The French and German Nuclear Horns (Daniel 7:7)

As German Chancellor Angela Merkel floats the notion that Europe cannot rely on the United States in the capacity is has in the past, core U.S. allies are ramping up discussions of a European Union nuclear weapons program—or “Eurodeterrent”—that would place France’s weapons arsenal under a common European command, the New York Times reports.

Though proponents are in the minority on the European continent, the idea is a sign of growing concern that the United States, under President Donald Trump, is not committed to the defense of Europe in the same way his predecessors were.

German Council on Foreign Relations head Jana Puglierin said some senior European officials have “triggered a public debate about this, taking place in newspapers and journals, radio interviews and TV documentaries.”

“That in itself is remarkable,” she added. “I am indeed very astonished that we discuss this at all.”

Foundation for Strategic Research deputy director Bruno Tertrais told the Times he previously would have said, “don’t bother, there’s no story here,” but said such a plan could be enacted provided “a serious loss of trust in the U.S. umbrella.” And, given Britain’s pending departure from the E.U., “the French might feel they have a special responsibility” to protect Europe.

Such a loss in trust may be on the horizon. Trump is just now returning from a trip to a NATO summit, which House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi said “disrespected out closest allies.” He also failed to voice support for NATO’s Article 5, which is the principle of collective defense that guides the alliance. It commits member nations to protect fellow members and was invoked for the first time after the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States.

On Saturday, Chancellor Merkel argued, “the times in which we can fully count on others are somewhat over, as I have experienced in the past few days.”

“’We Europeans must take our destiny into our own hands,” she added.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Vipin Narang, who was originally skeptical of a “Eurodeterrent,” acknowledged “there is a logic” to such a plan.

“I never thought we would see this again. I never thought there would actually be this concern,” he said. “You can see where the debate is surfacing from.”

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

Preparing For Nuclear Winter (Revelation 15)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2016/04/01/multimedia/retro-nuclear-winter/retro-nuclear-winter-videoSixteenByNine1050.jpgHow to survive a nuclear winter

Posted on May 6, 2017 by energyskeptic

[ Clearly you’d want to move to Australia or New Zealand or stockpile 5 years of food. Related posts:

Nuclear winter: World-wide ozone loss from small nuclear war = 1 billion + deaths

The EMP Commission estimates a nationwide blackout lasting one year could kill up to 9 of 10 Americans through starvation, disease, and societal collapse

Alice Friedemann www.energyskeptic.com author of “When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, 2015, Springer and “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”. Podcasts: Practical Prepping, KunstlerCast 253, KunstlerCast278, Peak Prosperity , XX2 report ]
Extracts from: Robock, A. 2010. Nuclear winter. Climate change 1418-1427.

Survivors face not only radiation but high levels of toxic chemicals from plastics, asphalt, oil refineries, forests, and so on.

The global average cooling, of about 1.25 C, would last for several years, and even after 10 years the temperature would still be 0.5 C colder than normal.

These numbers might not seem like much, but even during the Little Ice Age, global temperatures were only about 0.5 C below normal. Every once in a while large volcanic eruptions produce temporary cooling for a year or two. The largest of the past 500 years, the 1815 Tambora eruption in Indonesia, produced global cooling of about 0.5 C for a year.

Year 1816 became known as the ‘Year Without a Summer’ or ‘18 hundred and froze to death’. There were crop-killing frosts every month of the summer in New England. The price of grain skyrocketed, the price of livestock plummeted as farmers sold the animals they could not feed, and a mass migration westward from the US East Coast across the Appalachians to the Midwest began. In Europe, widespread famines occurred and the weather was so cold, dark, and gloomy that Mary Shelley was inspired to write Frankenstein in 1816. A nuclear war could trigger declines in yield nearly everywhere at once, with strong impacts on the global agricultural trading system.

The most important consequence of nuclear winter for humans is the disruption of food supplies. 8 This comes from environmental disruptions that reduce or completely wipe out agricultural production and the disruption of the distribution mechanisms.

Not only would it be virtually impossible to grow food for 4–5 years after a 150-Mt nuclear holocaust, but it would also be impossible to obtain food from other countries. In addition to the disruption of food, there would be many other stresses for any surviving people. These would include the lack of medical supplies and personnel, high levels of pollution and radioactivity, psychological stress, rampant diseases and epidemics, and enhanced UV-B.

