Russia’s New Satanic Nuke

Putin’s scientists readying ‘TEXAS KILLER’ nuke that could obliterate whole countries

The RS-28 Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile known in Russia asSatan 2” will be the world’s heaviest and most powerful nuclear missile when it is complete.

Satan 2 missiles are capable of carrying nuclear warheads with payloads of up to 20,000 kilotons – more than one thousand times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Nagasaki.

At maximum payload a direct hit on New York would kill 4.5million people, injure 3.6million, and send radioactive fallout stretching more than 600 miles.

SHOCK: The missile has the power to take out an area the size of Texas

The “Texas Killer” is Russia’s newest nuclear missile design, and when completed will be the heaviest weapon of its kind to ever be deployed.

It can reportedly carry 10 heavy nuclear warheads and is designed to break through U.S. missile defense systems.

Last year, the Defense Ministry’s Zvezda news agency claimed Sarmat was so powerful, that a single missile could evade Washington’s defenses and wipe out the entire state of Texas.

DANGER: This missile has the potential to level several cities in one go

But, the Russian scientists in charge of developing Satan 2 have suffered a setback which means that it won’t be ready until later this year according to the Moscow Times.

Fears over all-out nuclear war are now at fever pitch after Kim Jong-un revealed that North Korea is ready to launch its most powerful nuke ever.

Donald Trump has not allayed fears by preparing to set up a missile system on the border with the secretive state.

In January it was also revealed that the US was planning a surprise nuke attack on China and Russia.

Russia Broadens Its Nuclear Triad

Russia set to launch its most powerful nuclear sub this month

Press TV

Russia will shortly put afloat a second, nuclear-powered Yasen-class submarine — its strongest — in a northern port, a Russian defense source says.

The new vessel, dubbed Kazan, is a fourth-generation Russian submarine, and “is expected to be rolled out and put afloat on March 30,” a Russian defense source told the Moscow-based TASS news agency.

Russian media refer to the country’s fourth-generation submarines as the backbone of the Russian Navy’s strategic nuclear deterrent.

The nuclear-powered, multi-purpose Yasen-class submarines have been designed by the St. Petersburg Malakhit (Malachite) Marine Engineering Bureau. The first Project 885 submarine cruiser “Severodvinsk” was delivered to the Russian Navy in 2014.

In a separate development, US media reported that a Russian ship was seen sailing just 20 miles south of the US Navy submarine base at King’s Bay, Georgia, again.

The Viktor Leonov, an AGI (Auxiliary, General Intelligence) trawler, has a port call scheduled in Jamaica for mid-April, and the assumption among US officials is that it will make one more run up and down the US’s East Coast before heading to Jamaica.

The Russian trawler made a similar journey along the East Coast in February, sailing close to a US naval base in Virginia and Naval Submarine Base New London in Connecticut, which the Navy describes as the “Home of the Submarine Force.”

The US and Russia have been locked in a dispute over a range of issues, including most primarily the Ukrainian crisis.

Nuclear Winter Is Unavoidable (Revelation 8:10)

(updated 11:37 09.12.2014)

Scientists from the US National Center for Atmospheric Research said even if a small scale nuclear war broke out in one region of the world, the entire planet would be at risk, as the planet would experience falling temperatures, less precipitation and reduced sunlight, among other grave consequences.

VIENNA, December 9 (Sputnik), Daria Chernyshova — In the event if a nuclear war breaks out in one region of the Earth, the entire planet would suffer grave consequences, characterized by falling temperatures, less precipitation and reduced sunlight, Mike Mills, a scientist at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, told Sputnik Tuesday.

“Even if the nuclear war happened in one part of the planet – India and Pakistan – the whole globe would be affected by the temperatures dropping, precipitating dropping, sunlight dropping and also the amount of harmful ultra-violet would increase, because of the ozone layer,” Mills said on the sidelines of the Vienna Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons.He described a scenario where after an initial explosion cities would be engulfed by giant firestorms, like those seen during World War II – in Tokyo and Hiroshima.

