The China Horn Flexes Her Nuclear Muscle: Daniel 7

China flexes its muscle — don’t let America go down with a whimper


A quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln about the fate of America reads, “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” 

The world is increasingly dangerous. China is courting Russia in a new alliance and extending its sphere of influence into South and Central America, Africa and the Middle East — while the United States continues to wage warfare and deplete its treasury and arsenal in pursuit of more nations adopting democracy.

Meanwhile, China is branding itself a peacemaker. As Foreign Affairs recently reported, “While U.S. President Joe Biden’s Middle East team was focused on normalizing Saudi-Israeli relations, China delivered the most significant regional development since the Abraham Accords: a deal to end seven years of Saudi-Iranian estrangement.” Also, China recently introduced a 12-point plan for peace in Ukraine that included “abandoning Cold War mentality.”

Since the end of World War II, the United States has promoted freedom and democracy around the world from its position as the only superpower and great economy. China is now trying to create its own new world order, based on its economic and military hegemony, which has put us at the brink of conflict.

The fact is, America may not be able to win a war against China today. As Josh Luckenbaugh concluded last fall in a commentary picked up by the CATO Institute, “At the end, defeat for the U.S. and its allies would be possible, if not likely. In recent years, U.S. war games have generally shown Beijing as the victor.” Yet this is incomprehensible for most Americans.

But the whole notion of a shooting war with China may never happen, because our social order is crumbling from within — as we trend toward fulfillment of Lincoln’s prognostication about the destruction of America. There is the possibility that, when presented with the prospect of a “hot war” that threatens internet access and creature comforts, many Americans may just surrender what they consider to be a racist and fundamentally flawed nation.

An incident at Stanford Law School threatens to become commonplace on campuses across America. The school’s Federalist Society invited Fifth Circuit judge Stuart Kyle Duncan to address students. Some students protested and leveled accusations that the judge deliberately misgendered a defendant in court, according to free speech advocacy group FIRE. There can be honest debate about limits that should be placed on free speech and protests, but that is not what is happening in America.

An entire lexicon of terms designed to shut down debate is being designed to promote conformity to a fixed set of ideas promoted by progressives about climate, race, gender and other matters. Debate ends when terms such as “racist,” “sexist,” “bigot,” “xenophobe,” “privilege,” “patriarchy,” “oppressor,” “supremacist,” “Nazi” and “micro-aggression” enter conversations. Dissent is viewed as a form of violence that can drive a generation of Americans to seek “safe places.” There is no effort to find middle ground — the essence of democracy.

The fallout is everywhere. Congress is dysfunctional. President Biden often fans the flames of division when talking about MAGA Republicans. Cable TV and some other major news outlets are partisan. Comedy comes under attack. Classic books are being rewritten to conform to the “woke” ethos. University admissions are sometimes based on ethnicity, as may be hiring in government or corporations. The National Museum of African American History stated that “whiteness and white racialized identity refer to the way that white people, their customs, culture and beliefs operate as the standard by which all other groups are compared.” Before it removed and apologized for its “Whiteness” chart, the museum defined “white qualities” as self-reliance, work ethic, nuclear family, punctuality and putting work before play.

China, meanwhile, recently introduced its Global Civilization Initiative, which “calls for respect for the diversity of civilizations, upholding the common values of humanity in pursuing peace, development, equity, justice, democracy and freedom, and promoting robust international people-to-people exchanges and cooperation.”

China continues to build its brand and influence at the highest levels of power (globalists) by making its markets available. It is positioning itself as a peacemaker in the Middle East and, potentially, Ukraine. It is buying influence and respect by investing in infrastructure in third-world nations. And, it is all-in with its rhetoric supporting diversity, equity, inclusion and social justice. 

As reported in the South China Morning Post, “Post-millennial [Chinese] students usually have a strong sense of superiority and confidence, and they tend to look at other countries from a condescending perspective,” stated Yan Xuetong, director of Tsinghua University’s International Studies Institute. Compare this to the finding in a Morning Consult Poll that only 16 percent of Generation Z — those who would fight a war — said they are proud to live in the United States.

The thought of our great nation ending with a whimper no longer may be far-fetched. The most lethal enemy America faces may be that which comes from within. When the American people no longer are able to share ideas, the idea of America dies.

Dennis M. Powell, the founder and president of Massey Powell, is an issues and crisis management consultant and the author of the upcoming book, “Leading from the Top: Presidential Lessons in Issues Management.”TAGS CHINA AGGRESSION CHINA-RUSSIA STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP JOE BIDEN POLITICAL DIVISIONS STUART KYLE DUNCAN US-CHINA TENSIONS WOKE CULTURE

Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Fears of nuclear war rise: Daniel 8

Russian President Vladimir Putin greets Chinese Communist Party's foreign policy chief Wang Yi during their meeting at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2023.
Russian President Vladimir Putin greets Chinese Communist Party’s foreign policy chief Wang Yi during their meeting at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2023.

Nuclear warfare? China arming Russia? Fears of new Cold War rise.

Maureen Groppe, USA TODAY

Tue, March 21, 2023 at 7:34 AM MDT·7 min read

WASHINGTON – Moscow suspending a nuclear arms treaty. The possibility of China arming the Russian military.