There are many ways that agriculture is vulnerable to nuclear winter. The cold and the dark alone are sufficient to kill many crops. Superimposed on the average cooling would be large variations. During the summer of 1816 in New England, there were killing frosts in each summer month. Only 1 day with the temperatures below freezing is enough to kill rice crops. Colder temperatures mean shorter growing seasons, and also slower maturation of crops; the combination results in much lower yields. Most of the grains that are grown in mid-latitudes, such as corn, are actually of tropical origin, and will only grow in summer-like conditions. For example, a study done in Canada shows that with summer temperatures only 3 C below normal, spring wheat production would halt. Insufficient precipitation would also make agriculture difficult.

The tremendous productivity of the grain belt of the US and Canada feeds not only those countries but also many in the rest of the world where normal climate variability often results in reduced harvests. This productivity is the result of modern farming techniques that allow a tiny percentage of the population to produce more than enough for the rest. To do this, tremendous energy subsidies are needed. Farmers depend on fuel for their machinery, fertilizer, and pesticides, none of which would be available or distributed in the aftermath of a war.

Furthermore, insects have a higher tolerance for radiation and the stresses that would follow than do their predators, such as birds. Whatever might grow would be eaten by pests, already a significant problem in today’s production.

Also, the seeds that are in use were designed to yield high productivity assuming the current climate and inputs of chemicals and energy as discussed above. These seeds would not grow well in a radically altered growing environment.

Our dependence on technology is such that if every human in the US went out to the fields to try to raise crops with manual labor, and if they knew what they were doing, and if they had enough food to eat, and if they were healthy, they still could not produce what is produced today.

Thus, most of the world’s people are threatened with starvation following a full-scale nuclear war. The number that would survive depends on how much food is in storage and how much could be produced locally. Earlier studies of various countries around the world conclude that even with extremely optimistic assumptions of perfect distribution systems within countries, 8 that each person who will survive becomes a vegetarian and eats the minimum needed for survival, and the others waste none of the food, that nations in Asia, Africa and South America could only last 1–2 months. In many nations, people would be reduced to a hunter/gatherer existence with nothing to hunt and precious little to gather.

The effects on health would add to the misery. Immune deficiencies can be produced by any of the following: burns and trauma, radioactivity, malnutrition, psychological stress, and UV-B radiation. All of these would be present for the survivors in the target nations.

Pollution from dioxins, PCBs, asbestos, and other chemicals will make the air unhealthy to breath. Severe psychological stress will prevent the survivors from making the efforts to continue to exist.

One might think that the ocean shore would be a good place to survive because the temperatures would not fall as much, and there would be plenty of food to catch. Although the ocean would not cool very fast, the darkness would decimate the phytoplankton, which are at the base of the oceanic food chain. That, combined with toxic and radioactive pollution, would severely limit the food sources in the oceans. Furthermore, the large temperature contrasts between the oceans and the land would produce strong storms that would make fishing difficult at best.

Citizens in Australia and New Zealand have the best chance to survive.

The good news: Earth will not be plunged into an ice age. Ice sheets, which covered North America and Europe only 18,000 years ago and were more than 3-km thick, take many thousands of years to build up from annual snow layers, and the climatic disruptions would not last long enough to produce them. The oxygen consumption by the fires would be inconsequential, as would the effect on the atmospheric greenhouse by carbon dioxide production.

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 New Cold War

If you are looking for a reason the United States urgently needs to update its nuclear posture review, which is generally done every eight years, look no further than this sentence from the last review in 2010.”While policy differences continue to arise between the two countries and Russia continues to modernize its still-formidable nuclear forces, Russia and the United States are no longer adversaries, and prospects for military confrontation have declined dramatically.”That was then; this is now.

“A resurgent Russia has turned from partner to antagonist as it seeks to re-emerge as a global power,” Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, NATO’s supreme allied commander, told Congress in March.

Russia has not only morphed from “frenemy” to full-blown enemy since its 2014 covert invasion and subsequent annexation of Crimea, but it has also updated its nuclear doctrine to intimidate NATO nations along its periphery, as well as former Soviet states, including Ukraine and Georgia.

It’s a strategy known as “escalate to de-escalate,” the idea that a limited nuclear strike with a tactical or “battlefield” nuke could shock the U.S. into freezing a conflict in place.

“It’s one of the most challenging military questions you have,” Air Force Gen. John Hyten, the commander of America’s nuclear forces, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee last month.

Hyten said “escalate to de-escalate” is really a strategy of “escalate to win,” which views the use of nuclear weapons as a normal extension of a conventional conflict.

“It’s important that we look at them seriously, understand what those pieces are,” Hyten testified April 4. “When we say ‘escalate to win,’ what does that really mean? And in order for us to win, we have two choices. One, to prevent that escalation. Or two, to respond in such a way after that escalation that would want to stop any aggression.”