“And this would produce a tremendous amount of smoke. We looked at a scenario in which India and Pakistan each used 50 of the smallest nuclear weapons, the size used on Hiroshima – on each other’s cities. Researchers estimated this would produce about 6.5 million tons of smoke, black smoke that would absorb a lot of sunlight,” the atmospheric scientist said, citing results of his research.

Heat from the sun would encourage smoke from the fires to rise up into the stratosphere, where the ozone layer is. Since weather features like rain do not occur this high up in the atmosphere, the smoke could not be simply washed away by rain, like it would lower down. Thus it could remain in the stratosphere for years, absorbing sunlight, preventing it from reaching the surface of the Earth. As a result, temperatures at the surface would drop and precipitation patterns would be affected. This in turn would have an impact on agriculture and ecosystems, leading to reductions in crop production, which in turn could give rise to a global famine.

Mills pointed out that as long as countries possess nuclear weapons, it is not a question if they will be used, but when.

“You know that governments change, and relations between countries can change; and as long as we possess the ability to annihilate each other and pose this catastrophic risk to the survival of our species and others on the planet, if we gave as long enough time, they would be used, eventually. Right now there is an increasing number of countries with nuclear weapons and that increases the risk of conflict between different nuclear armed states exponentially,” Mills told Sputnik urging to reverse that.

He stressed that nuclear powers are not doing enough to eliminate nuclear weapons. For instance, the new START treaty signed in 2010 between the United States and Russia, did not consider the climatic consequences of nuclear war. Mills pointed out the need to raise awareness about the risks of a nuclear winter, as in his view, greater awareness would put more pressure on governments to push for disarmament.“You really can’t ignore the impact on humanity of that kind of a war, and if someone were to say – well, we don’t care what happens to human beings after nuclear war, we have to question that kind of leadership whether it is coming from the military or diplomats,” Mills said adding that the well-being of society should be at the forefront of international leaders’ minds.

The Vienna Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons is taking place on December 8-9 in Hofburg Palace in the Austrian capital. Its aim is to promote nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation. According to the conference’s organization committee, over 16,000 nuclear warheads still exist, many of which are on “high alert”.

Strengthening the Russian Nuclear Horn

Russia’s Most Powerful Nuclear Attack Submarine Ever Is Almost Ready for Sea

Dave Majumdar
March 15, 2017

Russia is set to launch its second Yasen-class nuclear-powered attack submarine on March 30. Called Kazan, the new vessel is an upgraded Project 885M design that is in many ways much more capable than the lead ship of the class, K-560 Severodvinsk.

“Kazan is expected to be rolled out and put afloat on March 30,” a Russian defense source told the Moscow-based TASS news agency.

The Russian Navy will take delivery of Kazan in 2018. Once the vessel is operational, she will be the most formidable enemy submarine that the U.S. Navy has ever faced. “It’s probably the most capable nuclear powered submarine out there fielded by a potential adversary,” Center for Naval Analyses Russian military affairs specialist Michael Kofman told The National Interest.

Indeed, Kazan is expected to be substantially improved over her older sister, the Severodvinsk. The vessel incorporates new technological developments that have emerged since Severodvinsk started construction in 1993. Kazan also incorporates lessons learned from testing the older vessel.

“The 885M is really the first ship of the class,” Kofman said. “The 885M is intended as a substantial improvement, based on the lessons learned from the lengthy development, construction, and testing process for the original 885.”

The Project 885 vessels are a departure from previous Soviet and Russian submarine designs. Unlike older Soviet vessels, the Project 885 submarines are multimission boats similar in concept to American vessels like the Seawolf or Virginia-classes.

