The British Upgrade Her Nuclear Horn: Daniel 7

The entrance to RAF Lakenheath where the upgraded vaults are believed to be. Photograph: Chris Radburn/AFP/Getty Images

UK military vaults upgraded to store new US nuclear weapons

A US 2023 budget request shows the UK is one of several European countries where investment is under way at ‘special weapons’ storage sites

Julian Borger in Washington and Dan SabbaghTue 12 Apr 2022 15.25 EDT

Military bunkers in the UK are being upgraded so they can be used to store US nuclear weapons again after 14 years of standing empty, according to US defence budget documents.

In the Biden administration’s 2023 defence budget request, the UK was added to the list of countries where infrastructure investment is under way at “special weapons” storage sites, alongside Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey – all countries where the US stores an estimated 100 B61 nuclear bombs.

Hans Kristensen, the director of the nuclear information project at the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), who first reported on the budget item, said he believed the British site being upgraded is the US airbase at RAF Lakenheath, 100 km north-east of London.

The US withdrew its B61 munitions from Lakenheath in 2008, marking the end of more than half a century of maintaining a US nuclear stockpile in the UK. At the time of the withdrawal, the gravity bombs were widely seen as militarily obsolete and hopes were higher for further disarmament by the nuclear weapons powers.

That optimism has since been dashed, against the backdrop of Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, his regime’s nuclear threats against Nato, and extensive nuclear weapon modernisation programmes pursued by both the US and Russia. As part of the US plan, the B61 has been given a new lease of life with a guidance system, the B61-12 variant, due to go into full production in May.

The 2023 budget request says that Nato “is wrapping up a 13-year, $384m infrastructure investment program at storage sites in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, the UK, and Turkey to upgrade security measures, communication systems, and facilities”.

In the 1990s, RAF Lakenheath had 33 underground storage vaults, where 110 B61 bombs were stored, according to the FAS. Since their withdrawal the vaults have been mothballed. Kristensen said he believes the vaults are now being upgraded so the new B61-12 bombs can be stored there, if needed.

The Biden administration has been careful not to make any moves that might be seen as escalatory in the nuclear arena in response to Putin’s announcement he would put Russia’s nuclear forces on higher alert a few days after his invasion of Ukraine. The US has cancelled scheduled tests of its intercontinental ballistic missiles, for example.

For the same reason, Kristensen said he doubted the Biden administration is planning to increase the US nuclear stockpile in Europe. When the new B61-12 bombs are delivered, expected next year, they will replace older models already there. Instead, he thought the Lakenheath upgrade is intended to provided more flexibility to move the nuclear weapons around Europe.

“One of the things they have talked about is protecting the deterrent against Russia’s improved cruise missiles capabilities,” Kristensen said. “So they could be trying to beef up the readiness of more sites without them necessarily receiving nukes, so that they have the options to move things around in a contingency if they need to.”

Britain has become keen to take a more assertive role when it comes to its own nuclear deterrent, and last year announced it would increase its own stockpile of Trident nuclear warheads by 40% to 260, the first such increase since the end of the cold war. Whitehall sources say the UK has “a clearer appreciation” of its role as a nuclear weapons state in a renewed era of state competition with Russia and China.

The UK Ministry of Defence did not comment on the upgrade mentioned in the US budget. One British official said: “We won’t provide anything on this as it relates to the storage of nuclear weapons.” But the news comes just four months after the arrival in Lakenheath of the first of a new generation of nuclear-capable US combat aircraft, the F-35A Lightning II, the first such deployment in Europe.

Daryl Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association, said the upgrade of the UK storage facilities is “an early sign that the US and Nato are preparing to engage in a protracted and maybe heightened standoff with Putin’s Russia”.

“The administration should provide some clarity about the military necessity and goals of possibly bringing nuclear weapons back to the UK,” Kimball added.

The developments in Europe are part of a broader retreat from arms control. The Biden administration’s nuclear posture review, which has been sent to Congress but not yet declassified, is reported not to contain the changes the president pledged during his campaign.

In 2020, he said he would formally declare the sole purpose of nuclear weapons to be deterrence of a nuclear attack against the United States or its allies. But the review leaves open the option of using nuclear arms to respond to non-nuclear threats as well.

The nuclear disarmament group CND said the “quiet announcement” by the US amounted to more militarisation at a time of growing risk and would add to the risks faced by the British public. Kate Hudson, the general secretary of CND, said she feared it could lead to US warheads being redeployed in the UK. “Nuclear weapons don’t make us safe – they make us a target,” she added.

The UK Prepares for Nuclear War

Nuclear missile convoy carrying up to six deadly warheads is spotted on motorway going through Glasgow on way to Royal Navy depot

• A military convoy carried up to six nukes within a mile of Glasgow city centre
• Missiles headed to the Royal Naval Armaments depot in Loch Long on Friday
• Nuclear weapons in Russia are on high alert after Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine 
• The nukes were being moved for refurbishment, according to NukeWatch
• Additional Trident nuclear warheads were also reportedly spotted in May 2021

By TOM BROWN FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 16:43 EDT, 20 March 2022 | UPDATED: 20:46 EDT, 20 March 2022

A military convoy was spotted carrying up to six nuclear warheads headed along the motorway through Glasgow to an arms depot on Friday.

The convoy was seen only a mile south of Glasgow city centre, heading to Royal Naval Armaments Depot Coulport on Loch Long, according to NukeWatch, an organisation that tracks and monitors the convoys that transport the UK’s Trident nuclear warheads. 

