World War 3 Will Happen Soon (Rev 15)

Could World War 3 happen in 2017?

By Patrick Knox
12th May 2017, 11:22 am
Updated: 12th May 2017, 6:30 pm

How threats from Syria, Russia, Iran, North Korea and ISIS are mounting

World could be in even more peril than during the Soviet vs West face-off during the Cold War

THIS year has already been blighted with terror attacks, rising tensions around the globe and the ongoing threat of nuclear war.

The Sun has spoken to a range of military and terror experts about the threat of World War Three in 2017.

1
Why is 2017 such a dangerous year?

Throughout the past year events have been taking unexpected twists and turns. Let’s recap.

Britain has voted itself out of the European Union and continues to negotiate on Brexit.

There is continuing conflict in Syria with a chemical attack on civilians outraging the world .

President Donald J Trump then launched a US Tomahawk missile strike on a regime airbase.

Then there’s North Korea pushing ahead with its ballistic missile tests in its bid to become a nuclear power.

In response Japan has carried out air attack drills and dished out leaflets on what to do should Kim Jong-un’s nukes rain down.

Kim responded by reportedly telling its giant neighbour it would be a “piece of cake” to nuke Japan and leave it “blanketed in radioactive clouds”.

ISIS is also being expelled from its so called Caliphate and its supporters are being encouraged to lash out with lone wolf terror attacks.

And top British military figures have warned how the UK has cut its forces back so much we would struggle to defend ourselves.

Why is Syria regarded as a World War 3 flashpoint?

Last year, Putin raced to the rescue of Bashar Assad’s regime, putting Russian on a collision course with the West.

Tensions later reached boiling point when at least 70 people were gassed to death by a nerve agent in the Syrian town of Khan Sheikhoun, prompting Trump to order missile strikes after blaming the regime for the attack.

Russia and Iran said they will respond to further American military actions following the US air strikes.

In a joint statement, the command centre for the two countries and allied groups said “we will respond to any aggression”.

The statement read: “What America waged in an aggression on Syria is a crossing of red lines.

“From now on we will respond with force to any aggressor or any breach of red lines from whoever it is and America knows our ability to respond well.”

The US has blasted Iran for “alarming provocations” and said it poses a bigger threat of nuclear war than North Korea.

Dr Alan Mendoza, executive director at the Henry Jackson Society security think-tank, told SunOnline: “We’ve seen Russia increase its sphere of influence and been quite aggressive on its borders and seemingly getting away with it. And that will empower to do more.

“The Russians have had it all their own way. Time [Magazine] said man of the year 2016 was Trump but actually it was Putin.

“Everything has gone his way. Everything.”

Will ISIS start a world war?

As ISIS flee their strongholds in Syria and Iraq they have the potential to embark on a world terror campaign with security chiefs fearing lone wolf attacks.

About 850 people from Britain and Northern Ireland have travelled to support or fight for jihadist organisations in Syria and Iraq, British authorities believe.

And around half have since returned to the UK, but the rest could follow when the so called Caliphate of ISIS is wiped out this year.

Veryan Khan, director of Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium, said: “It’s nothing new, every time ISIS has losses, they attack abroad.

“It’s a way of showing their supporters they are still strong and can seemingly attack at will.

“Big or small in scale, it ‘puffs’ them up like a blow-fish and distracts everyone from fans to media alike from what is happening.”

As reported, ISIS fanatics are calling for lone wolf attacks in cinemas, malls and hospitals.

Is North Korea really a threat to world peace?

According to a regime defector North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un‘s New Year’s resolution was to be a fully fledged nuclear power.

Defector and former diplomat to the UK, Thae Yong-ho, said: “As long as Kim Jong-un is in power, North Korea will never give up its nuclear weapons.

“The North will not give them up even if the country is offered $1trillion or $10trillion in return.”

Kim Jong-un has dubbed America’s leaders a bunch of “rats sneaking around in the dark” amid claims the CIA plotted to wipe him out.

The country also threatened the US with a “full-scale” nuclear war and said it has the right to “ruthlessly punish” any American citizens it detains.

Will Donald Trump risk starting a world war?

Arms-control experts say the rest of the world really should be worried about the potential fallout from some of the President’s tweets.

John Andrews, International affairs expert and veteran foreign correspondent, told Sun Online: “He [Trump] will be a real challenge for diplomats.

“One of the reasons is that we’ve become used to there just being one genuinely unpredictable world leader and that was Kim Jong-un.

“Now we have a second, Donald J Trump – and we are waiting to see how he will preside.

“There are big question marks over his character that came up during the campaign – is this alarmist?

“It’s difficult to know.”

