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?”

Obama Refuses To See His Legacy Go (Ezekiel 17)

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama has ordered intelligence officials to conduct a broad review of election-season cyberattacks, including the email hacks that rattled the presidential campaign and raised fresh concerns about Russia’s meddling in U.S. elections, the White House said Friday.
The review, led by intelligence agencies, will be a “deep dive” into a possible pattern of increased “malicious cyber activity” timed to the campaign season, White House spokesman Eric Schultz said. The review will look at the tactics, targets, key actors and the U.S. government’s response to the recent email hacks, as well as incidents reported in past elections, he said.
“The president wanted this done under his watch because he takes it very seriously,” he said. “We are committed to ensuring the integrity of our elections.”
U.S. intelligence officials accused Russia of hacking into Democratic officials’ email accounts in an attempt to interfere with the presidential campaign. The Kremlin rejected the accusations.
In the months leading up to the election, email accounts of Democratic Party officials and a top Hillary Clinton campaign aide were breached, emails leaked and embarrassing and private emails posted online. Many Democrats believe the hackings benefited Republican Donald Trump’s bid. Trump has downplayed the possibility that Russia was involved.
Schultz said the president sought the probe as a way of improving U.S. defense against cyberattacks and was not intending to question the legitimacy of Trump’s victory.
“This is not an effort to challenge the outcome of the election,” Schultz said.
Obama’s move comes as Democratic lawmakers have been pushing Obama to declassify more information about Russia’s role, fearing that Trump, who has promised a warmer relationship with Moscow, may not prioritize the issue.
Given Trump’s statements, “there is an added urgency to the need for a thorough review before President Obama leaves office next month,” said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., senior Democrat on the House intelligence committee. If the administration doesn’t respond “forcefully” to such actions, “we can expect to see a lot more of this in the near future,” he said.
The White House said it would make portions of the report public and would brief lawmakers and relevant state officials on the findings.
It emphasized the report would not focus solely on Russian operations or hacks involving Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and Democratic National Committee accounts. Schultz stressed officials would be reviewing incidents going back to the 2008 presidential campaign, when the campaigns of Sen. John McCain and Obama were breached by hackers.
Intelligence officials have said Obama and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney were targets of Chinese cyberattacks four years later.

Antichrist Warns President Trump (Revelation 13)

“Even if the US president changed, the hostile policies against the world will not change,” Sadr said in a statement on Thursday, stressing that Washington’s approach toward the Middle East and Iraq will not alter no matter who the president and vice president are, and which political party is running the US administration.
Sadr then urged the US president-elect “not to throw himself into new gambles in the world of politics as the results would be nothing other than losses, blood and warfare –– something which would only prolong America’s woes especially at the time it is going through a financial distress.”
Moreover, the Iraqi clergyman asked the American nation “not to be affected by the radicalism of their president,” warning that they would otherwise “suffer from the international isolation because of the reckless policies which is unacceptable to every mind and every religion.”
Sadr signed his statement with “Peace be on the American people,” noting, “You have to know that Israel will remain our first enemy.”
US President-elect Donald Trump meets with US President Barack Obama (unseen) during an update on transition planning in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington DC, the United States, on November 10, 2016. (Photo by AFP)
On Tuesday, Trump stunned the world by defeating Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in the US presidential election.
The New York businessman has so far garnered 290 electoral votes, while his heavily favored rival and the former secretary of state received 232 votes despite winning the popular vote.
Thousands of people rallied in cities across the US on Wednesday to protest against Trump’s presidential election victory, condemning his controversial campaign rhetoric against Muslims, immigrants, women and other groups.

Antichrist Slams Trump (Revelation 13)

BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraq’s Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has slammed President-elect Donald Trump over his “escalating statements… against Islam and Muslims,” and criticized him for not distinguishing between radical and moderate Muslims.
In written statement issued Thursday, the influential anti-U.S. cleric responded to the outcome of the U.S. presidential election saying “Even if the president changed, the (U.S.’s) hostile policies against the world will not change.”
He urged the American people “not to be affected by the radicalism of their president“, warning that they would otherwise “suffer from the international isolation because of the reckless policies which is unacceptable to every mind and every religion.”
Al-Sadr signed of his statement with “Peace be on the American people,” as well as, “You have to know that Israel will remain our first enemy.”

The Antichrist Opposes Trump (Revelation 13)

He says: “We advise the American people not to be affected by the radicalism of their president, and they should not allow him to impose his influence.”
He added: “Peace be upon the American people, those who like moderation and who want peace and peaceful coexistence between religions and ethnicities.”

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.

Russian Nuclear Horn Threatens UK

RUSSIA has deployed warships to the Baltic Sea carrying nuclear-capable missiles with BRITAIN in their sights.
Russia is beefing up the firepower of its Baltic Fleet by adding warships armed with long-range cruise missiles like those in Crimea, pictured
The precision weapon is so destructive it has been given the codename “The Sizzler” by NATO allies.
Russian media has quoted a military source saying the ships will be tactically placed to have Europe’s major cities in their cross-hairs.
“With the appearance of two small missile ships armed with the Kalibr cruise missiles the fleet’s potential targeting range will be significantly expanded in the northern European military theatre”, they said.
NATO confirmed that it would send 4,000 troops to the region next year — including 800 UK military personnel plus British tanks, jets and drones.
Defence Secretary Michael Fallon told a summit in Brussels: “This deployment of air, land and sea forces shows that we will continue to play a leading role in NATO, supporting the defence and security of our allies.”
And yesterday the Russian fleet that passed through the English Channel on its way to bomb Syria was seen stalking Gibraltar.
Led by rustbucket aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, the taskforce had planned to stopover for fuel at a Spanish port just 20 miles from the British territory.
Russia suddenly withdrew the request when Western leaders put pressure on Spain to front-up to Putin.
The Baltic warships are expected to be joined by three more vessels as Putin bolsters his Baltic forces.
The Russian military is yet to confirm that the ships are going to be stationed in the territory, but NATO said it spotted the ships moving through the Baltic.
“NATO navies are monitoring this activity near our borders,” said Dylan White, the alliance’s acting spokesman.
“This is … worrying and is not something that helps to reduce tensions in our region,” Sweish Defence Minister Peter Hultqvist told Sweden’s national TT news agency.
“This affects all the countries round the Baltic.”

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