Even as the U.S. and its allies celebrated this week that Russia has been thwarted thus far in its attempt to take over Ukraine,  certain developments could have repercussions far beyond whether Kyiv stays standing.

If the last remaining arms treaty between the world’s two largest nuclear powers collapses, there will be no limits on U.S. and Russian nuclear forces for the first time since the 1970s. The risks of a nuclear launch – intentional or otherwise – would rise.

“A world without nuclear arms control is a far more dangerous and unstable one,” said U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.

And if China turns its economic and diplomatic support for Russia into full-blown military assistance, it would be a major change in how China has approached foreign policy, supercharging the already high tensions between the U.S. and China and making the world more dangerous.

“It would also return us to…the kind of things we saw in the Cold War where you have all these major countries interfering in conflicts and proxy wars,” said Brian Hart, who studies the evolving nature of Chinese power at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Here’s what you need to know:

What did Russia do?

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced Tuesday he is suspending Moscow’s participation in New START, the last remaining nuclear arms reduction deal between the U.S. and Russia. It limits the number of long-range nuclear warheads Russia and the U.S. can have, including those that can reach the U.S. in about 30 minutes.

What’s the concern?

Without arms control, the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals could double in size, according to the Federation of American Scientists. Each nation could dramatically and quickly increase the number of nuclear weapons ready to launch on short notice, said Hans M. Kristensen, director of the federation’s Nuclear Information Project.

“Such an increase would be extraordinarily destabilizing and dangerous, especially with a full-scale war raging in Europe and Russia buckling under the strain of unprecedented sanctions,” Kristensen wrote last year.

In this Tuesday, May 9, 2017 file photo, Russian Topol M intercontinental ballistic missile launcher rolls along Red Square during the Victory Day military parade to celebrate 72 years since the end of WWII.
In this Tuesday, May 9, 2017 file photo, Russian Topol M intercontinental ballistic missile launcher rolls along Red Square during the Victory Day military parade to celebrate 72 years since the end of WWII.

Is it time to panic?

No. Putin hasn’t yet pulled the plug on the treaty.

He’s said Russia won’t participate in the inspections and other mechanisms to enforce the limits on nuclear weapons. But the Russian Foreign Ministry said Moscow would respect the treaty’s weapons caps. And there’s no sign that Putin will suddenly produce new weapons, according to Joe Cirincione, an arms control expert and member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Cirincione thinks Putin is raising the nuclear specter to scare away Ukraine’s allies.

“He understands that he’s losing this war,” Cirincione said on MSNBC. “He has to convince Western publics that they risk nuclear war by continuing to aid Ukraine.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin delivers his annual state of the nation address at the Gostiny Dvor conference centre in central Moscow on February 21, 2023.
Russian President Vladimir Putin delivers his annual state of the nation address at the Gostiny Dvor conference centre in central Moscow on February 21, 2023.

Hasn’t Putin done this before

Yes. Putin ordered Russian nuclear forces on high combat alert shorty after invading Ukraine last February. In December, he said Russia would continue maintaining and improving the combat readiness of nuclear weapons that can be fired from land, air and sea.

“Russian president Vladimir Putin has come to rely on nuclear weapons for coercion and bullying and will continue to make nuclear threats,” Heather Williams, and arms control expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote in a recent analysis. “The West may not be able to stop Putin from threatening to use nuclear weapons, but countries can work to prevent him from following through on those threats.”

Even if Putin’s latest move is a gambit, said Ben Rhodes, who was a top national security adviser to President Barack Obama, “it does just point to the fact that we’re in this kind of period of escalation with Russia where we don’t quite know where it’s going to end.”

What’s going on with China?

Since the invasion, China has helped Russia economically by buying its oil and gas. China has also sold Russia drones, microchips and other technologies that have both commercial and military applications. But Beijing hasn’t allowed Russia to buy ammunition, artillery, armed drones and other weapons.

That could change. Top Biden administration officials warned this week they have intelligence suggesting China is considering providing lethal support to Russia.

In response, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman accused the U.S. of “chasing shadows and smearing China.”

But while the White House hasn’t made its evidence public, the warnings are reminiscent of the administration’s pre-invasion intelligence of Putin’s plans.

What could make China directly aid Russia?

The war in Ukraine has in many ways been good for China, said Hart of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. It’s made Russia more reliant on China and has distracted the U.S. – China’s main rival. But China doesn’t want Russia, its most powerful partner on the global stage, to be severely weekend by the war.

“Overall, Beijing’s alignment with Russia is first and foremost fueled by collective concerns about the United States and competing with the United Sates. The more you have direct competition between Beijing and Washington, the more you’re going to see a willingness for Beijing to strengthen ties with Moscow,” he said. “That’s the triangle that their facing.”

Chinese President Xi Jinping, right, and Russian President Vladimir Putin pose for a photo prior to their talks in Beijing, China, Feb. 4, 2022.
Chinese President Xi Jinping, right, and Russian President Vladimir Putin pose for a photo prior to their talks in Beijing, China, Feb. 4, 2022.

How would the U.S. react?

The Biden administration has warned of “severe consequences” if China helps Russia replenish its military supplies.

“We’ll not hesitate to target Chinese companies or individuals that violate our sanctions,” said State Department spokesman Ned Price.