Now China tests missiles on deadly new destroyer ship near North Korea

US Unprepared For The End (Revelation 15)

How the U.S. Prepared for Nuclear Catastrophe

Time Mahita Gajanan

An aerial photograph of Hiroshima, Japan, shortly after the “Little Boy” atomic bomb was dropped in 1945. © Universal History Archive/Getty Images An aerial photograph of Hiroshima, Japan, shortly after the “Little Boy” atomic bomb was dropped in 1945.
In a new book exploring United States officials’ detailed doomsday plans during the Cold War, writer and historian Garrett Graff presents a look at how nuclear disaster preparation shaped the modern world.

Raven Rock: The Story of the U.S. Government’s Secret Plan to Save Itself-While the Rest of Us Die, released May 2, recounts the history of “how nuclear war would have actually worked – the nuts and bolts of war plans, communication networks, weapons, and bunkers – and how imagining and planning for the impact of nuclear war actually changed.” Raven Rock is the name of the military installation built in the late 1940s near Camp David, in case of disaster during the Cold War. As Graff’s subtitle indicates, not everyone was invited to take shelter.

Through his research, Graff reveals how ineffective plans for nuclear disaster actually are when put into action. The problem with org charts and instructions? Humans. Take Graff’s example of then Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren: when the judge was told he would have access to a secure facility in an emergency, he refused, saying, “I don’t see a pass for Mrs. Warren.”

Policies put into place in case of nuclear disaster also changed throughout the years, as different presidents took leadership and the scale of the Cold War grew to the point that officials realized only a certain number of Americans could survive a nuclear attack.

“During the Truman, Eisenhower and the Kennedy years, there was a much better push with the idea that the civil population could be protected,” Graff said. “The scale of nuclear war grew to the point that that was no longer feasible.”

Graff said it was too difficult for nuclear disaster planners to figure out how save the entire country.

“It’s too hard to keep people scared enough that every family will have a shelter,” he said. “The planners were like, ‘This is going to be too much to save America. So, we’re going to try to figure out how to save the idea of America.'”

These days, the fear that most Americans would perish in an attack while government officials are led to safety has sort of flipped. Graff says that following the Sept. 11 terror attacks, many people were terrified that future tragedies would entirely target the government instead, leaving the U.S. without any leadership.

“We don’t have a good understanding of who takes over after that,” he said.

Exploring the history of doomsday preparation raised, for Graff, several questions about how President Trump and his administration are reshaping current plans.

“As we think about Russia and North Korea, these questions are more relevant today,” he said. “We just don’t know what [Trump] is doing or who might be appointed to some of these secret roles after a catastrophic incident.”

Graff said plans for a nuclear disaster today “absolutely exist,” although they remain classified. But imagining what those may be fascinates him.

“We know a lot of the secret procedures and secret protocols that would have played out during the Cold War,” he said. “We know similar plans exist today. What are the secret protocols that we don’t know about today?”

This article was originally published on TIME.com

It Is Not IF But WHEN the End Will Come (Revelation 15)

Nuclear energy reminds me of those stories about genies trapped in bottles.

The version of those stories that I remember best starts with a boy finding a beautifully decorated glass bottle on the beach. He hears a tiny voice and sees a tiny man inside the bottle. The tiny man says he’s a magic genie and will grant the boy three wishes if the boy will uncork the bottle and let him out. The boy agrees.

But after the boy releases the genie and gets three extravagant wishes, the genie becomes his own master and causes widespread trouble. In some versions of the story, the boy tricks the genie back into the bottle and corks it.

When I was young, I used to imagine how I would trick the genie. For my third wish I would ask for three more wishes. That way I could then keep the genie under control by always using my third wishes to wish for three more wishes.

But that was only make-believe. For me, the nuclear energy genie is just the symbol of a real-life problem that began in 1945. That was the year the United States dropped two nuclear bombs, one each on two Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The two atomic bombs, as we called them then, were dropped Aug. 6 and Aug. 9, 1945. They killed more than 100,000 people and caused widespread devastation. They also caused Japan to surrender unconditionally less than a week later, thus ending World War II.

Those were the world’s second and third nuclear bomb detonations. The first nuclear detonation was a test bomb that was exploded that July 16 near Alamogordo, New Mexico. The symbolic nuclear energy genie was then fully freed from his bottle.

Since then, he has also helped our nation and other nations in several peaceful ways, such as generating electricity and treating diseases.

But the nuclear genie has also joined the armies of several other nations in addition to ours. That’s an uneasy situation, especially now that North Korea is striving to arm its military with nuclear weapons.

And now the nuclear genie is playing a dirty trick on San Luis Obispo County. PG&E plans to close its Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant near Avila Beach in 2025. PG&E will leave behind the plant’s “spent” nuclear fuel. It’ll be in big barrel-like containers called casks sitting on what looks like a parking lot.

“Spent” fuel means it can no longer generate electricity, but it’s still dangerously radioactive. I’ve read that some can be dangerous for 10,000 years or more. That’s longer than recorded human history.

There’s no perfectly “safe” place to put the used fuel. The least dangerous place seems to be extremely deep in the Earth in some hard formation. But federal officials have failed to decide anything.