The weapons of mass destruction were a ‘reminder of the UK’s contribution to nuclear terror,’ the group said, amid heighting tensions between NATO and Russia – which recently put its own nuclear weapons on high alert.

A convoy of nuclear warhead-carrying vehicles has been spotted near Glasgow, carrying up to six nuclear bombs within half a mile of the city centre

The nuclear-armed convoy passed over Erskine Bridge, heading up along the M6 motorway near Kendal, before being spotted on the M74 at Lesmahagow and arriving in Loch Long at approximately 11:30pm on Friday

The nukes were likely being moved for replenishment. The route is a common one for the movement of nuclear warheads, but it comes at a time of heightened risk of nuclear war between NATO and Russia following the February 24 invasion of Ukraine

The route is a common one for UK defense vehicles, where Trident nuclear warheads were also spotted in May 2021, according to Glasgow Live.

The nuclear-armed convoy passed over Erskine Bridge, heading up along the M6 motorway near Kendal, before being spotted on the M74 at Lesmahagow and arriving in Loch Long at approximately 11:30pm on Saturday.

‘I think there were four warhead carriers I believe. Our reckoning is that each of those trucks can carry two but one of the trucks is empty as a spare in case breaks down,’ Nukewatch UK Campaigner Jane Tallents said. 

‘So if there’s four we expect there to be six warheads, or up to six warheads anyway.’

NukeWatch said the timing was ‘alarming’ given Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine, but added the transportation of nuclear weapons along the route is ‘routine’.

‘There hasn’t been one since October last year which is a bit strange. But there was a bit of a flurry in the end,’ said Tallents. ‘There must be some reasoning in their madness but they’d never enlighten us [as to] what that is.’

HOW MANY ACCIDENTS IN THE UK HAVE INVOLVED NUCLEAR WEAPONS? 

April 1973 in Scotland:

Near the Royal Naval Armament Depot (RNAD) Coulport, a land rover reversed into a RAF nuclear weapon loaded with nuclear warheads for Polaris missiles.

February 1974 off Malta:

Two Mk44 torpedoes being removed from a storage rack fell onto a nuclear missile. Investigation of the incident concluded that the torpedo handling equipment was incorrectly rigged.

1974 at sea:

The diaphragm of a missile tube compressed on to a Polaris missile. There was no damage to missile or warheads. 

August 1977 in Scotland:

A Polaris missile fell a few inches when it was being lifted during re-alignment. 

1981 at sea:

A number of missile diaphragms compressed onto Polaris missiles, but did no damage to the missiles or warheads.

August 1983 in Scotland:

A RAF nuclear weapon load carrier carrying two warheads for Polaris missiles drove into a private car.

January 1987 in Wiltshire:

A RAF nuclear weapons carrier carrying two nuclear weapons skidded on ice and rolled on to its side. A second carrier, which was also carrying two weapons, skidded on the road and came to rest partly off the road. 

 February 2009 at sea: 

The UK submarine HMS Vanguard and the French sub Le Triomphant crashed into each other in the Atlantic in the night between 3–4 February 2009. Both sustained damage, but no injuries or radioactivity releases were reported

Nukewatch said the purpose of the nuclear movement was likely refurbishment, not an attempt to arm the warheads in anticipation of a Russian attack. 

‘I don’t think this convoy is of any more concern than the fact that we are always, 24/7, armed and ready to start a nuclear war,’ said Tallents, later adding: ‘All the things that some of us have worried about constantly since the 60s, they come to pass really. People have forgotten about it but they are there.’

The nuclear spotting comes at a time when nuclear missiles in Russia have been put on high alert following Vladimir Putin’s stalled invasion of Ukraine, starting a war analysts fear could bring nuclear-armed NATO powers like the UK to clash with the Kremlin. 

Only five days ago, the UK’s Ministry of Defence began advertising for a £40k-a-year chief to oversee threat of nuclear warheads, calling the current geopolitical climate a ‘genuinely exciting time’.

The £40,000-per-year role at the Defence Nuclear Organisation focused on mitigating ‘threats across the nuclear spectrum’.

According to the posting on the Gov.uk website, the DNO oversees ‘all aspects of nuclear business within the MoD’, including submarines, nuclear warheads and ‘day-to-day nuclear policy’.

The Royal Naval Armament Depot Coulport is the site of a nuclear near-miss involving a rare traffic accident in April 1973, according to the Secretary of State for Defence.

Near the Coulport site in April 1973, a Scottish Electricity Board Land Rover reversed into a RAF nuclear weapon load carrier transporting nuclear warheads.

The vehicle contained UGM-27 Polaris missiles, with each missile able to deliver three ET.317 thermonuclear warheads

The crash damaged the load carrier, but the nuclear weapons were reported unharmed.

In another incident at the same site, a Polaris missile fell when it was being lifted during re-alignment in 1977.

On the M8 near Glasgow in August 1983, a RAF nuclear weapons carrier moving two warheads crashed into a private car.

In another near miss, the British submarine HMS Vanguard collided with a French nuclear submarine in 2009, damaging the vessels, but with no radioactivity leaks reported.

There have been seven accidents involving British nuclear weapons in total since 1966. None have yet resulted in radioactive leaks.

What happens if the UK Horn is targeted by nuclear weapons? Daniel 7

What happens if the UK is targeted by nuclear weapons? How Britain would respond to attack by Russia

Russia has the world’s largest supply of operational nuclear warheads – at around 4,500

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has not gone to plan, with almost every key city remaining in Ukrainian hands despite weeks of heavy bombardment.

The war, however, shows no signs of stopping, and Vladimir Putin continues to make threats against Western involvement.