While Russia remains America’s only peer in the area of nuclear weapons capabilities, China has been embarked on an ambitious military modernization campaign that includes both “qualitative and quantitative” upgrading of its nuclear arsenal, according to the last nuclear posture review.

And then there’s North Korea, whose leader Kim Jong Un has a stated goal of developing intercontinental ballistic missiles with the capability of delivering a nuclear warhead to a city on the U.S. mainland.

Hyten said that while the U.S. has de-emphasized the role of nuclear weapons for the past two decades, its adversaries have done the exact opposite.

“Russia, in 2006, started a huge, aggressive program to modernize and build new nuclear capabilities. They continue that to this day. New ballistic missiles, new weapons, new cruise missiles, significant air-launch cruise missile capabilities, now the ground launch cruise missile capabilities,” Hyten warned Congress. “China has done the same thing. Hypersonic glide vehicles on both sides that bring new threats to bear.”

It is, according to Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein, a grave new world.

“As service chiefs, you know, what we do is we look at [trying to balance] capability, capacity and readiness,” Goldfein testified before the House Armed Services Committee in April. “We make strategic trades based on our assumptions of the global security environment. What’s different now? The world’s different now.”

It’s against this backdrop that President Trump directed Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to begin a sweeping review of all aspects of U.S. nuclear deterrence policy, everything from how many warheads the U.S. needs, to how many delivery systems, to what threats the U.S. may need to counter in the coming decade.

National Security Presidential Memorandum 1, signed by Trump one week after his inauguration, directs Mattis to conduct the review “to ensure the U.S. nuclear deterrent is safe, secure, effective, reliable and appropriately tailored to deter 21st-century threats and reassure our allies.”

Last month, Mattis assigned the task to the deputy secretary of defense and the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and set a deadline of the end of 2017.

But even before the formal directive, the work had already begun, Hyten said. And it’s not just one review but multiple studies, including a review of the ballistic missile defenses and the appropriate response to Russia’s violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with its recent deployment of a land-based cruise missile. “I suspect there will be serious consideration of recommending pulling out of INF treaty and not extending New START,” said James Carafano, a defense analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

But Hyten said it appears Moscow is adhering to the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty agreement, which calls for both sides to be limited 1,550 deployed warheads and 700 deployed delivery systems by February 2018.

“From a strategic weapons perspective, I support the limits that are in the New START,” Hyten testified, adding that withdrawing from the treaty would not be part of the review.

Also off the table is consideration of eliminating any of the three legs of the nuclear triad, the Cold War strategy under which the U.S. maintains the capability to deliver nuclear weapons from submarines, bombers and land-based ICBMs.

The 30-year triad modernization plan calls for a new Columbia class of ballistic missile submarines, new B-21 Raider long-range stealth bombers, and new replacement ICBMs known as the ground-based deterrent, along with new bombs and cruise missiles. It is projected to cost $1 trillion.

But Michael O’Hanlon, an analyst at the Brookings Institution, said the review should not just be about counting warheads and systems but about the role nuclear deterrence can play in maintaining peace and stability.

“I feel the best focus now may be on counterforce and how much of it we really need to do,” O’Hanlon said. “I don’t think we need to aim for the capacity to substantially disarm the Russians in a first strike, yet much of our planning still does so, explicitly or implicitly.”

But with Russia thinking differently about the role of nuclear arms in the 21st century, the U.S. may have to adjust its calculus too, argued Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. John McCain at last month’s hearing on the U.S. Strategic Command.

“Whatever well-intentioned hopes we may have had after the end of the Cold War,” McCain said, “the United States can no longer seek to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy or narrow the range of contingencies under which we would have to consider their use.”

Nuclear Advances For the End (Revelation 15)

Nuclear weapons, nuclear war, Russia news, Russian news, China news, Chinese news, US news, USA news, American news, world newsThese Nuclear Breakthroughs Are Endangering the World

 Conn HallinanConn M. Hallinan is a columnist for Foreign Policy in Focus, “A Think Tank Without Walls,” and an independent journalist.
At a time of growing tensions between nuclear powers — Russia and NATO in Europe, and the United States, North Korea and China in Asia — Washington has quietly upgraded its nuclear weapons arsenal to create, according to three leading American scientists, “exactly what one would expect to see, if a nuclear-armed state were planning to have the capacity to fight and win a nuclear war by disarming enemies with a surprise first strike.”Writing in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project of the Federation of American Scientists, Matthew McKinzie of the National Resources Defense Council, and physicist and ballistic missile expert Theodore Postol conclude that “Under the veil of an otherwise-legitimate warhead life-extension program,” the US military has vastly expanded the “killing power” of its warheads such that it can “now destroy all of Russia’s ICBM [intercontinental ballistic missile] silos.”The upgrade — part of the Obama administration’s $1 trillion modernization of America’s nuclear forces — allows Washington to destroy Russia’s land-based nuclear weapons, while still retaining 80% of US warheads in reserve. If Russia chose to retaliate, it would be reduced to ash.