They probably won’t decide until the nuclear genie causes a disaster that kills many Americans.

Phil Dirkx’s column is special to The Tribune. He has lived in Paso Robles for more than five decades, and his column appears here every week. Reach Dirkx at 805-238-2372 or phild2008@sbcglobal.net.

The Incredible Risk of Nuclear War (Revelation 15)

Nuclear-war-forcetoknow.com_Risk of nuclear weapons use at all-time high since Cold War – UN study

The threat of a “nuclear weapon detonation event,” be it accidental or deliberate, is now the highest it’s been since the end of the Cold War, 26 years ago, a UN agency has warned, saying the risk is rising as relations between nuclear powers deteriorate.
With over 15,000 nuclear weapons possessed by nine states, the world now appears “full of potential for catastrophe,” warns a comprehensive study from the UN Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR).

“The threat of a nuclear weapon detonation event in 2017 is arguably at its highest in the 26 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union,” said the research paper composed by several reputed scholars and disarmament experts.

Nuclear deterrence was, and still is, the backbone of the military strategies of many world powers. Overall, nine states – the US, Russia, China, the UK, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel – possess more than 15,000 warheads, and global investment in the modernization and development of new, more capable and mobile nuclear weapons continues to rise.

One of the major factors threatening global security is the current state of US-Russia relations, the researchers argued.

“The return of Cold War-like confrontational postures has hindered international cooperation and confidence-building,” the paper said.

After Crimea’s reunification with Russia, the US quadrupled the budget for its European Reassurance Initiative to $3.4 billion in February of 2016, saying it was specifically intended “to deter Russian aggression.” Moscow, in turn, has deployed troops and weapons, including short-range Iskander missiles, in its westernmost enclave, Kaliningrad, in response to NATO’s massive military buildup along its borders

Comparing today’s security environment to that during the Cold War, the authors argue that the bipolar world appeared to be more predictable, and therefore more secure. The so-called mutually assured destruction (MAD) principle proved sustainable, unlike “current geopolitical complexities and expanded club of nuclear actors [which] exacerbate the inherent dangers of nuclear deterrence.”

The study comes as the US is launching a massive trillion-dollar program to modernize, support, and maintain its nuclear air-land-sea triad over the next 30 years. The colossal sum will be spent upgrading certain weapons systems, such as Minuteman III missiles first deployed 40 years ago, and the US Navy’s fleet of 14 Ohio-class nuclear submarines, according to Bloomberg.

In addition, the US Air Force has selected Northrop Grumman to develop and build a new long-range bomber to replace the Eisenhower-era B-52 at a projected cost of $80 billion. In the meantime, the Pentagon has begun preparing its latest Nuclear Posture Review, which could see the US turning back to confronting near-peer countries like Russia.

The 2010 review, which was written during the Obama administration, stated that “Russia and the United States are no longer adversaries” and listed nuclear terrorism as the biggest security threat. However, given how hostile relations between Moscow and Washington have recently become, this year’s document is expected to take a different stance.

Aside from uneasy relations between the US and Russia, the UNIDIR report cited the recent flare up in tensions on the Korean peninsula, where North Korea and the US continue to raise the stakes by flexing military muscle.

The White House has threatened to solve the “North Korean problem” with or without international support and sent the USS Carl Vinson strike group to the region. This has prompted an angry response from Pyongyang, which has promised to retaliate for an invasion with all means available, including nuclear weapons.

The report doesn’t see a reduction in America’s nuclear arsenal as a solution to worldwide nuclear tensions, however.

“Any weakening of the United States’ nuclear umbrella could spur further adventurism by adversaries and proliferation by allies,” the report claimed.

“Nuclear deterrence works – up until the time it will prove not to work… the risk is inherent and, when luck runs out, the results will be catastrophic,” it warns.

The Outcome Will Be Catastrophic (Revelation 8)

UN body: If nuclear deterrence fails, outcome will be catastrophic

PressTV

A United Nations institute has warned that worsening relations between nuclear-powered countries and their ever-increasing dependency on technologies for atomic bombs would significantly increase the risk of nuclear accidents in the world.

The UN Institute for Disarmament Research said in its report published on Friday that there will be “catastrophic” consequences when the time reaches that the nuclear deterrence does not work, whether deliberately or accidentally.

“Nuclear deterrence works, up until the time it will prove not to work,” the report said, adding, “The risk is inherent and, when luck runs out, the results will be catastrophic.”

“The threat of a nuclear weapon detonation event in 2017 is arguably at its highest in the 26 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union,” it said.

The major report warned that relations between nuclear-power countries had deteriorated in recent times and that had triggered fresh concerns that the doomsday would finally come and governments would use the weapon in dire situations.

It said nuclear deterrence in countries such as North Korea, Pakistan and India was at the “greatest risk of breaking down,” making a reference to Pyongyang’s increasing number of tests and Pakistan and India’s growing disputes over Kashmir, which could eventually break out into a real nuclear war.