Nato’s system of collective security means that if Russia were to attack one Nato nation, it would be at war with all 30 – including the UK and US.

However, the Government and military experts have not ruled out President Putin doing just that.

Russia also has the world’s largest supply of operational nuclear warheads – at around 4,500 – making the threat of a nuclear attack the largest since the Cold War.

What would happen if Russia decided to target the UK with nuclear weapons? Here’s what we know.

Could Russia use nuclear weapons against the UK?

President Putin ordering the use of nuclear weapons against the UK remains very unlikely, but is not impossible.

In February he raised Russia’s nuclear deterrent to high alert, which world leaders and experts took as an attempt at intimidation.

A civil defence source told i‘s David Parsley: “No one thought Putin would invade Ukraine, a democratic nation. So, how do we know he’s not mad enough to attack the UK, places like London, our naval bases and our nuclear power stations. However unlikely such an attack is, it’s a great deal more likely than it was a few weeks ago.”

Last weekend Cabinet minister Michael Gove said he was concerned that Russia may use nuclear weapons in the war with Ukraine, adding that President Putin was capable of “terrible, terrible violence”.

James Acton, a nuclear expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Pace in Washington DC, told BBC News President Putin may resort to nuclear weapons if he continues to be frustrated in Ukraine.

He said these would more likely be smaller nuclear weapons known as tactical nuclear weapons, used within Ukraine. These are different from strategic nuclear weapons, like the ones used by the US in Japan during the Second World War, but would still represent a significant escalation.

“I am legitimately worried that in that circumstance Putin might use a nuclear weapon, most likely on the ground in Ukraine to terrify everyone and get his way. We are not at that point yet,” he said.

More on Russia-Ukraine war

What would happen if Russia targeted the UK?

A nuclear strike on any UK city would kill everyone within a 1.2-mile radius instantly. Anyone exposed within a 6.8-mile radius of the impact would almost certainly suffer third-degree burns, while hundreds of thousands would be likely to die due to radiation fallout. 

The UK Government has no active system in place to provide the public with early warning of a nuclear attack, i revealed this week.

Civil defence, military and local council sources have all confirmed no UK cities have had air raid sirens or civil defence systems in place since they were wound up at the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s.

The Government has been working on a new emergency system that will use push text alerts to mobile devices since last year, but disputes between ministers over which Government department will pay for it have caused delays.

These alerts could also only be sent to smartphones. They would sound a loud siren on a phone or tablet for around ten seconds even if the device is set to silent, but not work if the device was off.

The Government webpage for the alert system states: “The Government and mobile phone networks are testing emergency alerts. You may get an alert if you live in, or travel through, a test area.”

It says it expects the system to launch in “early 2022”.

A Cabinet Office source told i: “There is no public warning system because the Government has dithered on it as no one department wants to pay for it, whether that the Home Office, the Defra or the Cabinet Office. We are totally unprepared.”

The UK’s nuclear advice for citizens is called the Protect and Survive booklet. It was first produced at the height of the Cold War in 1974 and last updated in 1980.

Officials have not updated it since, for fears it could cause panic and lead people to panic buy.

The UK does have plans to extract the Queen, other members of the Royal Family, the Prime Minister and top officials from London in the event of a nuclear attack, and into bunkers dispersed across the country.

In 1968 the Government developed an operation, codenamed Python, to disperse the key figures in groups to different parts of the country, including on yachts at sea.

These plans date from the Cold War and will have changed considerably, but nuclear war expert Julie McDowall, who hosts the Atomic Hobo podcast, says the notion of dispersing small groups of ministers and staff would still be the safest way to ensure some form of government could continue after a nuclear attack.

Where could Russia target?

A missile strike by Russia on London would not be Vladimir Putin’s primary goal should the UK and other nations be dragged into the war in Ukraine, a senior defence official has told i. 

The official, who requested anonymity, said Putin would “strike London for its symbolic impact” but would also prioritise Britain’s nuclear submarine fleet and its three main naval bases in Clyde, Devonport and Portsmouth. 

“A strike, whether using conventional or nuclear missiles, would almost certainly occur in London should Putin push on with his threats against the West,” said the source. “However, while that would create the pictures around the world Putin would want, he would be more concerned with hitting our nuclear submarines, three of which can be in or around any of the UK’s main naval bases.” 

The UK has 58 US-made Trident missiles with UK-made warheads. The nation’s four Vanguard-class nuclear submarines can each carry up to 16 missiles. One is always at sea. 

The defence source added: “In the event that an attack from Putin became more likely then the UK would send all the submarines out into the oceans to protect them. 

“While there is no imminent threat from Russia, the nuclear drills around our naval bases have increased in frequency in recent months, as has security around other military bases.”

The British Horn must ‘dust off’ its nuclear defence plans: Daniel 7

Experts say while the threat is tiny, it is one we must be prepared for CREDIT: HO/ Reuters

Britain must ‘dust off’ its nuclear defence plans, warns expert

As tensions grow between Russia and Ukraine, the threat of nuclear war is ‘closer now than at any time since the 1970s’

ByAnne Gulland, GLOBAL HEALTH SECURITY DEPUTY EDITOR and Sarah Newey, GLOBAL HEALTH SECURITY CORRESPONDENT22 February 2022 • 5:15pm

The growing conflict between Russia and Ukraine has put the threat of nuclear war back on disaster planners’ agenda.

While the threat remains a distant one, it is closer now than any time since the 1970s, say experts, and Whitehall’s civil contingency plans are once again coming under the spotlight. 

Russia has the greatest number of nuclear warheads in the world – nearly 4,500 compared to the United States’ 3,750. The UK is a minnow in comparison with just 225.

Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, fellow at Magdalene College, Cambridge and a former British Army chemical and nuclear weapons expert, believes the last few weeks have shown we are “closer to a Third World War than at any point since the 1970s” – the threat is tiny, he says, but one that we must be prepared for. 

“In the depths of the Cold War we were very prepared and there was a realisation an attack was a reality. We had hundreds of bunkers around the country. But fast forward to 2022 and a lot of the planning and infrastructure has gone into abeyance and crumbled,” he says. 

“These things are incredibly expensive to maintain so much of the infrastructure has gone,” says Mr de Bretton-Gordon. 

The Ukrainian national flag flies in the centre of Ukraine’s second largest city of Kharkiv, some 40km from the Ukrainian-Russian border CREDIT: SERGEY BOBOK /AFP

As the threat of the Cold War receded, the UK’s nuclear defence infrastructure was decommissioned: former nuclear bunkers have become museums and one in Wiltshire even ended up being used as a cannabis factory.

Underneath the Ministry of Defence on Whitehall sits Pindar, a several storeys deep complex that will house the UK’s government and military leaders in the event of a nuclear strike. 

There is also a command-and-control complex at RAF Corsham in Wiltshire as well as several others. 

“They probably need a bit of a dust off but they would be viable. I don’t have any insider information but there are probably a lot of civil servants running around at the moment making preparations,” says Mr de Bretton-Gordon. 

These chores could range from checking how many potassium iodide tablets – an antidote to radiation – the UK has in stock to going through our stockpile of protective equipment. 

For civilians, however, it is likely that we will have to fend for ourselves. In the 1970s and 1980s the government devised a public information campaign called Protect and Survive, whose nadir was a chilling pamphlet delivered to all households detailing how to prepare for armageddon: from the construction of a fall out shelter to how you would be informed of a nuclear attack to what to do with any dead bodies (wrap them in polythene). 

Russian paratroopers during a joint exercise of the armed forces of Russia and Belarus, at the Obuz-Lesnovsky firing range near the city of Baranovichi in Belarus CREDIT: Russian Defence Ministry/AFP

The campaign had a huge impact on 1980s popular culture: from Raymond Briggs’ graphic novel When the Wind Blows – turned into a film – to the BBC drama Threads, which imagined the fall out of a nuclear strike on the city of Sheffield. 

The Frankie Goes to Hollywood single, Two Tribes, featured the clipped tones of Patrick Allen, who narrated the government’s public information films. 

Today, the National Risk register lists a nuclear attack as a potential threat, alongside a chemical, biological or radiological attack, however the publicly available information on what advice should be given to the public in the event of a strike is hard to find.

It is vague, stating that plans to deal with a nuclear “incident are kept up to date and regularly tested in exercises”. It adds that national stocks of medical treatments are maintained with “arrangements in place for how these would be distributed in an emergency”. 

There are also plans “to ensure effective civil government can continue throughout and after an incident” – it claims. 

Dr Patricia Lewis, head of the international security programme at the Chatham House think tank, says the nuclear deterrent theory has “dominated defence thinking” over the last few decades. 

“It has always been assumed that nuclear weapons won’t be used because the horror of them are too great,” she said. 

This is the doctrine of “mutual assured destruction” – if two nuclear powers go to war they would annihilate each other. But this defence philosophy has always relied on both sides being led by rational human beings. 

Mr de Bretton-Gordon says: “Vladimir Putin has shown in the last few weeks he is not necessarily a rational person and Monday’s performance made that clear.”

100 seconds to midnight: Bowls of Wrath closer than ever: Revelation 16

100 seconds to midnight: Man-made apocalypse closer than ever

The Doomsday Clock is at 100 seconds to midnight once again, with a number of crises revealing just how close we may be to imminent disaster.

Earth is closer to a catastrophic global demise than ever before, with the famous Doomsday Clock of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists being at 100 seconds to midnight.

The Doomsday Clock was first created in 1947 as a metaphorical countdown to the end of the world as we know it. Specifically, it refers to the impending global disaster that is solely caused by human hands, and it is adjusted every January upon review by scientists from the Bulletin.

Upon its unveiling in 1947, the clock was seven minutes to midnight. Since that time, it has moved back and forth a total of 24 different times. 

Originally, the biggest factor at play in evaluating how close humanity is to its end was a nuclear apocalypse. This makes sense, considering it was formed right after nuclear bombs ended World War II and right before the arms race of the Cold War started. In fact, the record for the closest the Doomsday Clock had been to disaster used to be in 1953, set two minutes to midnight, when the US and Soviet Union both started to test hydrogen bombs. 

This was seen again in 2018 when the clock once again moved back to two minutes to midnight in light of provocations between the US and North Korea pushing the chance of nuclear war even further.

Lawrence Krauss, a member of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, talks to a reporter about their decision to move the ‘Doomsday Clock’ hands to two minutes until midnight after a news conference in Washington, US, January 25, 2018. (credit: LEAH MILLIS/REUTERS)

Nowadays, it isn’t just nuclear weapons that the Bulletin is concerned with. While the case in 2018 shows that nuclear weapons are far from irrelevant in the chance that humanity can thrust itself into a global armageddon, and it is likely the fastest way humans can do so.

A number of other issues are also factored into these estimates. Specifically, the factors nowadays that are being factored in are, aside from nuclear weapons, COVID-19, climate change and disruptive technologies. 

This change to 100 seconds to midnight was first done in 2020. At the time, Bulletin executive chairman Jerry Brown pointed to both nuclear war and climate change.