China’s economy is already struggling. But major sanctions against China – which is a much bigger economic player than Russia – would also have blowback effects on the U.S. and other nations.

What would it mean for the geopolitical order?

China’s direct involvement would mark a huge shift in its approach to foreign policy, one so shocking that China expert Oriana Skylar Mastro said she would “have to rethink everything I know about China.”

China has looked at the U.S.’s foreign military interventions as expensive endeavors that haven’t made the U.S. more powerful. They’ve taken a different approach.

“I would be much less concerned about what it means for Ukraine and much more concerned about what it means for the world if we’re dealing with a China now that engages in intervention and foreign conflicts, which is a key thing that they have argued for decades and decades is the reason for the U.S. decline, is a stupid thing to do, something that they would never do,” she said.

But if China does make that radical shift said Mastro, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and at Stanford University, it would “absolutely” make the world a more dangerous place.

While China makes it harder for the U.S. to coerce autocrats by not, for example, joining in sanctions, she said, “that’s very different from them actively providing support.”

In this file photo taken on July 8, 2022, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken attends a meeting with China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Nusa Dua on the Indonesian resort island of Bali.
In this file photo taken on July 8, 2022, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken attends a meeting with China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Nusa Dua on the Indonesian resort island of Bali.

A new Cold War?

Tensions have been rising with China, which the U.S. considers its biggest strategic and economic competitor. Even before the Biden administration shot down a Chinese spy balloon off the coast of South Carolina this month, the nations have clashed over Taiwan, technology, human rights, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and other issues.

The Biden administration has been trying to stabilize the relationship, building what it’s called “guardrails” as it normalizes interaction. But that may become increasingly difficult.

“We have to make sure that the competition that we’re clearly engaged in does not veer into conflict, into a new Cold War,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” when discussing the new threat. “It’s not in our interest. I won’t speak to theirs, but it’s not in ours.”

In a vaguely worded proposal China released Friday calling for peace talks between Ukraine and Russia, it also called for an end to “Cold War mentality” — China’s standard term for what it regards as U.S. hegemony, and maintenance of alliances such as NATO.

Contributing: Associated Press

Danger of the Russian Nuclear Horn: Daniel 7

The Dangers Of Unchecked Power: Putin And The Potential Use Of WMDs

By Eurasianet – Mar 19, 2023, 12:00 PM CDT

  • The West is re-evaluating the use of nuclear weapons in an era of increasing illiberalism, sparked by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
  • Technological advances such as social media and AI could enable illiberalism, increasing the risk of a nuclear war.
  • Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s nuclear saber-rattling and refusal to ratify the New START Treaty has heightened concerns about WMDs being used in Ukraine.

Western arms control experts are asking whether old taboos on the use of nuclear weapons are still valid in an age of ascendant illiberalism, underscored by Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. During the Cold War, it was generally assumed that reason would prevail, thus preventing either the Soviet Union or the United States from going nuclear. But many specialists and scholars these days believe the only certainty concerning the potential future use of weapons of mass destruction is uncertainty.

“Nuclear weapons are back … once again central to international politics, along with renewed Great Power competition,” said Cynthia Roberts, a professor at Hunter College in New York and a leading expert on international security. She added that Russian aggression in Ukraine has brought the “prospect of nuclear war back into the realm of possibility.”

Roberts moderated a recent panel discussion, organized by Columbia University’s Saltzman Institute for War and Peace Studies, that surveyed the shifting WMD landscape. She cited the Biden administration’s recent nuclear posture review, which cautioned that the United States is entering an “unprecedented era” when it faces two “potential [nuclear] adversaries” – Russia and China – as opposed to the Cold War, during which Washington just had to contend with the Soviet Union.

China’s rise is just one factor altering the nuclear-weapons-use calculus. Some panelists also pointed to 21st century technological innovations – especially the advent of social media and rapid advances in artificial intelligence – as potential enablers of illiberalism. The ebb of rationality, they add, heightens the risk of a nuclear button being pressed, or some other weapon of mass destruction being used.

“The liars are taking over the world,” said one panelist, Stephen Van Evera, a political scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “The Enlightenment is in danger because of the new media and the fact that we no longer have vetted information that controls how the public sees things.”’

Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s nuclear saber-rattling, combined with Russia’s withdrawal in early 2023 from the New START Treaty, has raised fears that Russia could resort to using tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. What Putin and his generals had expected to be a walkover has turned into a quagmire, exposing the Russian military as poorly led and ineffectual. While experts at the Saltzman Institute event considered the possibility to be slim at present, no one dismissed as impossible the idea of a nuclear device being detonated.

Scott Sagan, a Stanford political scientist, said he believes Putin is keeping his options open. “What we know about leaders in crises, what we know about leaders who sometimes try to gamble for resurrection, suggests when you’re losing, you might take very rash decisions,” he said.

Sagan added that the Soviet-era constraint of collective decision-making seems to have eroded in Putin’s Russia. “Dictators surround themselves with yes-men,” he noted. “If you don’t have a rational actor at the top, you need checks and balances down below.”