“[Severodvinsk] is Russia’s first truly multipurpose submarine,” Michael Kofman and Norman Polmar wrote in the U.S. Naval Institute’s Proceedings journal. “The Severodvinsk is capable of antisubmarine, antiship, and land-attack missions. Among the more interesting features are a large bow sonar dome for the Irtysh-Amfora sonar system and an amidships battery of eight vertical-launch cells that can carry 32 Kalibr (SS-N-27/30 Sizzler) or Oniks (SS-N-26 Strobile) cruise missiles. These antiship and land-attack weapons are particularly significant after Russian surface ships and submarines fired long-range mis­siles into Syria in 2016.”

Russia plans to build a total of seven Project 885M submarines—Novosibirsk, Krasnoyarsk, Arkhangelsk and Perm are currently under construction at the Sevmash shipyards on the White Sea port city of Severodvinsk.

Meanwhile, Russia is planning on developing a follow-on class of attack submarine that would hunt U.S. Navy ballistic missile submarines. According to the authors of that article, “Now in development is a new Russian ‘hunter-killer’ submarine. This SSN will have the primary role of countering Western SSBNs. The new SSN is probably a significant program, but very little is known about it other than construction is slated to begin in the near future.”

The Russians undoubted have the technical skills to develop an extremely formidable new class of attack submarines. The question is does the Kremlin have the financial wherewithal to fund another expensive new defense project.

Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for The National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @davemajumdar.

Image Credit: Creative Commons.

The Nuclear Truth (Revelation 15)

Nuclear reality: Former U.S. chief scientific officer gives his take on world’s nukes

Ashley Collins |; 239-213-60292:44 p.m. ET March 8, 2017

Nuclear weapons can wipe out an entire city and kill millions. That power shouldn’t be taken lightly. Yet, several countries, including Iran, Pakistan and North Korea, continue to actively engage in creating and testing nuclear weapons. North Korea just test-launched four ballistic missiles into the sea near Japan Monday.

According to Dr. John Psaras, former chief scientific officer with the U.S. Department of Energy, the threat isn’t something to ignore. He spoke to more than 150 curious individuals at the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Greater Naples late last month during the annual “Progressive Voices Speak Out” lecture series.

His lecture — the fourth in the series — honed in on, “Nuclear Weapons in the Wrong Hands – Terrorism, Iran, Pakistan and North Korea.” Other lectures in the series touched on the new presidential administration, rise in sea levels and the 2016 presidential election.

Psaras, now retired, dedicated more than 25 years to the U.S. Department of Energy.

In order to explain the current nuclear weapons situation, Psaras started off with its origin.

The nuclear age began in 1945; the year the U.S. tested a nuclear bomb in New Mexico, and dropped a uranium bomb over Japan’s Hiroshima, and a plutonium bomb over Nagasaki towards the end of World War II.

“Plutonium, to give you an idea, is roughly about, pound for pound, three times more vile than uranium,” Psaras said to the audience.

Ashley Collins

During the Cold War, the U.S. and the Soviet Union engaged in a nuclear arms race. At the peak of the war, the U.S. had more than 30,000 nuclear device units, Psaras added.

“Russia had almost double that amount. So we could have blown the world 100 times over with that power,” he said.

In order to quell the use and testing of nuclear weapons, an international treaty called Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was born in 1968, and was extended indefinitely in 1995.

The treaty recognized the U.S., Russia, United Kingdom, France and China as nuclear-weapon states, and according to the Arms Control Association, legitimized those states’ arsenals. However, not all states’ agreeing to the treaty have stuck by the treaty’s rules. North Korea withdrew from the NPT in 2003 and has tested nuclear devices since. Iran engages in secret nuclear activities in violation of the treaty’s terms.

To date, there are still about 15,000 nuclear warheads worldwide, with more than 90 percent belonging to the U.S. and Russia, according to Psaras.

However, he added, all eyes should be on countries like North Korea, Pakistan and Iran.