“The dangerous rivalry and hostility among the superpowers increase the likelihood of nuclear blunder,” he said. “Climate change just compounds the crisis. If there’s ever a time to wake up, it’s now.”

Evidently, however, humanity has not done so. Since 2020, the Doomsday Clock has not changed from 100 seconds to midnight. This is because of the many factors mentioned above, which, despite some glimmers of hope at reversing this man-made impending disaster, were all made worse by “a corrupted information ecosphere that undermines rational decision making,” the Bulletin noted in a statement.

Positive changes made in 2021 noted by Bulletin editor John Mecklin included new US policies made by the new Biden administration that included arms control deals, strategic talks with Russia, an attempted return to the Iran nuclear deal and rejoining the Paris climate accord. Especially positive, however, was a renewed emphasis on science and evidence in US policy-making, which is very notable regarding its handling of COVID-19.

But the situation is still tense. 

Problematic factors include tensions with the US, Russia and China who are now all working to develop anti-satellite weapons and hypersonic missiles that could eventually lead to a new nuclear arms race in addition to making the problem of space debris much worse; North Korea’s continued missile tests; Iran nuclear talks remaining unfruitful; and the ongoing Russia-Ukraine border tensions. There is also the fact that efforts have been made to develop biological weapons programs, something the Bulletin argues has marked the start of the biological arms race.

But that’s just in the political sphere. Climate change is still a major factor, and despite many countries have pledged to reduce greenhouse gases, there is still much work to be done for there to be an impact.

This concern was highlighted in a report from late 2021 by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that warned that not only was the climate change issue not improving, but it is actually getting much worse. In fact, it is happening far faster than expected. 

At the current rate, if global temperatures get to a certain point within the next five years, it could spark a positive feedback process that would make climate change self-sustaining.

This undated transmission electron microscope image shows SARS-CoV-2, also known as novel coronavirus, the virus that causes COVID-19, isolated from a patient in the U.S. Virus particles are shown emerging from the surface of cells cultured in the lab. The spikes on the outer edge of the virus parti (credit: NIAID-RML/FILE PHOTO/HANDOUT VIA REUTERS)

Then, there is the issue of COVID-19. 

While vaccine rollouts have seen responses to the pandemic improve on a national level, internationally the situation remains “entirely insufficient,” according to Bulletin. 

Poorer countries remain significantly unvaccinated. This, in turn, has led to the development of new variants. In particular, Delta and Omicron have been deadly and widespread, making the pandemic much worse as the virus continues to entrench itself.

This is further compounded with disinformation spread online, which is very problematic regarding battling the pandemic.

However, it is also a major threat to global democracy, something highlighted by the instability in the US that was sparked by rumors that Joe Biden did not win the 2020 elections. As noted by the Bulletin, “continued efforts to foster this narrative threaten to undermine US elections, American democracy in general, and, therefore, the United States’ ability to lead global efforts to manage existential risk.”

This is compounded by other technological threats, which include the use of surveillance technology, artificial intelligence and facial recognition systems. This is something the Bulletin specifically calls out China for using against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, and notes that “the potential widespread deployment of these technologies presents a distinct threat to human rights around the world and, therefore, civilization as we know and practice it.”

Also problematic are cybersecurity threats, such as the hacks on SolarWinds, Microsoft and the Colonial Pipeline.

But can something be done about it?

Maybe, and the Bulletin has made suggestions to push doomsday back.

These include, but are not limited to:

• Collaboration to limit nuclear weapons
• Eliminate the US president’s sole authority in launching US nuclear weapons
• Both Iran and the US rejoining the 2015 nuclear deal
• Have Russia rejoin the NATO-Russia Council to push for risk-reduction measures
• Accelerating decarbonization efforts and live up to commitments
• Have China’s Belt and Road Initiative push for sustainable development, not fossil fuel projects
• Public and private sectors alike should fund climate-friendly projects, not fossil fuels
• Citizens should hold leaders accountable and always ask what they are doing to address climate change
• Work with the World Health Organization and other groups to reduce biological risks, improve disease surveillance, expand hospital capacity and better production and distribution of medical supplies.

This list comes on the 75th anniversary of the Doomsday Clock’s unveiling. In that time, we are now closer to a global manmade apocalypse than ever before.

“Without swift and focused action, truly catastrophic events — events that could end civilization as we know it — are more likely,” the Bulletin said. 

“When the Clock stands at 100 seconds to midnight, we are all threatened. The moment is both perilous and unsustainable, and the time to act is now.”

Tzvi Joffre contributed to this report.

The threat of nuclear conflict is high: Revelation 16

Opinion: The threat of nuclear conflict is high. We need a new commitment to de-escalation.

“A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” That statement, which President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev issued in 1985, helped end the Cold War. It meant something because until then, both countries believed the other was ready and almost willing to destroy the other with its large nuclear arsenal. They backed up their words by reducing their armories and banning their most dangerous weapons.

Almost 40 years later, the risk of a nuclear conflict erupting between the United States and Russia, and increasingly between the United States and China, is dangerously high. Without concrete steps to de-escalate tensions and reduce reliance on nuclear weapons, the United States could end up in a nuclear war it says must not be fought.

Story continues below advertisement

Tensions over Ukraine or Taiwan could get out of hand quickly, with uncertain outcomes. Just this past week, Russia made veiled threats of deploying more battlefield nuclear weapons in and around Ukraine. Worse, the United States, Russia and China are all rapidly modernizing or expanding their nuclear and missile capabilities, as are Britain, India, Pakistan and North Korea.