Charles Glaser, a professor at The George Washington University, said a variety of scenarios could result in the use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine. “We need to keep in mind that there could also be rational uses of nuclear weapons. They would be very dangerous, but very dangerous isn’t necessarily irrational,” Glaser said. For example, he continued, if Putin feels that Russia is on the verge of experiencing a major setback, such as the loss of Crimea, he might be tempted to employ tactical nuclear weapons as a bargaining chip to force a peace settlement that forestalls a disaster that might threaten his grip on power.

Van Evera voiced fear about the potential for nuclear escalation in Ukraine, saying the “balance of resolve” there is tilting against the United States. “This is the first time the U.S. has gotten itself into a conflict … with another nuclear power that … believes it cares more about the stakes at issue than the U.S. does,” he said. “One of the sort of rules of nuclear statecraft, in my view, is don’t get into a face-to-face confrontation on issues where the other side cares as much as you do, or cares more.” Such a showdown will be decided by the balance of resolve.

The panelists wrestled with the vexing question of what the United States should do if Russia uses a nuclear weapon. The expert consensus appeared to lean toward massive U.S. conventional retaliation because such a response would minimize the risk of escalation.

Glaser noted that although Russia has experienced lots of battlefield reverses, “Putin hasn’t lost badly yet,” and thus hasn’t really faced a situation in which he would be tempted to order a nuclear strike. “If he uses nuclear weapons, we don’t quite know what happens next,” he added. “His limited use could lead to a really bigger nuclear war.”

Any forceful U.S. response to the potential Russian use of a nuclear weapon in Ukraine would certainly entail risks, but inaction could be even riskier, one panelist asserted. “We don’t have the luxury or doing nothing in the face of aggression,” said Etel Solingen, a political scientist at the University of California, Irvine. “Doing nothing is sometimes equivalent to raising the risk of catastrophe. This is the lesson of 2014.”

Solingen was referring to the tepid U.S. and European Union response to Russia’s armed takeover of the Crimean Peninsula in 2014, as well as Kremlin-backed separatists in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas Region who invaded shortly after Crimea’s occupation. “It was Putin’s perception of [Western] inaction [in 2014] … that could have well led to [Russia’s attack on Ukraine in] 2022,” Solingen said.

The China Horn has a stockpile of approximately 410 nuclear warheads: Daniel 7

China has a stockpile of approximately 410 nuclear warheads
Representative Image

China has a stockpile of approximately 410 nuclear warheads

17 Mar 2023

Pentagon’s 2022 report to Congress estimated that by 2030 China’s nuclear stockpile will have about 1,000 operational nuclear warheads

New Delhi: China has a stockpile of approximately 410 nuclear warheads for delivery by land-based ballistic missiles, sea-based ballistic missiles, and bombers said The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists in the latest article Nuclear Notebook.

The Nuclear Notebook article says that additional warheads are thought to be in production to arm additional road-mobile and silo-based missiles and bombers.

The Pentagon’s 2022 report to Congress estimated that by 2030 China’s nuclear stockpile “will have about 1,000 operational nuclear warheads, most of which will be fielded on systems capable of ranging the continental United States”.

If the expansion continues at the current rate, the Pentagon projected, China might field a stockpile of about 1,500 nuclear warheads by 2035.

China continues the nuclear weapons modernization program that it initiated in the 1990s and 2000s but is expanding it significantly by fielding more types and greater numbers of nuclear weapons than ever before.

China’s intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), has significantly advanced the construction of its three new missile silo fields for solid-fuel ICBMs, and has also expanded the construction of new silos for its liquid-fuel DF-5 ICBMs, the Nuclear NoteBook article in the magazine article said.

China is also significantly expanding its DF-26 intermediate-range ballistic missile force and has also begun replacing some older conventional short-range ballistic missiles with medium-range ballistic missiles equipped with hypersonic glide vehicles.

At sea, China apparently has refitted its six Type-094 ballistic missile submarines with the longer-range JL-3 submarine-launched ballistic missile, the Nuclear Notebook article read.

In addition, China has recently reassigned a nuclear mission to its bombers and is developing an air-launched ballistic missile that might have nuclear capability.

China’s Nuclear doctrine and policy

China’s official policy identifies self-defence and counter-strike response as key guidelines for its military strategy and reiterates a historical commitment to no-first-use of nuclear weapons.

Since its first nuclear test in 1964, China has maintained a minimum nuclear deterrence posture and emphasized that a credible second-strike capability would be sufficient to deter an attack on China.

China’s ambassador for disarmament affairs Li Song In his speech to the UN General Assembly First Committee session on nonproliferation in October 2022, claimed that China “keeps its nuclear capabilities at the minimum level required for national security and does not engage in any nuclear arms race with any other country.”

However, the claim is being challenged as China continues expanding its nuclear arsenal. China has never defined how big a “minimum” capability is or what activities constitute an “arms race,” and the policies evidently do not prohibit a massive expansion in response to other nuclear-armed states.

Russia’s exit from the New START treaty has already led to fear of the proliferation of nuclear weapons across the globe.

The Russian Horn Assists the Chinese Nuclear Horn: Daniel 7

Russia Helping China Speed Up Its Nuclear Buildup. US Unprepared to Counter It.

