuclear weapons while the U.S. has less than 200 at air bases in Europe.

Hans Kristensen: There’s one in Germany…

The locations of American nuclear weapons are officially secret. But here’s what they look like. Hans Kristensen says he discovered this photo on a U.S. Air Force website showing the inside of a shelter where nuclear bombs would be loaded aboard American and NATO jet fighters.

Hans Kristensen: Each vault can have up to four nuclear bombs. They hang right next to each other.

Hans Kristensen: It can – it sinks into the ground with the weapons, levels completely with the surface.

David Martin: And just out of a doomsday movie the nuclear weapon rises out of the floor.

Hans Kristensen: Right.

The bomb is called the B-61 and it’s being upgraded by adding a new set of tail fins that give it greater accuracy. That would allow the B-61 to destroy its target using a lower-yield nuclear weapon which would decrease the number of civilian casualties.

The air-launched cruise missile, says Major General Clark, can also be turned into a low-yield nuclear weapon.

Richard Clark: There is a variable yield option on this weapon, so we can change that yield within the weapon.

David Martin: You can dial in a yield?

Richard Clark: That’s what we call it, actually. Dial a yield.

David Martin: Does that make a nuclear weapon easier to use?

Phillip Breedlove: We do not plan to go there. We do not want to go there.

David Martin: But if you have this option which allows you to keep civilian casualties to a minimum and you’re really up against it, isn’t it easier?

Phillip Breedlove: I don’t think that any decision to ever use a nuclear weapon could be categorized as easy.

David Martin: Less difficult?

Phillip Breedlove: Less difficult. We could say that.

Russia is also developing low-yield weapons which this declassified CIA document says could “…lower the threshold for first use of nuclear weapons…” “the development of low yield warheads that could be used on high-precision weapon systems would be consistent with Russia’s increasing reliance on nuclear weapons…”

But “increasing reliance on nuclear weapons,” says Rear Admiral Parode, doesn’t mean Russia is eager to use them.

Steve Parode: I don’t perceive that they are, have become madmen with their fingers on the button. But I do believe they are more interested in considering how nuclear weapons could be used in conflict to either close a gap or to sustain the opportunity for victory.

David Martin: So what’s the scenario? What situation would get them to seriously consider the use of nuclear weapons?

Steve Parode: That is probably the greatest question I’m trying to answer today for Admiral Haney.

infostrategic-command-center.jpg
CBS News
That’s Admiral Cecil Haney, head of the U.S. Strategic Command, the man who would carry out a presidential order to launch a nuclear weapon.

Cecil Haney: Thank you. I appreciate the update.

Low key and cerebral, Haney commands not only this country’s nuclear forces but its cyber weapons and space satellites as well.

David Martin: Is it riskier today?

Cecil Haney: Well I think today we’re at a time and place that I don’t think we’ve been to before.

It is Haney’s job to convince Vladimir Putin that resorting to nuclear weapons would be the worst mistake he could possibly make.

David Martin: When you look at what would work to deter Russia, do you have to get inside Putin’s head?

Cecil Haney: You have to have a deep, deep, deep understanding of any adversary you want to deter, including Mr. Putin.

David Martin: So how would you describe him psychologically?

Cecil Haney: Well, one I would say I’m not a psychologist. But I would just say he is clearly an individual that is an opportunist.

David Martin: Does it concern you that an opportunist has a nuclear arsenal?

Cecil Haney: It concerns me that Russia has a lot of nuclear weapons. It concerns me that Russia has behaved badly on the international stage. And it concerns me that we have leadership in Russia, at various levels that would flagrantly talk about the use of a nuclear weapon in this 21st century.

Skidding Towards Prophecy (Revelation 15)

‘Skidding to nuclear conflict’

Head of PPP Media Cell

War mongering in India is running high and its government reportedly is considering localised military action to teach Pakistan a befitting lesson for its alleged cross-border terrorism.