Despite efforts in previous administrations in the United States and Russia for nuclear disarmament, the current governments have suggested that they would expand their arsenal of destructive weapons. That has intensified fears that the current cold war between Washington and Moscow over the crisis in Ukraine could go nuclear.

The UN report said terrorists were becoming increasingly capable of acquiring nukes through various methods.

“The more arms produced, particularly in countries with unstable societies, the more potential exists for terrorist acquisition and use of nuclear weapons.”

It also warned that terrorists had become more sophisticated in their way of hacking the controlling system of weapons, adding that the chance for such sabotage activities had increased as more countries keep replacing their military officers with computers, therefore ruling out a potential safety check on the weapons.

Of Course WWIII Will Happen

Could World War 3 really happen? How nuclear weapons and chemical warfare could lead to the Apocalypse as global tensions mount

Some claim that global conflict is closer than ever before

TENSIONS between the US, Russia, China and North Korea are spiking as President Trump sends warships into the Korean peninsula amid Kim Jong-un’s continued nuclear tests.

The escalation comes amid claims the US hacked Kim Jong-un’s latest missile launch and caused it to fail – as the tubby tyrant retaliated with threats of weekly tests.

Could World War Three happen?

Tensions between US, Russia, China and North Korea are increasing.

North Korea conducted two nuclear tests and 24 ballistic missile tests last year, defying six UN Security Council resolutions banning any testing.

And it has conducted additional missile tests this year – including one that failed when the missile blew up soon after launching.

The hermit state has threatened that “nuclear war could break out at any moment”, but most experts believe it would not launch an attack as it would not survive a revenge strike by the US.

President Trump is said to be bolstering American deployment in the region by sending the USS Ronald Reagan and the USS Nimitz to the Sea of Japan next week.

He has already dispatched the USS Carl Vinson, powered by nuclear reactors, carrying almost 100 aircraft and accompanied by destroyers, a cruiser, and a submarine to the area.

Russia, along with China, is said to have sent a spy ship to the area to ward off the task force amid rising tensions in the region.

And Putin urged the US to show “restraint”.
There was a time when it seemed like the prospect of war with the likes of Russia and China had disappeared with the end of the Cold War.
But tense relationships between the world’s major military players means that the outbreak of another global conflict has been raised again.

If World War Three does kick off how could it start?

Russia and America’s involvement in the war in Syria has created a situation where the two nations’ planes are reportedly flying dangerously close to each other on bombing runs.

If World War Three does kick off it seems the Russians could have something to do with it but it is more likely that if it ever did happen, it would be sparked hundreds of miles away from Syria.

An expert claimed Latvia will be Ground Zero — the country where the next global conflict will begin.

North Korea has warned “nuclear war could break out at any moment”, as US warships move into the Korean Peninsula but experts have said it is unlikely the hermit state would engage with the more powerful US.

Professor Paul D Miller of the National Defence University in Washington DC — who predicted the invasion of Crimea and the Ukraine conflict — said the Baltic state is next on Russia’s hit list.

But Putin won’t use conventional troops. Instead, he will recreate what happened in Ukraine and stir up the patriotism of ethnic Russians in the country.

“Putin will instigate an ambiguous militarised crisis using deniable proxies, probably in the next two years”, he said.

Who would win the war?

This is an impossible question to answer with any certainty, but if you are basing it solely on hardware it would seem the US is in the best position to win.

The US is the only country in possession of fifth-gen fighter jets – 187 F-22s and an F-35 that is not yet out of the testing phase.

Russia is developing one stealth fighter and China is working on four.

In terms of submarines the US Navy has 14 ballistic missile submarines with a combined 280 nuclear missiles.

They also possess four guided missile submarines with 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles each and 54 nuclear attack submarines.

Russia has only 60 submarines but they are said to have outstanding stealth capabilities.

They are also developing a 100-megaton nuclear torpedo.

China has five nuclear attack submarines, 53 diesel attack submarines, and four nuclear ballistic missile submarines to date.

However, the emerging superpower is developing more.

Nuclear War At The End (Revelation 15)

Debate about a nuclear arms race may be missing a moral dimension, and these debates should include all nuclear powers.

By Paul Bracken*

The second nuclear age takes place in a post-Christian world. New atomic missiles come from North Korea, Pakistan, India, China – with diverse religious and nonreligious traditions. The United States, set to start its own nuclear modernization, now too is a post-Christian nation.

“Post-Christian” here means the decline in primacy of a Christian worldview in politics, especially in the United States and Europe. During the first nuclear age and Cold War, both were Christian societies by this definition. And while Christianity still has many adherents, it lacks the authority it had during the years of the Cold War. This decline of authority means that calculations of self-interest in international politics bear almost all of the weight for restraint and shaping world order. Questions that drove debate about the Cold War arms race are no longer asked with the same passion. Yet these questions haven’t vanished. Who, for example, determines the national interest? Who does the calculations on which self-interest is founded and that determine nuclear armaments buildup?