Jack Kraemer Patty-Jane Geller @pj_geller / March 16, 2023

Russia’s aid to China’s plutonium reactors proves that when Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping declared a “no limits” partnership in February 2022, they really meant it. Pictured: Putin confers with Xi at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization leaders’ summit in Uzbekistan on Sept. 16. (Photo: Sergei Bobylyov/Sputnik/AFP/ Getty Images)

Jack Kraemer

Patty-Jane Geller, a policy analyst, focuses on nuclear deterrence and missile defense in the Center for National Defense at The Heritage Foundation.

Policymakers are increasingly concerned about evidence of increasing cooperation between the United States’ two greatest adversaries, Russia and China.

While recent discussion has focused on China providing Russia with lethal aid to support its aggression in Ukraine, a potentially more dangerous element to this budding relationship has just come into public view: Russian support for China’s nuclear buildup.

China is pursuing a significant nuclear expansion as part of its strategy to supplant the U.S. as the leading global power. It recently surpassed the United States in its number of long-range missile launchers, it has tested new and novel nuclear technologies, and it is now projected to possess at least as many nuclear weapons as the U.S. does by 2035, if not sooner.

Central to this nuclear buildup is China’s need for nuclear material; namely, plutonium.

Historically, China operated two nuclear power plants capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium. The two plants were shut down in 1984 and 1989, respectively, leaving China with only a limited stockpile of plutonium. But at that time, China still maintained its historic posture of “minimum deterrence,” possessing just a very limited arsenal of nuclear weapons.

With its newfound nuclear ambitions, China must remedy its limited access to plutonium. As part of the effort, China has been constructing new fast-breeder reactors called the CFR-600. While China claims these reactors serve civilian purposes, they are also equally capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium.

Compared with a typical nuclear reactor that utilizes the energy from nuclear fission to power a generator or create electricity, a fast-breeder reactor can be designed to maximize the output of plutonium from the fission reactions. For that reason, these reactors are useful for nuclear weapons programs.

That’s where Russia enters the picture.

Recent reports reveal that Russia, through its state-owned nuclear corporation, Rosatom, has been providing fuel for China’s new fast-breeder reactors. China is thought to have already purchased more than 25,000 kilograms (55,000 pounds) of fuel for a price of $384 million since shipments from Russia began arriving in September.

Nuclear collaboration between Russia and China is not entirely new. It dates back to the 1950s, when the Soviet Union provided materials and technical assistance to China’s fledging nuclear program. While tensions developed between the two states for much of the rest of the Cold War, causing nuclear aid to stop, they resumed cooperation in the 21st century.

This time, the implications of Russia’s aid to China’s plutonium reactors are quite significant. For starters, it proves that when Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping declared a “no limits” partnership in February 2022, they really meant it. 

Perhaps worse, this development means that the more fuel Russia provides, the more plutonium China can produce. And the more plutonium China can produce, the more nuclear weapons it can build.

China is already on track to multiply the size of its stockpile over the next several years, and it’s moving faster than the U.S. had expected. In 2020, the Pentagon predicted China would double its stockpile by the end of the decade, but by the end of 2022, it had already done so. With Russian help, China might be able to accelerate this buildup even further.

Given the state of geopolitics, any advancing relationship between Russia, a country with significant nuclear experience and an abundance of nuclear material, and China, an aspiring nuclear superpower with money to spend, comes with great risk.

Meanwhile, as Russia supports China’s efforts to crank out more nuclear weapons, the United States has no similar capability to produce the cores of weapons-grade plutonium needed for new nuclear weapons, called plutonium pits.

In fact, the U.S. is the only nuclear weapons state without this capability.

The U.S. Energy Department is pursuing a project to ultimately be able to produce 80 of these plutonium pits per year, but it has been delayed, and will not be complete until after 2030. And even then, at first it will produce enough pits only to replace current aging warheads, rather than expand the inventory.

To avoid falling behind China, the U.S. needs to significantly progress on this program.

Whether the United States is prepared to admit it or not, it’s becoming increasingly clear that it will need to compete in the nuclear arena to prevent China from surging ahead and gaining nuclear advantages.

Combined with the threats posed by a recalcitrant Russia, the U.S. needs to strengthen its nuclear deterrent to ensure it retains a strategic edge against these increasingly hostile adversaries.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.

The Russian Horn is out of control there is a real risk for Nuclear War: Revelation 16

A new report published by the US think tank Heritage Foundation has highlighted a growing risk the Russian president will 'make one of the most fateful decisions of the century'

Putin’s ‘martyr complex’ is so out of control there is a real risk he will make ‘the most fateful decision of the century’ and unleash nuclear weapons, think-tank warns

  • New report has highlighted growing risk of Putin turning to nuclear weapons
  • It also outlines how the Kremlin has worked itself ‘into a state of near hysteria’ 


PUBLISHED: 18:20 EDT, 15 March 2023 | UPDATED: 22:06 EDT, 15 March 2023

Vladimir Putin’s ‘martyr complex’ is so out of control there is a risk he will embolden Russia to use nuclear and chemical weapons, a think tank has warned – amid rising concerns over the Kremlin’s ‘hysteric rhetoric’.

A new report published by the US think tank Heritage Foundation has highlighted a growing risk the Russian president will ‘make one of the most fateful decisions of the century’ in the face of his faltering invasion of Ukraine.

It also outlines how the Kremlin has worked itself ‘into a state of near hysteria’ about the ‘ridiculous’ assessment that NATO poses a military threat to the country.