Pakistan not only has a weak government, but is the Islamic world’s sole nuclear weapons state.​

“In those instances you could have a situation where somebody may be able to steal a nuclear device… In the event that they do try to actually hit anybody, either ourselves or alternately our allies, we are ready, having anti-ballistic missiles located strategically in both Southeast Asia as well as Europe and the Middle East,” Psaras said.

He added that while he isn’t sure what the new presidential administration plans to do against nuclear weapons, it should be placed in high priority.

In a February interview with the Reuters news agency, President Donald Trump said he wants a world free of nuclear weapons, but if it can’t be, the United States should be “at the top of the pack.”

The lecture series concluded March 8 with Brendan Fischer, associate counsel with the Campaign Legal Center, speaking on the role of gerrymandering and voter suppression during the 2016 presidential election.

The congregation’s Rev. Tony Fisher hopes participants take action based on the information learned from the series.

“What we learn in these lectures hopefully just doesn’t sit in our brains and make us feel good that we’ve heard it. But that it motivates us to turn around and go out and do something in the wider world,” Fisher said to the audience.

Russia Prepares For Nuclear War

Russia NATO War: Moscow Deploys Nuclear Missiles In Europe, Subsonic Weapons At Sea


03/08/17 AT 4:06 PM

A top U.S. military official accused Russia of breaking its commitment to a decades-old arms treaty Wednesday by deploying a new land-based, nuclear-capable cruise missile in Europe. The remarks came days after the Russian military announced it was arming its nuclear submarine fleet with new supersonic cruise missiles to modernize its naval forces.

During a House Armed Services Committee hearing, Vice Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force Gen. Paul Selva said Russia’s SSC-8 cruise missile threatens Washington’s allies in NATO and warned Moscow intentionally is using it to put pressure on its neighboring foes. He echoed sentiments raised last month by U.S. officials who called Russia’s developing and testing of the weapon a violation of the “spirit and intent” of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty signed by the U.S. and the Soviet Union to eliminate such short- and intermediate-range missiles. Selva said the renewed missile activity could threaten regional stability at an already tense period in relations between NATO and Russia.

“The system itself presents a risk to most of our facilities in Europe and we believe that the Russians have deliberately deployed it in order to pose a threat to NATO and to facilities within the NATO area of responsibility,” Selva said, without mentioning whether the missile was armed with a nuclear warhead or not, Reuters reported.

The news came two days after Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yori Borisov announced Monday that Moscow’s navy would be equipping its Project 949A Oscar II-class nuclear-powered guided missile submarines with 3M-54 Kalibr cruise missiles, the Diplomat reported. The move was reportedly part of a greater effort to update the country’s naval capabilities, something Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu pledged to do last month.

Both NATO and Russia have undergone massive military escalations in recent months with each side accusing the other of provocation. Since Moscow annexed the Ukrainian territory of Crimea in 2014, Russia’s European neighbors increasingly have become concerned about their national sovereignty and have looked toward the U.S. to bolster NATO’s military forces, which it did under former President Barack Obama. Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump has expressed less enthusiastic views toward the U.S. commitment to NATO as well as the 2010 New START agreement through which Russia and the U.S. agreed to limit their nuclear weapon arsenals.

The Horns Line Up For Nuclear War (Daniel)


Michael Krepon

William Bullitt accompanied President Woodrow Wilson and Colonel Edward House to Paris to negotiate an ambitious peace treaty after the carnage of World War I. Reflecting on the handiwork of vengeful allies in the Versailles Treaty, Bullitt prophetically declared, “This isn’t a treaty of peace… I can see at least eleven wars in it.” The victors in World War II did far better, establishing a progressive international order that fostered economic progress and helped prevent wars between major powers for over half a century.

This international order is under great strain, challenged by pervasive anxiety, growing inequality, regional flash points, anemic economies, and ceaseless refugee flows from war-torn areas. Lesser despots have fallen, opening up ungoverned spaces, while secular strongmen have arisen in lynchpin states like India, Israel, Egypt, the Philippines, and Turkey. Confident leaders have also taken up residence in Washington, Moscow, and Beijing, promising to cure national ailments while building up arms.