Any framework that overlooks these moral issues misses a critical dimension of strategic analysis.

That our world is post-Christian, despite nearly a third of the population being Christian, should give us pause, especially about nuclear weapons. As a practical matter the national interest is now decided by politicians and strategy specialists. If the Cold War had been conducted this way it would have been a more dangerous experience, perhaps intolerably so. But it wasn’t. A larger Christian context surrounded the debate over the arms race. It didn’t prevent this arms race, but capped it in important ways. Many people don’t realize that most nuclear weapons proposed during the Cold War were never built. Neutron and cobalt bombs, tsunami makers with bombs on the ocean floor and nuclear weapons in space – all proposed and never built.

One reason was the backlash in the United States over how such matters were decided. Debate started by Christians thinkers and activists raised the moral level of discussion on nuclear war and peace. The United States wasn’t only playing a chess game of grand strategy, but taking a stand against a “vast evil,” in the words of prominent theologian John Courtney Murray. For this Jesuit and adviser to President John Kennedy, terrible things – like nuclear deterrence – had to be faced to stop Communism. This led to his reluctant support for deterrence since he saw no alternative. His arguments were subtle and sophisticated, the hallmark of Jesuit thinking then and now.

Thomas Merton – Trappist monk, pacifist and bestselling author – came to a different view. His first book, The Seven Story Mountain appeared in 1948 just as the Cold War and nuclear conflict were entering public consciousness. By the late 1950s Merton argued the arms race was becoming a greater danger than the Soviets, because it couldn’t be controlled in the long run. Strategists, Merton said, offered arguments about the national interest with detached, icy rationality based on narrow self-interest. This surface rationality masked the reality that they couldn’t control the arms race and were only fooling themselves behind abstractions of deterrence and containment.

Merton is especially relevant for a second nuclear age, with nuclear weapons today spread among nine countries. He wrote a book in the early 1960s that called for Christian resistance to the arms race and foresaw that the United States was itself becoming a post-Christian nation. Church authorities bottled up his Peace in the Post-Christian Era at the time. Merton died in 1968, and the book appeared in print in 2004, posthumously.

Merton held that some actions are just wrong, immoral, and we should say so – a view overlapping with some strategic thinking of the era, including Herman Kahn’s doomsday machine. A weapon that destroys all life on earth is after all the ultimate deterrent and the logical, absurd conclusion of the deterrence strategy supported by most politicians and technocrats. But by carrying strategic thinking to a ludicrous conclusion, Kahn insisted such a weapon shouldn’t be built. And as he predicted, no one did.

The moral debate of Murray and Merton widened pubic discussions on nuclear war and peace, reaching campuses, think tanks, and inspired many activists including Dorothy Day and Father Daniel and Philip Berrigan. And this is the point. They disagreed with each other, but their disagreement broke the narrow straitjacket of thinking about the arms race.

This disagreement eventually reached the Pentagon. In the early 1980s, the arms race was heating up under President Ronald Reagan. Back then, it looked theoretically possible to combine expansion in the number of nuclear warheads with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles, increased missile accuracy, and missile defense into a first-strike capability against the Soviet Union. On paper, there was no doubt that such a system gave a first-strike advantage to the United States. By 1983 a huge nuclear buildup by the superpowers was underway.

Against this background, the US Catholic Bishop’s Conference in May 1983 issued their Pastoral Letter on War and Peace – in essence, maintaining that nuclear deterrence, not warfighting, was provisionally morally acceptable. But there were grave reservations. Deterrence was only provisionally morally acceptable as a temporary alternative and not a reliable system of world order for the long term. The letter reflected the influence of Merton 15 years after his death and Murray, who died in 1967. Unlike many proclamations put out by anti-war and anti-nuclear groups, the pastoral letter did not say “nuclear weapons are evil, the United States should disarm at once.” Instead, the letter acknowledged real dangers that couldn’t be ignored or simplified.

The letter came out just as the United States was starting a nuclear buildup. Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger was deciding on size of nuclear force and a strategy, and Moscow was becoming paranoid.

The year 1983 was more dangerous than anyone at the time realized. The Soviets, it turns out, were loosening the nuclear trigger with multiple nuclear false alarms. Soviet warning satellites mistakenly detected American missile launches, and Moscow regarded a NATO exercise called Able Archer as preparation for a first strike. In the context of the extreme mistrust of the time, it made for an explosive cocktail. Years later, the CIA published details of Soviet fears.

In June 1983 the Pentagon ran the most realistic nuclear war game of the Cold War. Called Proud Prophet, the actual secretary of defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff played their roles and relied on actual top-secret war plans of the Strategic Air Command and the Navy. The roles of secretary of defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs were concealed from other players. A cutout used to play the president had no authority. Instead Weinberger and Chairman John Vessey Jr were briefed daily and consulted over a top-secret telephone line. They made decisions and passed them to the cutout.