It is understandable that the international community welcomed the Jan. 3 statement by the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council collectively known as the P-5, that adopted the historic 1985 Reagan-Gorbachev statement for the first time. But despite their stated rejection of nuclear war in reality, the United States and Russia exercise daily for such war, and both invest heavily in nuclear weaponry.

The United States continues to target high-value Russian and Chinese military targets — nuclear and otherwise — the destruction of which, U.S. leaders believe, would produce “favorable” outcomes. Russia does the same to U.S.- and European-based targets. The goal: to control the battlefield and to create an outcome that political and military leaders can, inconceivably, consider a “victory.” If that is not a nuclear war, what is?

Story continues below advertisement

When it comes to nuclear weapons, the United States should be precise about its intentions. Declaratory policy can be a powerful tool in reducing nuclear risks. It is conventional wisdom that America stopped a Soviet invasion of Western Europe by declaring that it was prepared to use nuclear weapons in response to such an attack. The same can work in reverse. Adopting a more limited role for nuclear weapons can reduce the concern that a country might cross the nuclear threshold early in a conflict. Clarity on this stance, backed by changes on operations and forces to make it credible, can reduce the risks of nuclear preemption.

The Biden administration is preparing its own Nuclear Posture Review, which will lay out President Biden’s policies. As a senator, vice president and presidential candidate, Biden indicated that he might be ready to accept a more restrictive set of nuclear policies, including adopting a clear statement that the sole mission for U.S. nuclear forces is to deter and, if necessary, respond to a nuclear attack on the United States or its allies. The Nuclear Posture Review would be just the place for issuing this overdue statement of clarity. But U.S. statements must be credible, which means also implementing changes to force structures, targeting and procurement.

Saying that Washington opposes nuclear war-fighting while pursuing more than $1.2 trillionover the next three decades in nuclear modernization — including new missiles, submarines, stealth bombers and hard-to-track cruise missiles — damages America’s credibility. Moscow’s own modernization, and signs that China is increasingly seeking some form of nuclear parity with Russia and the United States, further undermine the value of the P-5′s feel-good statement. Though that statement was a step in the right direction, the words remain hollow and even dangerous if not followed by concrete actions.

Story continues below advertisement

Being specific about when nations would use nuclear weapons is one way to ease, if not eliminate, the pressure. But more must also be done to reduce the risk of clashes that could escalate to nuclear conflict. For example, members of the P-5 and the other nuclear-weapon states should adopt and implement proven risk-management tools to deal with the new challenges in space, cyberspace, missile and air defenses, and conventional weapons that are becoming more accurate, fast-moving and stealthy.

High-level strategic stability discussions should also seek concrete moves to prove that nuclear war-fighting is not part of the plan for members of the P-5. This can include taking weapons off alert status, cutting back modernization programs, pursuing binding reductions of nuclear forces and adopting observable norms on other weapons that threaten to undermine stability.

The danger of escalation to nuclear war remains all too real. Rejecting nuclear war-fighting in all of its forms should be a minimum approach for Biden. Failure to do so

A new nuclear arms race: Revelation 16

 

The beginning of a new nuclear arms race?

The old arms control model was a product of a bipolar world. The real challenge is creating a new model to deal with rising nuclear risks in a multipolar world

PREMIUMStatements and actions by the US, Russian, and Chinese leaders indicate growing tensions, with rapidly receding prospects of any arms control (AFP)

Updated on Jan 12, 2022 08:00 PM IST

Mixed signals emerging in 2022 reflect the challenge in dealing with rising nuclear risks in an increasingly polarised world. On the face of it, the January 3 joint statement by leaders of the five nuclear-weapon States (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) on preventing nuclear war and avoiding arms races should have been a matter of global relief. However, statements and actions by the US, Russian, and Chinese leaders indicate growing tensions and the beginnings of a new nuclear arms race with rapidly receding prospects of any arms control.

The nuclear horns refuse to change: Revelation 16

Angst over China, Russia lessens chance of US nuke changes

• By ROBERT BURNS AP National Security Writer
• Jan 3, 2022

FILE – This image taken with a slow shutter speed on Oct. 2, 2019, and provided by the U.S. Air Force shows an unarmed Minuteman 3 intercontinental ballistic missile test launch at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. Major shifts in U.S. nuclear weapons policy seem much less likely, and while President Joe Biden may insist on certain adjustments, momentum toward a historic departure from the Trump administration’s policy appears to have stalled. The outlook will be clearer when the Biden administration completes its so-called nuclear posture review – an internal relook at the numbers, kinds and purposes of weapons in the nuclear arsenal, as well as the policies that govern their potential use. The results could be made public as early as January.

FILE – This undated file photo shows the Los Alamos National Laboratory in Los Alamos, N.M. Major shifts in U.S. nuclear weapons policy seem much less likely, and while President Joe Biden may insist on certain adjustments, momentum toward a historic departure from the Trump administration’s policy appears to have stalled. The outlook will be clearer when the Biden administration completes its so-called nuclear posture review – an internal relook at the numbers, kinds and purposes of weapons in the nuclear arsenal, as well as the policies that govern their potential use. The results could be made public as early as January./

WASHINGTON (AP) — Joe Biden’s arrival in the White House nearly a year ago seemed to herald a historic shift toward less U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons and possibly a shrinking of their numbers. Even an American “no first use” pledge — a promise to never again be the first to use a nuclear weapon — seemed possible.

Then China happened — revelations about its expanding nuclear force and talk of potential war with Taiwan.