Pakistan is bound to respond in equal measure and according to Stephen Cohen as reported in New York Times recently, ‘the conflict could skid into a nuclear conflict,’ adding it would be devastating for both the countries. War hysteria in India this time is fuming with vengeance enough to cross the red-lines. Its probable eventuality gets credence in the wake of recent Uri attack in IHK, earlier Pathankot terrorist attack and Mumbai carnage, and Pakistan government’s inordinate delay to bring the culprits to justice.

It is hoped that better sense will prevail on Indian government led by Prime Minister Modi that has been desperately trying to build up its leadership mettles by bringing in economic prosperity in the country. They must not be carried away under the pressure of hawks who have increasingly taken the central stage in the corridors of power of India and in the country’s media alike.

Surprisingly, Indian prime minister’s last week’s Saturday public address opting for isolating Pakistan globally rather than crossing the swords, was a positive development to stem the tide of the possibility of the armed conflict between the two countries.

Overwhelming majority of people in Pakistan and India as well took the sigh of relief over the resultant shattering of war clouds as the unleashing of the of war instruments could have inevitably left the two countries crying mutual havoc afterwards exemplifying all pains no gains.

In this backdrop generated by India, Pakistan prime minister should immediately give heed to the sane proposal of ANP Chief Asfandyar Wali suggesting him to summon the joint session of Parliament to discuss the state of deteriorating relations, to the lowest ebb, between two neighbours for the formulation of a national response to ward off imminent threat that may lead to armed conflict.

Its indispensability cannot be overemphasised at a time when possibility of Indian retaliatory military action inside Pakistan is flying thick and fast.

The joint session of the Parliament will send a powerful and detrimental message to the bellicosity of India, and to the world community of Pakistan’s endeavours of averting the conflict in the face of India’s jingoism. Such message emanating from the Pakistan Parliament is bound to have desirable impact qualitatively both on India and the world at large.

The proposed session of the Parliament will also suggest to the government the road map of de-escalation of prevailing tension between the two countries leading to renewed efforts for normalisation. For this, an all parties’ parliamentary delegation may be constituted to activate diplomatic efforts assuring India of Pakistan’s commitment to bring terrorists of all hues to justice as a shared priority.

The Indian government should welcome such initiative. Its reluctance will be construed as having aggressive designs against Pakistan. The delegation should also urge the Indian government to resolve the outstanding issue of Kashmir as per commitment of India and Pakistan made before the UN Security Council. The security establishment must take the back seat because ‘it is too serious business.’

Pakistan’s crying horse as victim of terrorism has been increasingly losing its appeal in the world. Its incredible successes against terrorism are also subjected to the diminishing return because of the widely held perception that Pakistan’s ubiquitous security establishment has been playing on the both sides of the street so far as good and bad terrorists are concerned. It is no more plausible because the international community’s patience is brimming out with frustration as Haqqani network’s presence on Pakistani soil glaringly runs counter to the stated policy of Pakistan. This contradiction had invited all out opprobrium. Its fight to defeat terrorism in its all forms and manifestations is deemed as flawed. It is hard to find any taker of this covert policy of Pakistan notwithstanding colossal losses, both in blood and treasure, in the war of terror. It is ironical because the world is skeptical.

Two big and prominent proscribed outfits, also on the UN terrorist list, are big source of embarrassment for Pakistan as they take out processions in major cities in the full glare of media. The government’s inaction under NAP speaks volumes of its either double speak or lying in spine before them intimidated and terrified having no audacity to control them.

This display of outlawed organisations is under the scrutiny of the international organisations and the media. The state of affairs also explicitly points to the civil-military disparate because civilians consider them as delinquent liability and the military as its Trojan horse. It also purportedly implies that elected government cannot take them on in favour of paradigm shift fearing reprisal from their patron leading to destabilisation enough to endanger the longevity of the government of the day. The credibility of the government and its institution will not be restored till the bull is not taken by horns in front of the full gaze of the world.

Ironically, the establishment not presumably jettisoned, overt and covert, proclivity of controlling the security/foreign policy to the much exclusion of the civilians and their representatives, Parliament, notwithstanding the history of devastating denouements of this type of pursuit in the form of secession of the federation, sprawling of extremism and terrorism, Kargil debacle, Indian clandestine occupation of Siachin, privatisation of the security/foreign policy through proxies etc. Senator Farhatullha Babar has dwelled upon this self-defeating tendency at various public and parliamentary forums at number of times but no avail.