The mechanics of Proud Prophet are described elsewhere, including my book The Second Nuclear Age. Suffice it to say, the game escalated, with hundreds of millions killed and the end of life on earth as we know it. One cannot prove it, but the game and larger context of the era, including the Pastoral Letter on War and Peace, deeply affected US leaders. Afterward, there was less loose talk about a US nuclear attack on the Soviets, a shift that came at a critical time.

Much has changed since the Cold War. But need for an enlarged framework that goes beyond calculated self-interest has not changed. The arms race has been left to politicians and specialists. Yet there’s a legacy of Christianity and the arms race that is noble, moral and useful.

Debate is needed to energize broad segments of society – beyond the groups that engaged during the Cold War because we now live in a multipolar nuclear world. The moral debate about the arms race must include Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, India and China. That won’t be easy, but is a necessity, even while overlooked in many intellectual and academic circles.

One doesn’t have to be a Christian to see the dangers of the arms race. This recognition must be used to reframe the debate about nuclear war and peace.

*Paul Bracken is professor of management and political science at Yale University

The Odds of Nuclear War: 100 Percent (Revelation 15)

Nuclear-war-forcetoknow.com_Scientists and Strategists Contemplate the Increasing Odds of Nuclear War

04.18.2017 / BY Mark Wolverton

At a ‘nuclear weapons summit’ in Santa Fe, experts counted the ways catastrophe could be unleashed — and the many fewer ways it can be prevented.

Santa Fe, New Mexico, is less than an hour’s drive from Los Alamos, where the atomic bomb was conceived, and only a few hours from Alamogordo, where it burst into life on July 16, 1945. That makes the history of nuclear weapons as much as part of the culture and identity of Santa Fe as the Palace of the Governors, turquoise jewelry, and the scent of piñon on the cool mountain air. This past December, an unusual group of people came together for a few days for an event called the Santa Fe Nuclear Weapons Summit. Their purpose was to consider what remains the fundamental issue of our age: What should we do about nuclear weapons?

One reason that question is so difficult to answer is that, after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nukes became something of an abstraction, the stuff of nightmares and apocalyptic scenarios, not something that affected our day-to-day lives. And for those born after the Cold War, they’re ancient history, a plot device for TV shows and Hollywood thrillers, not a real and present threat. In his 2012 book “The Partnership: Five Cold Warriors and Their Quest to Ban the Bomb,” the journalist Philip Taubman quoted former Secretary of State George Shultz: “I think to a certain extent after the end of the Cold War the subject went to sleep.”

But out there in the night, the nukes sleep on as well, ever ready to awaken at the slightest nudge, whether through direct intention or miscalculation. And though the Cold War and the Soviet Union have faded into history, the danger has not. In the months since the summit, that hard fact has been made sharply and freshly clear, as President Trump promises vast expansion of the U.S. nuclear arsenal while North Korea conducts new missile tests.

During the first minutes of the summit at Santa Fe’s historic Lensic Theater, Eric Schlosser, author of the book “Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety,” asked former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry: “Right now as we sit here, given your decades of public service in this realm, how great do you think the threat of nuclear weapons is today?”

Perry answered, “I’m sorry to report to you that the likelihood of a nuclear catastrophe today is greater than it was at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis.”

“I don’t like that answer,” Schlosser responded wryly, to nervous laughter from the audience.

“I don’t like it at all,” Perry said. “But I’m afraid it’s the truth.”

To dead silence from the Lensic audience, Perry went on to recount his own Cold War experiences, from helping to interpret U-2 photography of Russian missile sites during the Cuban crisis to a memorable night as Secretary of Defense: “I was called [at] 3 o’clock in the morning once, telling me that 200 missiles were on their way from the Soviet Union to the United States. I will never forget that moment.”

That turned out to be a computer glitch, one of many that transpired during the Cold War years, as Schlosser details in “Command and Control.” Although in those days, the main threat was military — the nuclear Pearl Harbor that strategists called a “BOOB” (“bolt out of the blue”) attack — the possibility of catastrophic accident or miscalculation also always lurked.

Yet just as that danger receded with the end of the Cold War, another appeared: nuclear terrorism. For decades, the tight control of nuclear weapons and their possession by only a handful of sovereign nations essentially guaranteed that if they were ever used, it would be as an act of national will, not a spasm of ideological violence. That guarantee is gone.

In a stark video, Former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry contemplates the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists on Washington, D.C.

Perry showed the Lensic audience a short video dramatizing the consequences of a single terrorist nuke detonating in Washington, D.C. Beyond the immediate catastrophic loss of life, the political, social, and cultural fallout of such a disaster would vastly surpass the physical fallout of the bomb — making the world’s response to 9/11 seem calm and rational by comparison.