Since Putin invaded Ukraine, his propagandists have continued to threaten the UK with a nuclear holocaust – and the rhetoric has continued to escalate in recent months.

The study, named The US and Its Allies Must Understand and Respond to Russia’s Nuclear Threats, explores the actual likelihood that Putin will turn to using weapons of mass destruction.

A new report published by the US think tank Heritage Foundation has highlighted a growing risk the Russian president will ‘make one of the most fateful decisions of the century’

Since Putin invaded Ukraine, his propagandists have continued to threaten the UK with a nuclear holocaust

Since Putin invaded Ukraine, his propagandists have continued to threaten the UK with a nuclear holocaust

Russia will use missile to wipe out Britain, Putin propagandists claim

16.4k viewing nowUS says it will NOT give Ukraine F-16s despite Poland decision7.6k viewing nowPutin mocks Britain for having to eat TURNIPS13.6k viewing now

Russian generals are understood to have discussed the use of tactical nuclear weapons in November, but is said to be cautious about the use of long-range weapons.

However, Russia has ‘increasingly portrayed the West as an enemy and appears to now accept tactical strategic nuclear weapons as an option for deterring further escalation of combat.

The country is understood to have between 1,000 and 2,000 nuclear weapons of varying sizes.

The use of such weapons is seen by Western nations as a last resort, but the report states Russia may turn to  tactical nuclear weapons ‘early in the exercise or at mid-point’.

The report outlines four situations in which Putin would turn to nuclear weapons; pre-empting an attack on Russia; use against Russia; a threat, such as a cyberattack on Russia’s command-and-control systems; and an existential threat to Russia from conventional or nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons provide a ‘comfort blanket’ for the Kremlin, but is more likely to employ nukes than the West, it says.

In the face of its stagnant invasion, Russia has turned its focus to shelling Ukraine’s electricity and water supplies. 

But Putin is said to have a ‘higher tolerance threshold’ for both civilian and military casualties than Western nations amid reports of Russian mercenaries engaging in suicidal assaults in the battle for Bakhmut.

It comes as Moscow has launched a massive winter offensive involving hundreds of thousands of freshly called-up reservists and convicts recruited from jail as mercenaries, who have been forming human wave attacks in an attempt to overwhelm the town’s defenders.

Small groups of soldiers push forward against the Ukrainian positions, many of whom are mown down by machine guns as they approach. Those killed are simply replaced by others also deemed expendable.

Russian General Threatens To Use Poseidon Torpedo To ‘Sink’ The UK

Nuclear Tsunami! Russian General Threatens To Use Poseidon Torpedo To ‘Sink’ The UK If NATO Sets Foot In Ukraine

March 15, 2023

A former Russian general has urged President Vladimir Putin to use an underwater nuclear weapon to destroy Britain with a 1,000-foot-high radioactive wave if NATO forces set foot in Ukraine. 

Yevgeny Buzhinsky, a retired Russian commander, called for strikes on Britain with Poseidon torpedoes, which he claimed would cause a 1,000-foot radioactive tidal wave. He warned during a TV program on  Rossiya 1, a nationwide public state TV channel.

Lt Gen Buzhinsky, also the Russian Center for Policy Research head, assessed that Britain would unquestionably cease to exist if Moscow launched a nuclear missile.

In addition, Buzhinsky warned that the UK would be obliterated by an attack with the Sarmat 2, which Moscow has described as the “world’s deadliest missile.” 

Russian TV presenter and propagandist Vladimir Solovyov smirked as he predicted that if Poseidon struck Britain, it would trigger a tsunami and sink the country to the bottom of the ocean. 

The threats were issued as Russia’s propagandists spoke about Russia’s military options following its inability to make significant progress in Ukraine.

Buzhinsky further asserted on Russian official television Rossiya 1 that the “unstoppable” 6,670 mph Zircon hypersonic missile was about to be utilized in combat missions, after testing.

“Of course, there are such means as Poseidon, which has been tested,” Buzhinsky said. Solovyov responded that he would want to see both Sarmat and Poseidon in action. 

‘Tsunami, tsunami, yes, tsunami,’ replied pro-war Buzhinsky. He warned that If NATO sends troops to Ukraine, Russia will respond by using Poseidon. Solovyov chimed in to say that Great Britain would then cease to exist.

Moscow Threatens The UK Over Ukraine

The Russian commentators’ latest remarks align with a trend that has taken shape in Russian state media since the start of the Ukraine war of intimidating Britain with nuclear annihilation. 

This is not the first time high-ranking Russian politicians and officials have threatened to use nuclear weapons against the UK. In the past year, former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev had frequently discussed the possibility of a nuclear escalation.

These threats are believed to be the consequence of the UK’s unwavering backing for Ukraine, which made history by being the first NATO nation to announce that it would supply 14 Challenger 2 battle tanks to Ukraine. 

Putin views Poseidon as essential to achieving ultimate military dominance over the West. In January 2023, Russian state-owned media reported that Russia had acquired the first batch of Poseidon nuclear-tipped torpedoes.