A combined article written by three former distinguished foreign secretaries and the security adviser, published on the front page in the local English daily, have blown the whistle urging the government to take immediate and bold initiatives to defuse the situation by improving relations with Afghanistan as its top priority followed by with other neighbours. Thanks for the immensely valuable and timely advice to the mandarins that should sink well with them. The opinion of such distinguished personalities should be taken with matching seriousness preceded by tangible steps in the direction as suggested by them.

Government in Kabul must be assured in absolute terms of not allowing Afghan Taliban in Pakistan to use its soil to perpetrate terrorism in the country. The drive against the Afghan Taliban network should not only be carried out by Pakistan but also be seen to be carried out. Pakistan has no choice but to abandon Taliban of all hues if it wants the world to believe in its commitment to defeat terrorism indiscriminately. The echoes of betrayal and duplicity, US Congress, are too loud now in the world capitals enough to shrill nation’s ears. The chances of getting benefit of doubt are almost nil, be aware.

Even man of ordinary prudence will conclude the grotesque aftermaths of proxy wars. The presence of Afghan Taliban on Pakistan soil gives credibility to the Indian allegations of the currency of cross-border terrorism. Afghanistan leadership blames Pakistan for all its predicaments attributed to this policy of good and bad terrorists.

Tragically, activities of the proscribed organisations under the open sky of Pakistan had also hurt the struggle of the Kashmiri people for independence as they flaunt their role in the uprising against the Indian occupation of the Valley. They were helping India who projected it as a terrorist movement rather than legitimate struggle focused to the right of self-determination. The Uri terrorist attack recently gave India much fodder to divert the attention of the international community at the expense of the freedom movement. It was enough to confuse the international community, and the Indian diplomacy was on the overdrive to put blame of cross-border terrorism on Pakistan. The incident overshadowed the Indian atrocities in held Kashmir at a time when UN General Assembly was in session.

No country can afford to endorse the presence of Afghan terrorists on Pakistani soil. The rest of the world is increasingly coming closer to tell Pakistan on its face ‘enough is enough.’ In the US, the Congressmen are raising their voice against Pakistan alleging the country has proved as unworthy ally and US money cannot be spent to reward ‘betrayal and duplicity’. President Obama had also candidly urged Pakistan, ‘to move pro-actively and sincerely to delegitimise and dismantle the Haqqani network.’ The US Security Adviser Susan Rice during her visit to Pakistan also made it quite clear that Haqqani network had to be dismantled if Pakistan wanted the US economic and military assistance. The rejection of US aid to Pakistan clearly suggested that there were no free lunches.

In the recent meeting of prime minister of Pakistan in New York with John Kerry, cross-border terrorism figured quite prominently. Pakistan stands no chance of standing on its feet in the diplomatic and economic fronts if US’ annoyance culminating into choking reprisal in myriad fronts. As such, the wheels of diplomacy should move swiftly based on paradigm shift and unflinching sincerity to turn the tide of looming disaster. The parliamentarians should display guts and take the charge of the foreign/a security domain which is their legitimate right conferred on them by the people of Pakistan. Their ambivalence in this regard will cast shadow of pusillanimous explicitly implying not worthy of representing the people. The imposition of institutional pontification in this regard should be relic of the past that is known for inflicting curdling nightmares.

muhammadshaheedi@yahoo.com

Last Days Before The End (Revelation 16)

THREE MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT: CLOSER TO NUCLEAR CONFLICT THAN WE THINK

DAVID BARNO AND NORA BENSAHEL
MARCH 8, 2016

While at Stanford last month, we had a long conversation with former Secretary of Defense William Perry about the nuclear dangers facing the world. We were struck by his provocative and frightening outlook: that the possibility of a nuclear catastrophe today is greater than it was during the Cold War. North Korea’s recent bluster only underlines the dangers.