Such dangers led Perry to join with George Shultz, Sam Nunn, and Henry Kissinger in publishing a joint editorial in January 2007 in the Wall Street Journal arguing for the total abolition of nuclear weapons. For many world leaders, including then soon-to-be-President Barack Obama, their words transformed the concept of a nuclear-free world from a radical peacenik fantasy to a realistic, achievable goal. Yet the goal remains elusive. While Perry takes justifiable pride in participating in the dismantling of about 8,000 U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons during his career, “the bad news is there’s still 15,000 left,” he notes candidly, adding, “whatever the numbers, it’s the end of civilization” if they’re ever unleashed.

Trained as an engineer and mathematician, Perry still approaches questions of Armageddon with a scientist’s precise clarity of thought, as he did throughout his Washington years. Which raises another issue that was among the many questions addressed by Perry in the Q&A that followed his interview with Schlosser: Given that it was a group of brilliant and gentle scientists who first brought the nuclear demon into the world back in 1945, what can science do now to leash that demon?

In an ideal world, the answer would be obvious: Uninvent the Bomb. Since that’s impossible, politicians and diplomats must find ways to control the nukes, and that’s where science is indispensable. “The treaties are always subject to the issue of, can they be verified, and verification is a very difficult issue,” Perry said. “Scientists in the past have come up with techniques which have given enough confidence in verification that we’ve been able to go ahead with the treaties. So I think at least one thing that scientists can do in this area is work on ways of improving verification.” As an example, Perry cited the global monitoring network of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization, which proved sensitive enough to detect the partial fizzle of North Korea’s first failed nuclear test in 2006. “The final estimate was only about a half a kiloton yield, which was a very low-yield nuclear bomb, and yet our seismic network detected it with very high reliability,” Perry said. With North Korea threatening to conduct new underground nuclear tests, such capability is even more vital.

Not only scientists, but students, artists, writers, businesspeople, futurists, and other innovators participated in the summit over the next three days. They traveled to tour Los Alamos National Laboratory, participated in discussions with experts including the former CIA officer Valerie Plame and the former U.S. diplomat Robert Gallucci, and immersed themselves in intensive workshops to develop brief multimedia presentations envisioning the world in 2045 — a century after the Bomb’s debut — and possible futures in a world with and without nuclear weapons.

The summit finale, in which several teams presented imaginative if brief scenarios, raised some intriguing perspectives and led to a spirited discussion with the audience, but offered no final answers — which was not surprising. No one was expecting the most complex existential dilemma of our age to be resolved in a four-day meeting in a picturesque corner of New Mexico.

“My generation was responsible for building up this fearsome nuclear arsenal,” says former Defense Secretary William J. Perry.

Visual by Department of Defense

For William Perry, now 89 years old, such activities are more than just a way to kill time in retirement. “I have basically devoted the rest of my life to educating the public on nuclear dangers and what might be done to lessen those dangers,” he told the Lensic audience. As he explained in Philip Taubman’s book, “My generation was responsible for building up this fearsome nuclear arsenal. And my generation has now started the task of dismantling it. But we will not be able to finish this task. So we will have to pass the baton on to your generation.”

It might be easy to dismiss such efforts merely as the forlorn quest of old Cold Warriors for some sense of atonement in the twilight of their lives. And it’s all too easy to feel completely hopeless about the entire issue, and that trying to change it is merely an exercise in futility. As David Kaiser, science historian and physicist at MIT, notes, “I do think that present uncertainties raise the threat level in a way that hasn’t been true for a long time.” He adds that he wasn’t surprised when The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists decided to move their clock closer to midnight.

Kaiser is referring to the Bulletin’s famous “Doomsday Clock,” which since its inception in 1947 has served as an unofficial cultural indicator of impending Armageddon. “Midnight” on the Clock represents global nuclear war. As the new presidential administration took office in January 2017, the Bulletin moved the hands of the Clock to two and a half minutes to midnight — the closest ever to Doomsday except when it stood at two minutes during the 1950s, after both the U.S. and the USSR acquired the hydrogen bomb.

Other experts are equally uneasy. Peter Galison, professor of history of science and physics at Harvard, notes that the current State Department is in “dire shape,” and that foreign policy has “shifted away from professionals with the linguistic and statecraft skills needed to help guard the peace and toward the White House.” Galison also observes “an increasing and worrisome volatility to Executive Office discussion of increasing nuclear armaments and disparaging accords to build down the current arsenals.” Together, he says, these “present us precisely with a real and worrisome danger.”

Yet it would be a tragic mistake to surrender wholly to fear. The summit demonstrated convincingly that even though the old Cold Warriors such as William Perry must eventually relinquish their crusades, passionate and vigorous people from the generations that follow are more than ready to take up their baton. In the public discussion that closed the summit, several of them summed up the main take-home lesson of the past few days: “Don’t assume [nuclear catastrophe] is inevitable, inescapable, or that you don’t have agency.”

Considering that the new president of the United States is a man who seems to believe that nuclear weapons are nothing more than particularly noisy firecrackers, the cause has never been more timely.