The Poseidon, which has been developing since 2015, contains a warhead with an explosive force more than 100 times greater than the atomic bombs unleashed on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. File Image: Poseidon-Russia

Should Washington choose to strengthen its missile defenses, the weapon will ensure that US coastal towns remain vulnerable to nuclear attack.

According to TASS, the first batch of Poseidon torpedoes has been produced and will shortly be dispatched to outfit the Russian Navy submarine Belgorod.

Although the report does not specify how many torpedoes are in the batch, navy analyst HI Sutton estimates Belgorod is built to carry up to six Poseidons simultaneously.

Poseidon is a massive nuclear-powered torpedo built to strike enemy coastal targets from great distances. Poseidon measures roughly 65 feet long and 6.5 feet wide. 

It has an almost limitless range thanks to nuclear power. As a result, it has greater operational flexibility concerning launch and target areas. 

A weapon like Poseidon might theoretically be launched from a port or a naval base, but mounting it on a submarine makes it harder to find and neutralize. File Image: Zircon Missile

Poseidon is reportedly equipped with a 2-megaton thermonuclear warhead, the biggest any country has used in decades, equal to 2,000 kilotons of TNT. The weapon moves far slower than an intercontinental ballistic missile and is still unstoppable.

The weapon is anticipated to travel at a speed of about 70 knots, which is fast enough to make it practically impossible for torpedoes to intercept it. Also, it is unreachable due to its working depth—possibly 1,000 meters (3,300 feet). To intercept it, Western planners will need to create new weaponry. And that will require a significant amount of time and money.

Russian Horn Should Unleash Nuclear Torpedo on the U.S.

Russian submarines
Russian submarines take part in the “Vostok-2022” military exercises at the Peter the Great Gulf of the Sea of Japan outside the city of Vladivostok on September 5, 2022. The prospect of Russia deploying the Poseidon nuclear-capable super torpedo was discussed on the Russian state television channel Russia 1. KIRILL KUDRYAVTSEV/Getty Images

Russia Should Unleash Nuclear Torpedo on the U.S., State TV Says

By Brendan Cole On 3/14/23 at 11:20 AM EDT

A discussion on Russian state television raised the prospect of Moscow deploying missiles to target countries that are supporting Ukraine.

On the Russia 1 channel, retired Russian general Yevgeny Buzhinsky suggested that weapons such as the Poseidon and Burevestnik missiles should be used against the West even if the latter would not be ready for service until “the next year or two.”

“However, Poseidon has already been tested,” he said, which prompted anchor Vladimir Solovyov to say that he would like to see it in action. “We would like to of course,” Buzhinsky responded.

Russian state agencies reported in January that the first set of Poseidon nuclear-capable super torpedoes was being developed for deployment on the Belgorod nuclear submarine. First announced by Vladimir Putin in 2018, United States and Russian officials have both described Poseidon as being capable of triggering radioactive ocean swells to render coastal cities uninhabitable.

Guests on the show Evening with Vladimir Solovyovhave made repeated threats about Russia’s nuclear capabilities while framing Putin’s invasion of Ukraine as a proxy war between Moscow and NATO.

Solovyov said that he’d like to “see Sarmat in action too,” referring to the hypersonic nuclear-capable missile code-named “Satan 2” which Putin has also boasted about. “If they are impudent,” he said, describing the actions of western countries, “we’ll see it in action.”

Buzhinsky warned viewers that further involvement of western countries in Ukraine could mean that it will “all end with Poseidon and a tsunami, a 300 or 500-meter wave.” Solovyov interrupted to say, “and then Great Britain will be no more.”

“Yes, Great Britain will definitely be no more, I’m talking about the United States,” said Buzhinsky, to which Solovyov joked: “If [ Rishi] Sunak is washed away, who will [Emmanuel] Macron have left to kiss,” referring to the close ties between the British prime minister and the French president.

Margarita Simonyan, the head of RT channel, brought up Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeauin the conversation, saying the Russian phrase “opyat s Trudeau,” which translates to English as “with Trudeau again.”

“Opyat s Trudeau” is a play on the Russian phrase “Opyat s trudom,” which means “with difficulty again,” as Solovyov pointed out. Both he and Simonyan laughed at the pun.

The apocalyptic yet somehow light-hearted banter was tweeted out on Tuesday by Francis Scarr of BBC Monitoring, who called the Evening with Vladimir Solovyov interaction “another totally normal evening on Russian state TV” in which the guests and anchor were “fantasising” about “a nuclear tsunami that engulfs Britain.”

China Horn threatens US, UK for arming the Australian Nuclear Horn

AUKUS: China threatens US, UK for arming non-nuclear Australia with tons of weapons-grade enriched uranium

AUKUS: China threatens US, UK for arming non-nuclear Australia with tons of weapons-grade enriched uranium

Pro-China experts called AUKUS deal an ‘expensive mistake’ and a ‘time bomb for peace’ in the region

Australia signed $368 billion AUKUS nuclear submarine deal with the US and the UK. Source: US Navy.

Beijing: The AUKUS nuclear submarine deal involving Australia, US and UK has unnerved China. The Chinese government claimed the US and UK are “clearly violating the object and purpose of the NPT” by transferring tons of weapons-grade enriched uranium to a non-nuclear-weapon Australia.

The Xi Jinping government said, “Such a textbook case of double standard will damage the authority and effectiveness of the international non-proliferation system.”