Perry knows whereof he speaks, since he has devoted most of his career to preventing nuclear conflict. (Full disclosure: One of us was his student and research assistant at Stanford.) His recent book, My Journey at the Nuclear Brink, explains why he focused so much on these issues, and why he concluded that nuclear weapons endanger U.S. national security far more than they preserve it.
After our conversation with Perry, we attended a lecture that he gave on today’s nuclear dangers. It is well worth watching in its entirety, for he offered a nuanced analysis of the nuclear policies and capabilities of Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan. After this sweeping tour of the world, he concluded that there are three main nuclear dangers today that, taken together, make the current world even more dangerous than during most of the Cold War. He pointed out that the Doomsday Clock is currently set at three minutes to midnight — the closest to midnight it has been since the height of the Cold War in 1984, and only one minute ahead of its lowest setting ever, in 1953.
The first danger is the possibility of a nuclear war with Russia, either by accident or miscalculation. Perry argued that today’s situation is “comparable to the dark days of the Cold War,” not only because Russia is modernizing its nuclear arsenal but also because Russian President Vladimir Putin might consider using nuclear weapons if the survival of his regime is at stake. Putin faces many domestic challenges, including the drastic decline of oil prices that is forcing the state to rapidly consume its capital reserves, and aggressive nationalist policies are one way to divert domestic attention from those problems. Russia is not deliberately seeking a military conflict with the United States or NATO, Perry said, but the key danger is that Putin “will take actions that will cause him to blunder into a conflict.” He argued that over time, Russia would inevitably lose any such conventional conflict, which might lead it to use its tactical nuclear weapons (which it refers to surreally as a “de-escalatory strike”). And if that were to happen, it would be impossible to predict or control the resulting escalation.

The second danger is a regional nuclear war — a danger that did not exist during the Cold War. Though he discussed possible future threats from North Korea, Perry rightly described a possible nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan as “the poster child” of this scenario. We’ve written about this danger before. Pakistan and India remain locked in a frozen conflict that is the legacy of nearly 70 years of unresolved issues — including Kashmir — and three bloody wars. Today, both nations possess more than 100 nuclear weapons. The Pakistanis have recently begun developing and fielding tactical nuclear weapons, ostensibly to offset India’s sizable conventional superiority. These short-range weapons are inherently less easy to secure and control, and clearly lower the threshold for actual use on the battlefield.

Perry noted that both Indians and Pakistanis expect and fear future attacks similar to the 2013 Mumbai terrorist massacre — and neither side expects New Delhi to exercise similar military restraint in response. Thus, the stage is set for a conventional military confrontation that could rapidly escalate into an Indo-Pakistani nuclear war — first at the tactical level, but one that could spiral unpredictably into a strategic exchange. In Perry’s words: “This is the nightmare of how a regional nuclear war would start — a nightmare that would involve tens of millions of deaths, along with the possibility of stimulating a nuclear winter that would cause widespread tragedies all over the planet.”
The third nuclear danger is the prospect of nuclear terrorism, which also did not exist during the Cold War — and which he argued is far more dangerous than most people understand. He showed a chilling video of what he called the Nightmare Scenario. It involves a rogue group of scientists operating on the fringes of a state’s nuclear weapons program smuggling out enough plutonium and bomb-making knowledge to create a single nuclear device, which they then transfer to a waiting terrorist group. This group then uses commercial air, sea, and land transport to infiltrate the bomb into the United States and detonate it in downtown Washington, D.C. — inflicting tens of thousands of casualties and effectively decapitating the U.S. government. The terrorists threaten further attacks on other major American cities if all U.S. troops deployed overseas are not immediately brought home. The resultant chaos plunges the nation into a paroxysm of civil disorder, mass roundups of thousands of suspects, and martial law.

This scenario may be unlikely, but it is both credible and chilling — and a little-discussed danger for the United States. Its dangers lie not just in tens or hundreds of thousands of casualties from such a devastating attack here at home, but in the potential for the United States to plunge into chaos and respond in ways that forever alter the essence of what it means to be an American. Both the catastrophic destruction and the breakdown of U.S. civil liberties depicted in the film suggest the imminent dangers associated with this nuclear threat today — one aimed within the United States itself, not just constrained to some distant region.

