World War Three Cometh (Revelation 15)

GETTY STOCK IMAGE
WORLD War 3 alarm bells went off when researchers urged the United States and Russia to drastically reduce their nuclear arsenals or face destabilising the entire planet in the event of nuclear war.
By SEBASTIAN KETTLEY
PUBLISHED: 14:37, Fri, Jun 15, 2018
UPDATED: 14:50, Fri, Jun 15, 2018
Scientists believe the United States and Russia should have no more than 100 nuclear weapons each – the optimal number to maintain world peace.
Both superpowers currently hold thousands of nuclear weapons in their war chests and if used, they could wipe out swathes of the world’s population.
Two researchers at Michigan Technological University (MTU) and Tennessee State University have now called for widespread nuclear proliferation of the world’s nuclear superpowers.
The news comes after US President Donald Trump secured a historic denuclearisation deal with North Korea’s regime leader Kim Jong-un.
North Korea together with the UK, US, Russia, China, Franca, India, Israel and Pakistan is a nuclear-weaponised nation.
Joshua Pearce, professor at MTU, said: “With 100 nuclear weapons, you still get nuclear deterrence, but avoid the probable blowback from nuclear autumn that kills your own people.
“Defence expenditures post-9/11 show we care about protecting Americans.
“If we use 1,000 nuclear warheads against an enemy and no one retaliates, we will see about 50 times more Americans die than did on 9/11 due to the after-effects of our own weapons."

GETTY
World War 3: North Korea and the US signed a denuclearisation deal
More than 100 weapons and military powers risk cutting international resource supply chains, causing major starvation and having to burden the economic stress of maintaining a military.
The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) estimates there are roughy 14,500 nuclear weapons around the globe as of early 2018, most of which are owned by the US and Russia.
But thanks to the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) the number is drastically lower from its 1986 peak of 70,300 nukes.
The two researchers now argued: “No country should have more nuclear weapons than the number necessary for unacceptable levels of environmental blow-back on the nuclear power's own country if they were used.”
These environmental impacts include dropping global temperatures, food shortages, droughts, rapid changes to the atmosphere and increased ultraviolet radiation from the sun.
Dr Pearce argued: “It is not rational to spend billions of dollars maintaining a nuclear arsenal that would destabilise your country if they were ever used.
“Other countries are far worse off. Even if they fired off relatively few nuclear weapons and were not hit by any of them and did not suffer retaliation, North Korea or Israel would be committing national suicide."
Dr Pearce and Dr Denkenberger presented their arguments in a co-authored article this week in the journal Safety.