These developments play out against a backdrop of declining American standing and increasing domestic divisions since decisively winning the Cold War and easily toppling Saddam Hussein. In retrospect, the 9/11 attacks were a major pivot point. Overreach followed. Subsequent ill-advised and ill-executed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan sapped America’s strength, treasury, and influence. President George W. Bush’s crusade to extend Democracy worldwide is now a distant memory.

Relations between major powers are now strained as Vladimir Putin pushes back against NATO expansion and President Xi Jinping seeks dominion over the East and South China Seas. Add to this the black-swan event of Donald Trump’s election, facilitated by Russian hacking, the FBI Director’s interventions, voters who cast ballots for Trump assuming he wouldn’t win and voters who declined to vote for Hillary Clinton, assuming she would.

Republicans on Capitol Hill now widely dismiss the value of diplomacy to reduce nuclear dangers, which President Donald Trump could well accentuate. The prophetic voices of our time might well be those of Mikhail Gorbachev and William J. Perry. Gorbachev, in an essay in Time magazine, bemoans “the militarization of politics,” arms buildups, and leaders who are bellicose, confused, or “at a loss.” Gorbachev warns, “It all looks as if the world is preparing for war.” Perry warns against missiles and warheads that can be launched very quickly and that foster greater illusions of fighting and winning nuclear wars.

At this juncture, it is hard to envision actions to stop this slide, let alone to convince Washington and other capitals to take them. Gorbachev calls on leaders of states with nuclear weapons to gather under the auspices of the United Nations to declare, as he and President Ronald Reagan did in a 1985 Geneva summit that, “Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” Those who deride rhetorical gestures of this sort have forgotten, or didn’t experience the bellicose rhetoric and the dangerous nuclear competition of the early 1980s. This joint statement paved the way for these unorthodox leaders to break the back of the nuclear arms race.

Since the United States and Russia adhere to nuclear doctrines allowing first use, it would be useful for Trump and Putin to publicly reaffirm this statement. The leaders of China, India and Pakistan – all poised to significantly expand their nuclear arms capabilities – could be encouraged to join them.

Important pledges can lose their effect unless backed up by deeds. My view, as readers of these posts well know, is that the single most symbolic and practical step that states possessing nuclear weapons could take would be to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which bans all nuclear testing for all time. Only three nuclear-armed states have done so—Russia, Great Britain, and France. The United States, China, and Israel have signed but not ratified the Treaty; India, Pakistan, and North Korea haven’t even signed. All are needed for the Treaty to enter into force, lending new credence to global non-proliferation efforts. A chain of ratifications can begin with the United States, followed by China, India, Pakistan, and Israel. President Obama couldn’t hope to gain the necessary Senate votes. President Trump could redefine himself and reduce nuclear dangers by doing so.

Note to readers: A version of this essay appeared in Defense One on February 15th.

The Nuclear Horns Continue To Grow (Daniel 7)

 Nuclear hypocrisy

By Webmaster – February 18, 2017015

With North Korea on the one hand threatening to test launch bigger and bigger missiles and President Trump on the other twitting that the United States should greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability and later saying let it be an arms race. Isn’t it good to know that the other nuclear weapon states are trying to reduce their nuclear arsenals, setting a good example to both Trump and the rest of world?