And then Russia happened — signs that it might be preparing to invade Ukraine.https://www.wvnews.com/tncms/block/1626466/?disableTNStatsTracker=1

Now, major shifts in U.S. nuclear weapons policy seem much less likely, and while Biden may insist on certain adjustments, momentum toward a historic departure from the Trump administration’s policy appears to have stalled.

The outlook will be clearer when the Biden administration completes its so-called nuclear posture review — an internal relook at the numbers, kinds and purposes of weapons in the nuclear arsenal, as well as the policies that govern their potential use. The results could be made public as early as January.

The biggest unknown is how forcefully Biden will weigh in on these questions, based on White House calculations of the political risk. During his years as vice president, Biden talked of new directions in nuclear policy. But heightened concerns about China and Russia would seem to improve the political leverage of Republicans seeking to portray such change as a gift to nuclear adversaries.

Russia became a more urgent focus of Biden’s attention after President Vladimir Putin in recent weeks sent an estimated 100,000 troops to positions near Ukraine’s border and demanded U.S. security guarantees. Biden and Putin discussed Ukraine by phone on Thursday,and senior American and Russian officials are scheduled to follow up with more detailed talks in Geneva on Jan. 9-10.

Tom Z. Collina, policy director at Ploughshares Fund, an advocate for nuclear disarmament, says the China and Russia problems complicate the politics of Biden’s nuclear review but should not stop him from acting to reduce nuclear dangers.

“We do not want a new nuclear arms race with either nation and the only way to prevent that is with diplomacy,” Collina said. “We must remember the main lesson we learned in the Cold War with Russia — the only way to win an arms race is not to run.”https://www.wvnews.com/tncms/block/1626466/?disableTNStatsTracker=1

In March, in what the White House called interim national security guidance, Biden said China and Russia had changed “the distribution of power across the world.”

“Both Beijing and Moscow have invested heavily in efforts meant to check U.S. strengths and prevent us from defending our interests and allies around the world,” the guidance said. Biden pledged to counter with actions to strength the United States at home, repair its alliances abroad and elevate the role of diplomacy. Nuclear weapons were mentioned only briefly.

“We will take steps to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy,” the guidance said without offering details, while also ensuring a safe and reliable U.S. nuclear force and seeking arms control opportunities.

Since then, worries about China and Russia have only increased. Private satellite imagery revealed last summer that China was building large numbers of new underground silos for nuclear missiles, and in November a Pentagon report said China may quadruple the size of its nuclear stockpile by 2030.

“Because of what China has done, it has really changed the complexion of this review,” says Robert Soofer, who was the Pentagon’s top nuclear policy official during the Trump administration and led a 2018 nuclear review.

“Rather than it being a review that examines reducing the role of nuclear weapons and even eliminating a leg of the triad, now they’ve been obliged to basically stay the course and determine how to tweak it at the margins.”https://www.wvnews.com/tncms/block/1626466/?disableTNStatsTracker=1

In June, even before the latest Russian troop buildup near Ukraine, the Pentagon’s policy chief, Colin Kahl, said the outlook for U.S. nuclear policy was colored not only by China’s nuclear ambitions but also by “real anxiety” among U.S. allies in Europe over Russian defense and nuclear policy.

“And so, obviously Russia is the wolf closest to the shed as it relates to the nuclear issue, but close behind is China’s desire to grow their nuclear arsenal, both quantitatively and qualitatively,” Kahl said June 23 at a nuclear policy conference sponsored by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Kahl did not preview the policy review outcome, but he said it is intended to fit inside a broader defense strategy, which also is to be published early in 2022.

The Pentagon has not publicly discussed details of the nuclear review, but the administration seems likely to keep the existing contours of the nuclear force — the traditional “triad” of sea-, air- and land-based weapons, which critics call overkill. It also may embrace a $1 trillion-plus modernization of that force, which was launched by the Obama administration and continued by Trump.

It’s unclear whether Biden will approve any significant change in what is called “declaratory policy,” which states the purpose of nuclear weapons and the circumstances under which they might be used.

The Obama administration, with Biden as vice president, stated in 2010 that it would “only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.” It did not define “extreme circumstances.”https://www.wvnews.com/tncms/block/1626466/?disableTNStatsTracker=1

Eight years later, the Trump administration restated the Obama policy but got more specific. “Extreme circumstances could include significant non-nuclear strategic attacks. Significant non-nuclear strategic attacks include, but are not limited to, attacks on the U.S., allied, or partner civilian population or infrastructure, and attacks on U.S. or allied nuclear forces, their command and control, or warning and attack assessment capabilities.”

Some believed that Biden as president would go a different direction, following his own advice on a “no first use” pledge. He said in a January 2017 speech: “Given our non-nuclear capabilities and the nature of today’s threats, it’s hard to envision a plausible scenario in which the first use of nuclear weapons by the United States would be necessary, or make sense.”

But some argue that China and Russia this year have changed “today’s threats,” perhaps keeping Biden on a cautious path.

Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

Babylon the Great Prepares for Nuclear War with Iran: Revelation 16

US Warns Iran Of Severe Consequences If Americans Attacked

Iran International Newsroom

Iran will face severe consequences if it attacks Americans, the White House said on Sunday, including former officials sanctioned by Tehran for the 2020 killing of Gen. Qasem Soleimani in a drone strike.

White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said Iran’s sanctions on Saturdaycame as Tehran’s proxy militias continue to attack American troops in the Middle East.

“We will work with our allies and partners to deter and respond to any attacks carried out by Iran,” Sullivan said in a statement. “Should Iran attack any of our nationals, including any of the 52 people named yesterday, it will face severe consequences.”