Mark Wolverton, a 2016-17 Knight Science Journalism Fellow at MIT, is a science writer, author, and playwright whose articles have appeared in Wired, Scientific American, Popular Science, Air & Space Smithsonian, and American Heritage, among other publications. His most recent book is “A Life in Twilight: The Final Years of J. Robert Oppenheimer.”

On The Brink of Nuclear War (Revelation 15)

14,923 nukes: All the nations armed with nuclear weapons and how many they have

Skye Gould and Dave Mosher Apr. 14, 2017

When it comes to the threat of nuclear war, 2017 is shaping up to be a watershed moment.

Relations between the US and Russia – the two foremost nuclear superpowers – has reached a “low point” because of the US’s accusations that Russia meddled in the US election and is involved with the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Meanwhile, North Korea draws ever closer to constructing a device that could threaten Washington.

President Donald Trump has also inherited a $1 trillion program to modernize US nukes, and Russia now strains its budget to do the same for its arsenal. (In regard to Russia’s nuclear modernization, Trump has even said, “Let it be an arms race.”)

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists took note of these and other developments in January by advancing its Doomsday Clock 30 seconds. The symbolic shift implies that humanity is now just 2 minutes 30 seconds away from an apocalyptic “midnight.”

World events since January would do little to improve that outlook.

Tensions between the US and North Korea have soared in recent months, with the isolated nation threatening to rain down “nuclear thunderbolts” if the US follows through on rumblings of preemptive strikes – all while the isolated nation reportedly gears up for another test of a nuclear device.

Experts disagree on how many deliverable nuclear weapons North Korea possesses, but more is known about other arsenals around the world. Below is a map that shows the best estimates of which countries have them and how many they have.

Preparing For The Nuclear Holocaust (Revelation 15)

Image: Declassified list reveals U.S. targets Russia’s high density population centers with nuclear weapons… Russia likely does the same for the USA

There is an ongoing debate over whether the existence of nuclear weapons makes America a safer place or whether it puts our country in harm’s way. For the most part, the debate falls along party lines – that is to say, Republicans generally believe that maintaining a nuclear stockpile is necessary, while Democrats, including the former President, do not. But regardless of all the arguments for or against a nuclear arsenal, the fact of the matter is that the United States possesses roughly 6,800 nuclear warheads, second only to Russia, which is armed with about 7,000. Other countries don’t even come close to these figures – the United Kingdom has roughly 215 nuclear warheads, France has around 300, China has 260 and Israel has 80.

With nuclear arsenals of this scope and size, it is clear that a war between the United States and Russia would be nothing short of catastrophic. Given the fact that tensions between the two countries have been on the rise in recent days following President Trump’s air strikes on a Syrian airfield, many people are becoming worried that one day soon, those nuclear weapons could be used. Of course, such a conflict between the United States and Russia would force other countries like Iran, Syria and the United Kingdom to take action as well, potentially leading to a third world war.

As most people are already aware, the United States and Russia have never exactly been close allies. In December of 2015, the National Security Archive declassified a list from 1956 that detailed hundreds of Russian cities and airfields that would become targets in the event of a nuclear war. The nearly 800-page document, titled “Atomic Weapons Requirements Study for 1959,” outlines over 1,200 cities in Russia and elsewhere, including Moscow, East Berlin, and Beijing, and also includes 1,100 airfields. William Burr from the National Security Archive describes the target list as the most detailed list ever released by the Air Force. “It’s disturbing, for sure, to see the population centers targeted,” Burr said, referencing the fact that most targets on the list had dense civilian populations.

Time Magazine also commented on the list, writing, “It’s clear that the plan so dryly laid out by US intelligence would have resulted in death and destruction unlike anything the world had or has ever seen.” It is worth noting that Time Magazine has developed something of a reputation for commentating from a left wing perspective. One could just as easily make the argument that the plan “so dryly laid out by U.S. intelligence” was actually necessary considering the circumstances at the time.

According to RT, the declassified document also calls for “systemic destruction” in the event of a nuclear war with Russia, and aimed to create a 60-megaton bomb, which would be 4000 times larger than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in August of 1945.

Given the history of tension between the United States and Russia, it is not much of a stretch to assume that the Russians have a similar list of American targets they would strike in the event of a massive nuclear war. More than likely, such a list would include areas of the country with high populations like New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia. (RELATED: Which U.S cities wold be targeted in the event of a nuclear war?)

Five separate strikes in these cities alone would affect the lives of roughly 18 million Americans, or 5.6 percent of the United States population. It is also likely that Russia has made plans for new types of nuclear weapons that could inflict far more damage than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Indeed, just last year Russia unveiled images of “Satan 2,” a nuclear missile that is capable of wiping out areas as big as the state of Texas.

For now, the entire world watches and waits to see what these two global superpowers will do next. Only time will tell. Stay informed about radiation fallout at Radiation.news.