Perry suggested a series of steps to help reduce the growing risks of nuclear war in this century. Foremost among them was the very purpose of his book and lecture: to “educate the public on today’s nuclear dangers, and to promote policies that can reduce those dangers.” He is a tireless advocate of improving relations between the United States and Russia, because he believes that restoring cooperation in areas of mutual interest is the first step towards reducing the dependence on nuclear weapons. He also reinforced the need to raise global awareness of the dangers of nuclear weapons, and remain focused here at home on the very real dangers of a terrorist group detonating a weapon in the United States.

Perry, who is 88 years old, ended his talk on a much-needed note of optimism. He continues to work tirelessly to reduce the threat of nuclear conflict and towards a world free of nuclear weapons. But he does not believe he is a “naïve idealist,” as he has been called, for promoting such unrealistic goals. Instead, he noted that the famous Soviet dissident Andrei Sakharov spent his whole life working toward political reform in the Soviet Union, which also seemed to be a hopeless task. When told he was being too idealistic, Sakharov replied, “There is a need to create ideals, even when you cannot see a path to achieving them. Because when there are no ideals, then there is no hope.”
“We must pursue our ideals,” Perry concluded, “in order to keep alive our hope — hope for a safer world for our children and for our grandchildren.”

Lt. General David W. Barno, USA (Ret.) is a Distinguished Practitioner in Residence, and Dr. Nora Bensahel is a Distinguished Scholar in Residence, at the School of International Service at American University. Both also serve as Nonresident Senior Fellows at the Atlantic Council. Their column appears in War on the Rocks every other Tuesday. To sign up for Barno and Bensahel’s Strategic Outpost newsletter, where you can track their articles as well as their public events, click here.

The Judgment: The Nuclear Holocaust Is Very Near (Rev 15:2)

Nuclear scientists: The end is near for humanity

US group founded by creators of atomic bomb move ‘Doomsday Clock’ ahead two minutes; not so fast, other scientists say
By Seth Borenstein January 25, 2015
A US nuclear bomb test at the Marshall Islands, 1954 (photo credit: Wikicommons/United States Department of Energy)
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists says Earth is now closer to human-caused doomsday than it has been in more than 30 years because of global warming and nuclear weaponry. But other experts say that’s much too gloomy.
The US advocacy group founded by the creators of the atomic bomb moved their famed “Doomsday Clock” ahead two minutes on Thursday. It said the world is now three minutes from a catastrophic midnight, instead of five minutes.
“This is about doomsday; this is about the end of civilization as we know it,” bulletin executive director Kennette Benedict said at a news conference in Washington.
She called both climate change and modernization of nuclear weaponry equal but undeniable threats to humanity’s continued existence that triggered the 20 scientists on the board to decide to move the clock closer to midnight.
“The probability of global catastrophe is very high, and the actions needed to reduce the risks of disaster must be taken very soon,” Benedict said.
But other scientists aren’t quite so pessimistic.
Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of both geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University, said in an email: “I suspect that humans will ‘muddle through’ the climate situation much as we have muddled through the nuclear weapons situation — limiting the risk with cooperative international action and parallel domestic policies.”
The bulletin has included climate change in its doomsday clock since 2007.
“The fact that the Doomsday clock-setters changed their definition of ‘doomsday’ shows how profoundly the world has changed — they have to find a new source of doom because global thermonuclear war is now so unlikely,” Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker wrote in an email. Pinker in his book “The Better Angels of our Nature” uses statistics to argue that the world has become less war-like, less violent and more tolerant in recent decades and centuries.
Richard Somerville, a member of the Bulletin’s board who is a climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, said the trend in heat-trapping emissions from the burning of fossil fuels will “lead to major climatic disruption globally. The urgency has nothing to do with politics or ideology. It arises from the laws of physics and biology and chemistry. These laws are non-negotiable.”
But Somerville agreed that the threat from climate change isn’t quite as all-or-nothing as it is with nuclear war.
Even with the end of the cold war, the lack of progress in the dismantling of nuclear weapons and countries like the United States and Russia spending hundreds of billions of dollars on modernizing nuclear weaponry makes an atomic bomb explosion — either accidental or on purpose — a continuing and more urgent threat, Benedict said.
But Benedict did acknowledge the group has been warning of imminent nuclear disaster with its clock since 1947 and it hasn’t happened yet.
Copyright 2015 The Associated Press.
Read more: Nuclear scientists: The end is near for humanity | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/nuclear-scientists-the-end-is-near-for-humanity/#ixzz3PnmYqaPT
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook

The Judgment: The Nuclear Holocaust Is Very Near (Rev 15:2)

Nuclear scientists: The end is near for humanity

US group founded by creators of atomic bomb move ‘Doomsday Clock’ ahead two minutes; not so fast, other scientists say

By Seth Borenstein January 25, 2015

A US nuclear bomb test at the Marshall Islands, 1954 (photo credit: Wikicommons/United States Department of Energy)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists says Earth is now closer to human-caused doomsday than it has been in more than 30 years because of global warming and nuclear weaponry. But other experts say that’s much too gloomy.
The US advocacy group founded by the creators of the atomic bomb moved their famed “Doomsday Clock” ahead two minutes on Thursday. It said the world is now three minutes from a catastrophic midnight, instead of five minutes.

“This is about doomsday; this is about the end of civilization as we know it,” bulletin executive director Kennette Benedict said at a news conference in Washington.

She called both climate change and modernization of nuclear weaponry equal but undeniable threats to humanity’s continued existence that triggered the 20 scientists on the board to decide to move the clock closer to midnight.

“The probability of global catastrophe is very high, and the actions needed to reduce the risks of disaster must be taken very soon,” Benedict said.

But other scientists aren’t quite so pessimistic.

Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of both geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University, said in an email: “I suspect that humans will ‘muddle through’ the climate situation much as we have muddled through the nuclear weapons situation — limiting the risk with cooperative international action and parallel domestic policies.”

The bulletin has included climate change in its doomsday clock since 2007.

“The fact that the Doomsday clock-setters changed their definition of ‘doomsday’ shows how profoundly the world has changed — they have to find a new source of doom because global thermonuclear war is now so unlikely,” Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker wrote in an email. Pinker in his book “The Better Angels of our Nature” uses statistics to argue that the world has become less war-like, less violent and more tolerant in recent decades and centuries.

Richard Somerville, a member of the Bulletin’s board who is a climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, said the trend in heat-trapping emissions from the burning of fossil fuels will “lead to major climatic disruption globally. The urgency has nothing to do with politics or ideology. It arises from the laws of physics and biology and chemistry. These laws are non-negotiable.”

But Somerville agreed that the threat from climate change isn’t quite as all-or-nothing as it is with nuclear war.

Even with the end of the cold war, the lack of progress in the dismantling of nuclear weapons and countries like the United States and Russia spending hundreds of billions of dollars on modernizing nuclear weaponry makes an atomic bomb explosion — either accidental or on purpose — a continuing and more urgent threat, Benedict said.

But Benedict did acknowledge the group has been warning of imminent nuclear disaster with its clock since 1947 and it hasn’t happened yet.

Read more: Nuclear scientists: The end is near for humanity | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/nuclear-scientists-the-end-is-near-for-humanity/#ixzz3PnmYqaPT
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook

The Nuclear Holocaust (Revelation 15:2)