A Failure of Imagination

Any discussion of nuclear war encounters several major problems.

First, it’s difficult to imagine or to grasp what it would mean in real life. We’ve only had one conflict involving nuclear weapons — the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 — and the memory of those events has faded over the years. In any case, the two bombs that flattened those Japanese cities bear little resemblance to the killing power of modern nuclear weapons.

The Hiroshima bomb exploded with a force of 15 kilotons, or kt. The Nagasaki bomb was slightly more powerful, at about 18 kt. Between them, they killed over 215,000 people. In contrast, the most common nuclear weapon in the US arsenal today, the W76, has an explosive power of 100 kt. The next most common, the W88, packs a 475-kt punch.

Another problem is that most of the public thinks nuclear war is impossible because both sides would be destroyed. This is the idea behind the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction, aptly named “MAD.” But MAD is not a US military doctrine. A “first strike” attack has always been central to US military planning, until recently. However, there was no guarantee that such an attack would so cripple an opponent that it would be unable — or unwilling, given the consequences of total annihilation — to retaliate.

The strategy behind a first strike — sometimes called a “counter force” attack — isn’t to destroy an opponent’s population centers, but to eliminate the other sides’ nuclear weapons, or at least most of them. Anti-missile systems would then intercept a weakened retaliatory strike.

The technical breakthrough that suddenly makes this a possibility is something called the “super-fuze,” which allows for a much more precise ignition of a warhead. If the aim is to blow up a city, such precision is superfluous. But taking out a reinforced missile silo requires a warhead to exert a force of at least 10,000 pounds per square inch on the target.

Up until the 2009 modernization program, the only way to do that was to use the much more powerful — but limited in numbers — W88 warhead. Fitted with the super-fuze, however, the smaller W76 can now do the job, freeing the W88 for other targets.

Traditionally, land-based missiles are more accurate than sea-based missiles, but the former are more vulnerable to a first-strike than the latter, because submarines are good at hiding. The new super-fuze does not increase the accuracy of Trident II submarine missiles, but it makes up for that with the precision of where the weapon detonates. “In the case of the 100-kt Trident II warhead,” write the three scientists, “the super-fuze triples the killing power of the nuclear force it is applied to.”

Before the super-fuze was deployed, only 20% of US subs had the ability to destroy re-enforced missile silos. Today, all have that capacity.

Trident II missiles typically carry from four to five warheads, but can expand that up to eight. While the missile is capable of hosting as many as 12 warheads, that configuration would violate current nuclear treaties. US submarines currently deploy about 890 warheads, of which 506 are W76s and 384 are W88s.

The land-based ICBMs are Minuteman III, each armed with three warheads — 400 in total — ranging from 300 kt to 500 kt apiece. There are also air and sea-launched nuclear tipped missiles and bombs. The Tomahawk cruise missiles that recently struck Syria can be configured to carry a nuclear warhead.

The Technology Gap

The super-fuze also increases the possibility of an accidental nuclear conflict.

So far, the world has managed to avoid a nuclear war, although during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis it came distressingly close. There have also been several scary incidents when US and Soviet forces went to full alert because of faulty radar images or a test tape that someone thought was real. While the military downplays these events, former Secretary of Defense William Perry argues that it is pure luck that we have avoided a nuclear exchange — and that the possibility of nuclear war is greater today than it was at the height of the Cold War. In part, this is because of a technology gap between the US and Russia.

In January 1995, Russian early warning radar on the Kola Peninsula picked up a rocket launch from a Norwegian island that looked as if it was targeting Russia. In fact, the rocket was headed toward the North Pole, but Russian radar tagged it as a Trident II missile coming in from the North Atlantic. The scenario was plausible. While some first strike attacks envision launching a massive number of missiles, others call for detonating a large warhead over a target at about 800 miles altitude. The massive pulse of electro-magnetic radiation that such an explosion generates would blind or cripple radar systems over a broad area. That would be followed with a first strike.

At the time, calmer heads prevailed and the Russians called off their alert, but for a few minutes the doomsday clock moved very close to midnight.

According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, the 1995 crisis suggests that Russia does not have “a reliable and working global space-based satellite early warning system.” Instead, Moscow has focused on building ground-based systems that give the Russians less warning time than satellite-based ones do. What that means is that while the US would have about 30 minutes of warning time to investigate whether an attack was really taking place, the Russians would have 15 minutes or less.