In fact, as of 2016, all nine nations with nuclear weapons are developing and deploying new weapon systems or have announced their intentions to do so. Take France, despite having reduced the overall size of its stockpiles of nukes, President Hollande has allocated a whopping 22 billion Euros for the enhancement of its nuclear deterrent capabilities and has developed a new range of ballistic missiles carrying multiple warheads to distant destinations. The voice of disarmament eh? The Russian, meanwhile, are developing a new under-water drone designed to carry a thermo-nuclear weapon into foreign ports. Remember, President Putin also threatened to use nuclear force over Crimea.
Let’s face it, Donald Trump’s own predecessor wasn’t much better on nuclear weapons. Under Barak Obama, the US talked the talk, but didn’t walk the walk. He reduced the active stockpile of US nukes but what about the 1 Trillion Dollar that Obama devoted towards modernizing the US nuclear arsenal and the announcement on his, watch of the first smart nuclear bomb, the most expensive of its kind ever built? So yes, be afraid when you need reports of how Trump once asked his advisor three times, why can’t we use nuclear weapons? But also be aware of the enormous nuclear sized hypocrisy exhibited by many of his critics, both at home and abroad.

Moving Toward Nuclear Inevitability (Revelation 15)

The world is going backwards on nuclear proliferation – this is not a mistake we can afford to make


The Munich Security Conference, which opens on Friday, could not be more timely. For the first time in its history, the international gathering of top diplomats and policy makers will tackle the escalating crisis on the Korean peninsula, currently one of the greatest foreign policy challenges for the new United States administration, and a threat to global peace and security.

The United States has historically taken a firm lead on managing threats from Pyongyang, and the presence of US vice president Mike Pence and defence secretary James Mattis in Munich positions them as the barometer to gauge how Kim Jong-un’s nuclear programme can be halted before it is too late.

Just last week, we were reminded again of how vulnerable the world is to nuclear catastrophe. North Korea showed its disregard of UN security resolutions once again by firing an intermediate-range ballistic missile towards the Sea of Japan, its sixth nuclear test.

We may be about to witness an escalation from this initial provocation early next month when the United States Armed Forces begins its annual joint military drill with the South Korean Armed Forces. North Korea has always regarded these exercises as a dress rehearsal for an invasion from the West, and has warned it is ready to take ‘an extremely stern counter-measure.’

While experts doubt North Korea’s claim that it is in the final stages of developing a weapon capable of reaching the United States, the consequences of any strike against South Korea or Japan would not be limited to those countries. The use of a nuclear weapon would have a catastrophic and long-lasting effect, as was vividly experienced after Hiroshima.

Defending ourselves from new dangers that are presented by North Korea requires new thinking and fresh strategies. But if we are to finally to free humanity once and for all from the spectre of mutually assured destruction, then serious multilateral negotiations should be aimed at ultimately achieving a world free of nuclear weapons.

That will not happen until the US and Russia moderate their rhetoric and take the reduction of their nuclear arsenals seriously.

I am sorry to say that we find ourselves in an environment where there is not only a protracted deadlock in arms control negotiations but a disturbing willingness to increase reliance on nuclear weapons to guarantee national security. At the Munich Security Conference we must reiterate the value of international order building, steady alliances, and strategic thinking, on which the resolution of the North Korea crisis depend.  Failure by the US to engage with the international community only makes the world a more dangerous place, and this includes the security of the United States.

Firstly, the UN Security Council Resolutions applied to North Korea must be strictly implemented by all parties. Key to this is investigating claims that North Korea has been proliferating weapons technology to other rogue states, and has supplied missile technology that allowed Iran to carry out recent missile tests.

The dialogue on North Korean nuclear arms and missiles programmes should also be resumed without delay in a workable format with the goal of preventing further nuclear and long-range missile tests by PDRK as the first phase of the long-term process aimed at a Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons.

Looking beyond North Korea, reaching a complete ban on possession will necessarily be a complex and protracted process, but there is no obvious reason why such a negotiating process should not commence now. A realistic road map might start with a Convention banning any first use of nuclear weapons.

As President of the Luxembourg Forum, it is alarming to witness the deterioration of the pledges that were made at Reykjavik over 30 years ago and which experts have dedicated years to maintain. The Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, signed in 1987 by the leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union historically provided a powerful start to a period of great achievement in nuclear disarmament. Today, it is under growing threat due to unresolved US and Russian mutual accusations of non-compliance.