Top Iranian officials have repeatedly issued threats to take revenge for Soleimani’s killing. The Qods Force general was Iran’s top military and intelligence operator in the region, organizing and guiding militant proxies.

The US warning came as nuclear talks continue in Vienna to restore the 2015 nuclear agreement, which would lift US sanctions and restrict Iran’s fast-developing nuclear program. Iran has refused to directly negotiate with the United States. Other participants in the talks act as mediators.

Iran on Saturday imposed sanctions on dozens more Americans, many of them from the US military, over the 2020 killing of Soleimani.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry said 51 Americans had been targeted for what it called “terrorism” and human rights violations. The step lets Iranian authorities seize any assets they hold in Iran, but the apparent absence of such assets means it will likely be symbolic.

It was not clear why Sullivan’s statement referred to 52 people when Tehran said it had sanctioned 51.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on January 1 lashed out at former US president Donald Trump and others for Soleimani’s killing, saying they “will pay back for their crime.” Other Iranian officials have repeated similar threats in the past week as Tehran marked the second anniversary of Soleimani’s death.

Iran-backed militias in Iraq and Syria accelerated drone and rocker attacks on US forces in the first week of January.

Iran’s sanctions include former president Donald Trump, former CIA directors Mike Pompeo and Gina Haspel, former UN envoy John Bolton, former defense secretaries Mark Esper and Christopher C. Miller. The list also included US General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former White House national security adviser Robert O’Brien.

Soleimani, was killed in Iraq in a drone strike on Jan. 3, 2020, ordered by then President Donald Trump, who said he had to eliminate a “terrorist leader” who posed an immediate danger to Americans.

With reporting by Reuters

Who are the Nuclear Horns of Prophecy? Daniel

Which countries have nuclear weapons?

Total global tally of nukes has dropped from 70,000 to around 14,000 in past 55 years

The five permanent member states of the UN Security Council have pledged to work together to achieve “a world without nuclear weapons”. 

In what The Guardian described as a “rare joint pledge to reduce the risk of such a conflict ever starting”, China, Russia, Britain, the US and France agreed that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought”. The statement of agreement echoed a commitment made by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev at a 1985 summit and was signed earlier this month “ahead of a review of a key nuclear treaty later this year”, said Al Jazeera.

“We also affirm that nuclear weapons – for as long as they continue to exist – should serve defensive purposes, deter aggression, and prevent war,” said the five nations.

‘Moment of truth’

The joint statement “comes as tensions between the world powers have risen to heights rarely seen in recent decades”, said CNN.

The “massing” of Russian troops on its border with Ukrainian has triggered “alarms in Washington, London and Paris”. And increased Chinese military activity around Taiwan “has spiked tensions between Beijing and Washington and its Pacific allies”, the broadcaster added.

Joe Biden is also facing a “moment of truth” over Iran’s nuclear programme, wrote Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies policy institute, and former Pentagon adviser Matthew Kroenig, in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal (WSJ). “A nuclear-armed Iran would cause further proliferation as regional powers like Saudi Arabia build their own bombs.”

Amid that looming threat, “mistrust between Tehran and Washington is deeper than ever”, said the Financial Times –  the “legacy” of Donald Trump’s decision to “unilaterally abandon” the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, during his tenure in the White House. 

Nuclear possessor states

“At the dawn of the nuclear age, the US hoped to maintain a monopoly on its new weapon,” according to the Arms Control Association(ACA). “But the secrets and the technology for building the atomic bomb soon spread.”

Advertisement – Article continues below

A total of at least 31 countries have “flirted with nuclear weapons at one time or another”, said The Economist. 

Nine nations are currently known to have nuclear arms.

Latest data from the Arms Control Association suggests that more than 90% of the world’s total nuclear warheads belong to Russia and the US. Putin is believed to be sitting on “the world’s biggest stockpile of nuclear warheads”, with an estimated total of 6,257, “followed closely” by the US, at 5,500, said CNN. 

China, France and the UK “round out the top five”, the broadcaster continued, with 350, 290 and 225 respectively. 

The UN Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which came into force in 1970, classifies these five countries as nuclear weapon states (NWS). The treaty committed the UN’s 191 member states to preventing the further spread of nuclear weapons, with a goal of achieving total disarmament.

The total number of nuclear weapons in the world has decreased from 70,000 in 1968 to around 14,000, according to the BBC. 

However, three states who did not sign the historic treaty are known to possess nuclear arsenals. The Arms Control Association estimates that Pakistan has 165 nuclear warheads and that India has 156, while Israel is thought to have 90.

North Korea is also believed to have between 40 and 50 warheads, “which it sees as insurance against a pre-emptive attack by the US”, wrote the BBC’s security correspondent Frank Gardner. The hermit state has conducted a series of nuclear tests since withdrawing from the NPT in 2003.

The country’s state media agency KCNA reported that a hypersonic missile had successfully been tested at the start of 2022, news that “will alarm its neighbours, notably Japan and South Korea”, Gardner continued. This type of weapon is “unpredictable” and “hard to intercept”, and “they also leave nations guessing whether they are carrying a conventional high explosive warhead or a nuclear one”.

Iran, Iraq and Libya have also breached the treaty’s terms by pursuing nuclear activities, “and Syria is suspected of having done the same”, said the Arms Control Association.

The Economist cautioned that while the nuclear ambitions of “geopolitical minnows” such as Libya and Syria may be quashed, “in the next decade the threat is likely to include economic and diplomatic heavyweights whose ambitions would be harder to restrain”. 

The Arms Control Assocation struck a more positive note, noting that “dire decades-old forecasts that the world would soon be home to dozens of nuclear-armed have not come to pass”.