Drifting toward nuclear irrelevance

By Robert Dodge, M.D.
The nuclear powers consisting of the P5 members of the U.N. Security Council led by the United States and the nations of Israel, North Korea, India and Pakistan are drifting toward irrelevance in the legally mandated global effort to abolish nuclear weapons. The nuclear nine are in breach of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). 189 nations signatory to the treaty have just concluded the month long NPT Review Conference at the U.N. with no consensus or meaningful final draft statement to move the process forward. The rest of the world is being held hostage by these nine to the current nuclear insanity that threatens all of humanity every moment of every day.
These nuclear nations have chosen to conveniently deny the relevance of recent scientific evidence that confirms that even a small regional nuclear war is far more dangerous than once thought. Using just ½ of 1 percent of the global nuclear arsenals for example between India and Pakistan would put 2 billion people at risk of death on the planet from the dramatic climatic change and severe global famine that would follow such a war. These climate effects would last for more than 10 years. Based on this new scientific evidence, the world’s superpowers have become de facto suicide bombers because a unilateral attack from their massive arsenals even without a retaliatory response would have far more devastating effects endangering their own populations as well. Faced with these facts 107 non-nuclear nations thus far have come together and said enough. Representing a majority of the world’s population and signors of the NPT treaty, they have lost their patience and are declaring the nuclear nations insincere in their efforts and will no longer be held hostage.
Fortunately there is a powerful and positive response coming out of the NPT Review Conference. The Non-Nuclear Weapons States have come together and demanded a legal ban on nuclear weapons like the ban on every other weapon of mass destruction from chemical to biologic and including land mines. Their voices are rising up. They have committed to the Humanitarian Pledge following the pledge by Austria in December 2014 to fill the legal gap necessary to ban these weapons. That means finding a legal instrument that would prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons. Such a ban will make these weapons illegal and will stigmatize any nation that continues to have these weapons as being outside of international law.
Costa Rica’s closing NPT remarks noted, “Democracy has not come to the NPT but Democracy has come to nuclear weapons disarmament.” The nuclear weapons states have failed to demonstrate any leadership toward total disarmament and in fact have no intention of doing so. They must now step aside and allow the majority of the nations to come together and work collectively for their future and the future of humanity. John Loretz of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War said, “The nuclear-armed states are on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of morality, and the wrong side of the future. The ban treaty is coming, and then they will be indisputably on the wrong side of the law. And they have no one to blame but themselves.”
Ray Acheson of Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom says, “Those who reject nuclear weapons must have the courage of their convictions to move ahead without the nuclear-armed states, to take back ground from the violent few who purport to run the world, and build a new reality of human security and global justice.”
And thus the nuclear nations drift toward nuclear irrelevance.
Dodge is a family physician practicing full time in Ventura, California. He serves on the Los Angeles and National boards of Physicians for Social Responsibility (www.psr-la.org, http://www.psr.org). He also serves on the board of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org) and Citizens for Peaceful Resolutions (www.c-p-r.net).

The Judgment: The Nuclear Holocaust Is Very Near (Rev 15:2)

30 November, 2015 by Andrew the Prophet

Nuclear scientists: The end is near for humanity

US group founded by creators of atomic bomb move ‘Doomsday Clock’ ahead two minutes; not so fast, other scientists say

By Seth Borenstein January 25, 2015

A US nuclear bomb test at the Marshall Islands, 1954 (photo credit: Wikicommons/United States Department of Energy)

The US advocacy group founded by the creators of the atomic bomb moved their famed “Doomsday Clock” ahead two minutes on Thursday. It said the world is now three minutes from a catastrophic midnight, instead of five minutes.

“This is about doomsday; this is about the end of civilization as we know it,” bulletin executive director Kennette Benedict said at a news conference in Washington.

“The probability of global catastrophe is very high, and the actions needed to reduce the risks of disaster must be taken very soon,” Benedict said.

But other scientists aren’t quite so pessimistic.

The bulletin has included climate change in its doomsday clock since 2007.

But Somerville agreed that the threat from climate change isn’t quite as all-or-nothing as it is with nuclear war.

But Benedict did acknowledge the group has been warning of imminent nuclear disaster with its clock since 1947 and it hasn’t happened yet.

