A Precursor Of What The Judgment Will Look Like (Rev 15)

1950s U.S. Nuclear Target List Offers Chilling Insight

By SCOTT SHANE
DECEMBER 22, 2015

WASHINGTON — Target category No. 275 from the nuclear target list for 1959 may be the most chilling. It is called simply “Population.”

For the first time, the National Archives and Records Administration has released a detailed list of the United States’ potential targets for atomic bombers in the event of war with the Soviet Union, showing the number and the variety of targets on its territory, as well as in Eastern Europe and China.
It lists many targets for “systematic destruction” in major cities, including 179 in Moscow (like “Agricultural Equipment” and “Transformers, Heavy”), 145 in Leningrad and 91 in East Berlin. The targets are referred to as DGZs or “designated ground zeros.” While many are industrial facilities, government buildings and the like, one for each city is simply designated “Population.”

“It’s disturbing, for sure, to see the population centers targeted,” said William Burr, a senior analyst at the National Security Archive, a research group at George Washington University that obtained the target list in response to a request first made in 2006. Mr. Burr, who specializes in nuclear history, said he believed it was the most detailed target list the Air Force had ever made public.

The targets are identified only generically, with code numbers that correspond to specific locations. The exact addresses and names of facilities from that period are in a still-classified “Bombing Encyclopedia,” which Mr. Burr said he was trying to get declassified.

The 800-page document, marked “Top Secret” and in a fuzzy gray typescript, comes to light as the issue of air power and the possible targeting of civilians is again in the news. The United States has avoided bombing the Islamic State’s headquarters in Raqqa, Syria, for instance, because of the presence of civilian prisoners in the same complex.

But some presidential candidates have criticized President Obama for not ordering more strikes, including Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, who has called for “carpet bombing” the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. When challenged, Mr. Cruz said that “the object isn’t to level a city.”
“The object is to kill the ISIS terrorists,” he added, using an acronym for the Islamic State.
The newly declassified target list is titled “Atomic Weapons Requirements Study for 1959.” It is essentially a huge spreadsheet, produced by the Strategic Air Command in 1956 and projecting what could and should be hit in a potential war three years later.

It was produced at a time before intercontinental or submarine-launched missiles, when piloted bombers were essentially the only means of delivering nuclear weapons. The United States then had a huge advantage over the Soviet Union, with a nuclear arsenal about 10 times as big, said Matthew G. McKinzie, the director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
He said that while the document conjured the height of the Cold War, the targeting of urban populations still remained an underlying principle of the use of nuclear weapons to deter attack. “The heart of deterrence is the threat to destroy the adversary’s cities, even today,” Mr. McKinzie said.
Alex Wellerstein, a historian of nuclear weapons at the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, said that in 1959, the United States had atomic bombs totaling about 20,000 megatons. President Dwight D. Eisenhower pushed to reduce the arsenal, and the tonnage was cut by half over the next year or two, he said.
“He just thought this would lead to the annihilation of the human species,” Mr. Wellerstein said.
At the time, military planners sought to surround the Soviet Union with bomber bases and, in the event of war, called for what they referred to in official documents as a “bomb as you go” strategy, flying toward the biggest Soviet cities and hitting every listed target along the way, Mr. Wellerstein said.

The 1956 document makes air power the highest-priority target, including 1,100 Soviet-bloc airfields, since the goal was to destroy Soviet bombers before they could take off and head for targets in Europe and beyond. But many air bases and command centers were in and around population centers, so even those strikes would have resulted in extensive civilian casualties.

The targets with the second-highest priority were those of the industrial infrastructure. That included the people who ran it.

Several military historians said Tuesday that while the general principle that civilians should not be targeted dated to before World War I, actual practice had often been dictated by the military needs of the moment. The allies in World War II and the Korean War began with a principle of avoiding killing civilians to the extent possible. But in each conflict, that ideal often gave way to bombing cities because it was seen as a military necessity.

Targeting civilians has often been viewed as a way of undermining enemy morale, prompting a revolt or surrender — and conceivably leading to a shorter war. And so the large-scale bombing of civilians has sometimes been defended on humanitarian grounds, even after the firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden, Germany, and the atomic bombs dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The authors of the 1956 target list had lived through those experiences. But with two superpowers facing the prospect of nuclear annihilation for the first time, the assumption was that one side or the other would quickly prevail, with deaths in the millions.

Stephen I. Schwartz, an independent consultant on nuclear weapons policy and the co-author and editor of a 1998 book on American nuclear weapons, “Atomic Audit,” called the target list “grim and frankly appalling.” But he said he was pleased that the document had been published at a time when fewer and fewer Americans, including policy makers, have much knowledge of nuclear weapons.
“We’ve known the general contours of nuclear war planning for a few decades,” he said. “But it’s great that the details are coming out. These are extraordinary weapons, capable of incredible destruction. And this document may be history, but unfortunately the weapons are not yet history.”