That, according to the magazine, would likely mean that “Russian leadership would have little choice but to pre-delegate nuclear launch authority to lower levels of command,” hardly a situation that would be in the national security interests of either country. Or, for that matter, the world.

recent study found that a nuclear war between India and Pakistan using Hiroshima-sized weapons would generate a nuclear winter that would make it impossible to grow wheat in Russia and Canada and cut the Asian Monsoon’s rainfall by 10%. The result would be up to 100 million deaths by starvation. Imagine what the outcome would be if the weapons were the size used by Russia, China or the US.

For the Russians, the upgrading of US sea-based missiles with the super-fuze would be an ominous development. By “shifting the capacity to submarines that can move to missile launch positions much closer to their targets than land-based missiles,” the three scientists conclude, “the U.S. military has achieved a significantly greater capacity to conduct a surprise first strike against Russian ICBM silos.”

The US Ohio class submarine is armed with 24 Trident II missiles, carrying as many as 192 warheads. The missiles can be launched in less than a minute.

The Russians and Chinese have missile-firing submarines as well, but not as many and some are close to obsolete. The US has also seeded the world’s oceans and seas with networks of sensors to keep track of those subs. In any case, would the Russians or Chinese retaliate if they knew the US still retained most of its nuclear strike force? Faced with a choice committing national suicide or holding their fire, they may well choose the former.

The other element in this modernization program that has Russia and China uneasy is the decision by the Obama administration to place anti-missile systems in Europe and Asia, and to deploy Aegis ship-based anti-missile systems off the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. From Moscow’s perspective — and Beijing’s as well — those interceptors are there to absorb the few missiles that a first strike might miss.

In reality, anti-missile systems are pretty iffy. Once they migrate off the drawing boards, their lethal efficiency drops rather sharply. Indeed, most of them can’t hit the broad side of a barn. But that’s not a chance the Chinese and the Russians can afford to take.

Speaking at the St. Petersburg International Forum in June 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin charged that US anti-missile systems in Poland and Romania were not aimed at Iran, but at Russia and China. “The Iranian threat does not exist, but missile defense systems continue to be positioned.” He added, “a missile defense system is one element of the whole system of offensive military potential.”

Unraveling Arms Accords

The danger here is that arms agreements will begin to unravel if countries decide that they are suddenly vulnerable. For the Russians and the Chinese, the easiest solution to the American breakthrough is to build a lot more missiles and warheads, and treaties be dammed.

The new Russian cruise missile may indeed strain the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, but it is also a natural response to what are, from Moscow’s view, alarming technological advances by the US. Had the Obama administration reversed the 2002 decision by George W. Bush’s administration to unilaterally withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the new cruise might never have been deployed.

There are a number of immediate steps the US and Russia could take to de-escalate the current tensions. First, taking nuclear weapons off their hair-trigger status would immediately reduce the possibility of accidental nuclear war. That could be followed by a pledge of “no first use” of nuclear weapons.

If this does not happen, it will almost certainly result in an accelerated nuclear arms race. “I don’t know how this is all going to end,” Putin told the St. Petersburg delegates. “What I do know is that we will need to defend ourselves.”

Mortgages Available For the End

Mortgages available for nuclear fallout shelters

Nikki Knewstub

Friday 28 April 2017 00.00 EDT

Building Societies are trying to ensure that some of their customers will be left come the nuclear day of reckoning.

The majority of major societies, it seems, are quite happy to lend money for the building of fallout shelters. Such buildings have had a spectacular revival this year.
A spokesman for the Woolwich said: “We would rather lend money on a shelter than on a swimming pool. It would be considered an improvement or extension to the property.”

But those with swimming pools already being built need not worry. The manufacturer of a DIY shelter, which retails, for £1,200 plus VAT reckons that a swimming pool (empty) would be the ideal place in which to erect a shelter.

Mr Bill Jones, the company’s sales director, said one of the problems after a nuclear attack could well be people without shelters trying to take over the shelters of the more provident.

It was for this reason he suggested that his shelter be kept parcelled up, so that the neighbourhood nasties did not know it existed. “Any nuclear war will be preceded by days or at least hours of traditional warfare.” he said.

“This would give someone with a shelter plenty of warning to get it up. A swimming pool is a very good place. All you need is a wooden base and sandbags.”

The Abbey National said it had no objection in principle to a loan for a shelter, provided it was more solid than the instant variety.

A spokesman for the Inland Revenue said that whether a borrower could claim tax relief on such an investment would be up to individual tax inspectors, who would have to decide if the shelter constituted a genuine improvement.

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.