The Judgment: The Nuclear Holocaust Is Very Near (Rev 15:2)

Nuclear scientists: The end is near for humanity

US group founded by creators of atomic bomb move ‘Doomsday Clock’ ahead two minutes; not so fast, other scientists say

By Seth Borenstein January 25, 2015

A US nuclear bomb test at the Marshall Islands, 1954 (photo credit: Wikicommons/United States Department of Energy)

“This is about doomsday; this is about the end of civilization as we know it,” bulletin executive director Kennette Benedict said at a news conference in Washington.
She called both climate change and modernization of nuclear weaponry equal but undeniable threats to humanity’s continued existence that triggered the 20 scientists on the board to decide to move the clock closer to midnight.

“The probability of global catastrophe is very high, and the actions needed to reduce the risks of disaster must be taken very soon,” Benedict said.

But other scientists aren’t quite so pessimistic.

The bulletin has included climate change in its doomsday clock since 2007.

But Somerville agreed that the threat from climate change isn’t quite as all-or-nothing as it is with nuclear war.

But Benedict did acknowledge the group has been warning of imminent nuclear disaster with its clock since 1947 and it hasn’t happened yet.

Disarmament? Not According To Prophecy (Revelation 16)

Nuclear disarmament? Forget it.
More than 100 countries snubbed by nuclear powers
Richard Norton-Taylor

Tuesday 2 June 2015 07.17 EDT
Last modified on Tuesday 2 June 2015 08.15 EDT

The latest nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) review conference did not make waves. There was hardly a word in the mainstream media.

Perhaps it was not surprising. What is there newsworthy in hundreds of diplomats and scores of NGOs over a period of four weeks calling for nuclear disarmament, in effect praising motherhood and apple pie?

Yet the UN-sponsored conference in New York did not end in bland consensus. Far from it. It ended in disarray and angry exchanges.

Non-nuclear countries, ie most of the world, pointed the finger at the five “official” nuclear powers – the US, UK, Russia, China, and France.

South African delegates compared “the sense that the NPT has degenerated into minority rule” to apartheid. Specifically, the US blamed Egypt for an “unrealistic and unworkable” demand – setting a deadline for a conference on a nuclear-free Middle East.

In rare praise for Barack Obama, the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, thanked the US – and the UK and Canada – for blocking Egypt’s proposal.

The conference failed to agree on any meaningful steps towards nuclear disarmament, including of course filling what is called the “legal gap “ – ie prohibiting the use if nuclear weapons in the same way, by a treaty, that other weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical weapons, are prohibited.

But more than 100 governments committed themselves to working for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons by endorsing a “humanitarian pledge”. That pledge, said Beatrice Fihn, executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons ICAN,

“must be the basis for the negotiations of a new treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons”.

The official nuclear-armed states are estimated to possess about 15,650 nuclear weapons (the vast majority in US and Russian arsenals; the UK has “no more than 120” of what Michael Fallon described to MPs earlier this year as “operationally available” nuclear warheads).

The Foreign Office minister, Baroness Anelay, told the NPT review conference that the UK would “retain a credible and effective minimum nuclear deterrent for as long as the global security situation makes that necessary”.

Disarmament campaigners pointed out that such an approach could encourage other countries to adopt a “deterrence doctrine”, thereby actually inciting nuclear proliferation.

“My government”, said the Queen’s Speech last week, “will work to reduce the threat from nuclear weapons…”

Lord West, former first sea lord and Labour security minister was quick to point out, curiously she did not mention Trident. A “yawning gap”, he called it.

Yet, he added, Trident was seen as so important for the Conservatives that Michael Fallon, the defence secretary, “wrote to every household in Barrow before the election saying that voting for the Labour candidate would put the deterrent at risk and hence all their jobs.”.

West, like Labour’s front bench, are in favour of replacing the four-submarine Trident fleet. But he also described the fact that the navy being reduced to just 19 “escort” ships – destroyers and frigates – as “nothing less than a national disgrace”.

Pressure on the defence budget, a large part of which will be devoted to Trident amnd aircraft carriers over the next decade, threatens to force further cuts in the navy’s conventional surface fleet – the ships it needs most for maritime operations, including surveillance and combatting pirates and drug traffickers.

“We are at a turning point”, said West. “Defence is in a crisis…Without an increase in defence spending we are on a road to disaster.” Something must give.