Pro-China experts called the deal an “expensive mistake” and a “time bomb for peace” in the region.

Australia signed $368 billion AUKUS nuclear submarine deal with the US and the UK.

UK and US violating object of NPT

Chinese Mission to the United Nations said the nuclear submarine cooperation plan by AUKUS “is a blatant act that constitutes serious nuclear proliferation risks, undermines international non-proliferation system, fuels arms races, and hurts peace and stability in the region.”

China further said: “The irony of AUKUS is that two nuclear weapons states who claim to uphold the highest nuclear non-proliferation standard are transferring tons of weapons-grade enriched uranium to a non-nuclear-weapon state, clearly violating the object and purpose of the NPT (Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons).”

The China government urged the US, the UK and Australia to honor their obligations as members of the NPT.

AUKUS deal a ‘time bomb’

A report by the Global Times quoted director of the Australian Studies Centre in China, Chen Hong, described the AUKUS deal as a “time bomb” and said the move will likely increase hostilities between the nations.

“It would be a time bomb for peace and stability in the region,” Chen added.

Chinese military expert Song Zhongping described the nuclear submarine deal an “expensive mistake”, saying, “Such a huge investment would leave Australia with a heavy burden.”

Expensive mistake

Song further said that the deal “cannot protect the security of Australia, but will protect the global hegemony of the US. It’s an expensive mistake.”

“Australia should not fall into the category of a saboteur of regional security just because of US pressure,” Song said, noting that Australia’s best way to ensure peace and safety is to “not take sides between China and the US”.

Jinping pledged that China would strengthen its troops in response to the AUKUS deal.

“We must fully promote the modernisation of national defence and the armed forces and build the people’s armed forces into a great wall of steel that effectively safeguards national sovereignty, security and development interests,” the Chinese president said.

AUKUS nuclear submarine deal

Australia in a tripartite deal with the US and the UK, unveiled plans to create a new fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, which is estimated to cost up to $368 billion. As per the defence deal, the US and UK will enable Australia deploy nuclear-powered submarines in the Pacific region.

Australia, under this pact, will get its first nuclear-powered submarines from the US.

AUKUS China threatens US UK for arming nonnuclear Australia with tons of weaponsgrade enriched uranium

Aimed at preserving a “free and open” Indo-Pacific, the AUKUS agreement was agreed upon by Australia, UK and the US in September 2021. The foremost aspect of the pact is making Australia equipped with submarines and this part of the agreement is called Pillar One. Soon, the US and UK will share plans for their submarines that will help Australia build its own eventually.

Members of the Royal Australian Navy will be trained to use the nuclear-powered submarines and will be embedded at submarine bases in the US and the UK from this year

Australia is expected to get at least three nuclear-powered submarines from the US in the early 2030s. It will have the option to purchase two more.

A report by ABC Australia said that Australia will get up to eight new submarines called SSN-AUKUS which will have British designs and will be powered by the American combat system. These attack crafts will be built in Britain and Australia.

Russian Horn Provokes Babylon the Great: Daniel 7

Russia views US drone incident as provocation, ambassador says


March 15, 2023, 8:48 AM

Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. said Moscow views Tuesday’s incident between a U.S. drone and a Russian fighter jet, which resulted in the downing of the American aircraft over the Black Sea, as a provocation.

Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Anatoly Antonov was summoned to the State Department on Tuesday, and characterized his message in that meeting in remarks to reporters posted to the embassy’s website.

“I stressed that the American [unmanned aerial vehicle] that was moving deliberately and provocatively towards the Russian territory with its transponders turned off violated the boundaries of the temporary airspace regime established for the special military operation,” he said.

“The unacceptable actions of the United States military in the close proximity to our borders are cause for concern,” Antonov added. “We are well aware of the missions such reconnaissance and strike drones are used for.”

A U.S. MQ-9 Reaper drone was “conducting routine operations in international airspace” over the Black Sea when it was intercepted by two Russian fighter jets, with one dumping fuel on the unmanned drone and another clipping its propeller, according to U.S. European Command.

“It is not uncommon for there to be intercepts by Russian aircraft of U.S. aircraft over the Black Sea,” White House national security spokesperson John Kirby told reporters on Tuesday. “And there have been, even in just recent weeks, there have been other intercepts.”

“But this one obviously is noteworthy because of how unsafe and unprofessional it was … in causing the downing of one of our aircraft,” he added.

However, Russia’s Defense Ministry has claimed that the drone intruded on off-limits airspace near Crimea — which the U.S. does not recognize as belonging to Russia — and claims that its fighter jets did not come in contact with the unmanned aircraft.

“As a result of a sharp maneuver, the MQ-9 drone went into unguided flight with a loss of altitude and crashed into the water,” the ministry said.

The Russian ambassador doubled down on these claims, also suggesting that the U.S. would act in an “uncompromising way” if a Russian drone appeared near its territory.

“If, for example, a Russian strike drone appeared near New York or San Francisco, how would the U.S. Air Force and Navy react?” Antonov said. “I am quite confident that the U.S. military would act in an uncompromising way and would not allow its airspace or territorial waters to be breached.”

However, Kirby suggested during an interview with CNN on Tuesday that the public should take Russia’s denial with “a huge grain of salt.”