Although the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty is being implemented properly, continuity in strategic arms control dialogue has been lost for the first time in more than forty years.

Apart from the successful conclusion of the deal on the Iranian nuclear programme of 2015, there has been no further progress on enhancing the nuclear non-proliferation system and regimes. The 2000 US-Russia agreement on plutonium disposition has been suspended, as has the programme of scientific collaboration on nuclear energy, thus terminating the last vestiges of a quarter century-long broad cooperation on safety and safe elimination of nuclear weapons and materials.

The deplorable reality is that none of these issues are presently receiving serious attention from decision makers and public opinion.

When he addresses the Munich conference on Friday, Mike Pence would do well to provide reassurance that the administration recognizes the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons. The best way to do this is to reaffirm principles set down after the Cold War – that nuclear war must never be fought and can never be won.

The Luxembourg Forum is one of the largest NGOs in its field, bringing together experts on nuclear weapons non-proliferation and arms reduction and limitation



The Nuclear War Is Coming (Revelation 15)

THE IRON CURTAIN 2: Russia-Europe nuclear war ‘COMING’

A NEW ironclad divide has built up across the world as nuclear war becomes INEVITABLE, it is being warned.

By Rachel O’Donoghue
00.02, 07 Feb 2017 UPDATED 01.02, 07 Feb 2017

Military and political leaders are predicting 2017 will see the face of the Earth totally transformed as current tensions finally boil over.

Relationships between the world’s superpowers are currently in their most precarious state in recent years as humanitarian and diplomatic catastrophes threaten mankind.

But before the first missile has been fired, an Iron Curtain has descended once more across the world.

This was the name given to a divide that developed between the east of Europe and the west of Europe – the former under Soviet Russia’s control and the latter allied with the United States.

From 1945 onwards, this boundary existed as relationships between the two sides were on a knife edge with the threat of nuclear war ever-present.

And once again, the looming threat of the use of weapons that would devastate entire continents is back.

Molly K. McKew, a former advisor to the President of Georgia and Moldovan Prime Minister, claimed this month that neither Barack Obama or new US President Donald Trump don’t realise is the “West is already at war“.

It came after Obama kicked out scores of Russian diplomats from the United States over claims its leader Vladimir Putin had used hacking to influence the US election.

“What both administrations fail to realize is that the West is already at war, whether it wants to be or not,” McKew wrote in Politico magazine.

She went on: “So far, [Trump] has chosen to act as if the West no longer matters, seemingly blind to the danger that Putin’s Russia presents to American security and American society.

“The question ahead of us is whether Trump will aid the Kremlin’s goals with his anti-globalist, anti-NATO rhetoric – or whether he’ll clearly see the end of the old order, grasp the nature of the war we are in, and have the vision and the confrontational spirit to win it.”

Her comments come as Trump signaled he wanted to have a better relationship with Russia, having previously praised Putin as a “smart guy”.

And in a move away from the position of previous US Presidents, Trump has repeatedly threatened to pull funding from NATO – effectively the main Europe defence system consisting of troops from all 28 members states.

Without US support, the NATO defence system would be seriously under threat, leaving all of Europe vulnerable to a Russian invasion.

In the last few weeks alone, thousands of tanks and troops have moved to Russia’s border with the aim of protecting Eastern European countries.

Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev also warned this week the world is clearly “preparing for war”.

The ex-statesman, who oversaw the breakup of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, said the current militarization of politics and the new arms race is “too dangerous” to go on.

“More troops, tanks and armoured personnel carriers are being brought to Europe. NATO and Russian forces and weapons that used to be deployed at a distance are now placed closer to each other, as if to shoot point-blank,” he wrote in a piece for TIME magazine.

He went on: “The nuclear threat once again seems real. Relations between the great powers have been going from bad to worse for several years now.

It all looks as if the world is preparing for war.”