Iraq asks UAE to remove Badr Organization and Sadr militia from terror list


Aharq Al Alsawt
Riyadh, Asharq Al-Awsat—Iraq has asked the Emirati government to remove an influential Shi’ite political party and its militia from its list of terrorist organizations.

Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat on Tuesday, Iraq’s minister for human rights, Mohammed Mahdi Al-Bayati, said that the Iraqi government had asked Abu Dhabi to reconsider its decision to blacklist the Badr Organization led by Iraq’s former transport minister Hadi Al-Ameri.

The minister said that Baghdad had made the same request regarding the Saraya Al-Salam (Peace Brigades), which is part of the movement led by populist Shi’ite cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr.

Both militias have joined what has become known as “the popular mobilization forces,” an umbrella of anti-ISIS groups formed in response to Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani’s call to protect Iraq’s Shi’ite shrines from the attacks from the Sunni radical organization.

Critics accuse the two militias of what they describe as “violations” against civilians, and have called on the Iraqi government to rely solely on regular security and military forces in the fight against terrorism.

According to Bayati, Baghdad lodged the request on the basis that both militias are represented in the cabinet and parliament and are operating according to a national agenda that recognizes the rights of all of Iraq’s religious and ethnic communities.

Also on the UAE’s 83-strong terror list are Asa’ib Ahl Al-Haq—an offshoot of Sadr’s movement—as well as Al-Yaoum Al-Maou’d and the Ansar Al-Islam group.

Bayati also said that Iraq was reforming its own counter-terror efforts, including new trials for female prisoners detained on terror charges to make sure the verdicts they receive are fair.

As for the deportation of foreign prisoners, the minister said Iraqi law will adjudicate in this matter.
Several Arab governments have signed prisoner swap agreements with Baghdad.

India And Pakistan Exchange Nuclear Facility “Ghost” Lists

List of nuclear facilities exchanged between India and Pakistan

— By AGENCIES | Jan 01, 2015 02:25 pm

New Delhi : The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) on Thursday in a statement said that India and Pakistan exchanged the list of their nuclear installations and facilities.

This annual exercise carried out between the two countries is covered under a bilateral agreement that bars them from attacking each other’s nuclear facilities.

This is the twenty fourth consecutive exchange of such list taking place between the two countries, the first one having taken place on January 1, 1992.

The agreement, which was signed on 31 December 1988 and entered into force on January 27, 1991 provides, inter alia, that the two countries inform each other of nuclear installations and facilities to be covered under the Agreement on the first of January of every calendar year.

The two countries also exchanged, through diplomatic channels simultaneously at their respective capital, the list of nationals of each country lodged in the jails of the other country.

The agreement which was signed on 31st May 2008 provides for a comprehensive exchange of list of nationals of each country lodged in other country’s jails twice a year on 1st of January and 1st of July.
– See more at: http://freepressjournal.in/list-of-nuclear-facilities-exchanged-between-india-and-pakistan/#sthash.xSPAWCKo.dpuf

Antichrist Defends His Men (Revelation 13:16)

Row over Iraqi Shia militias

Al Ahram

A UAE list of terrorist organisations has provoked outrage in Iraq’s ruling Shia coalition, writes Salah Nasrawi

Every time Iraqi Shia armed groups are accused of abuses against Sunnis, the country’s Shia ruling elite comes to their defence. They even express indignation for their being called militias, insisting that they are paramilitary forces which function as back-ups to the regular security forces.

But last week’s reaction to the United Arab Emirates move to include some of these militias on its new terrorism list was so furious that it almost provoked a diplomatic tussle. Iraq’s vice-president and former prime minister Nuri Al-Maliki accused the UAE of itself supporting terrorism, while some Shia leaders accused it of being sectarian. Protesters in several Shia cities demanded that the oil-rich state make an apology.

The controversy started on 15 November when the UAE blacklisted 83 organisations as terrorists in line with a law it has issued to combat terrorism crimes. The measure is part of the Gulf state’s crackdown on Islamist-oriented groups deemed to be a threat to its security. Though the list includes the Islamic State (IS), the Al-Nusra Front and other jihadist groups, it also includes well-known Sunni Muslim organisations active in politics or charities.

At least one UAE group, Al-Islah, which the authorities say is part of the Muslim Brotherhood, is included on the list.

The UAE move has satisfied a promise by its government to crack down on Islamist political groups in co-ordination with other countries in the region such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia which also consider groups like the Muslim Brotherhood to be terrorist organisations.

In August, the UAE passed a law which defined a wide range of activities as terrorism crimes. Under the law, people charged with crimes like attempts on the lives of the UAE president, the rulers of other emirates or their families, or endangering their freedoms or safety risk being sentenced to death by hanging.

The law also imposes harsh punishments on other “terrorism crimes”, including attending meetings by people deemed to be terrorists. Those who “declare publicly their hostility” to the state or the regime, or show “disloyalty to the leadership”, risk being punished by ten years in jail.

UAE officials did not comment on the reaction of the Iraqi Shia groups to the list, but Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Mohamed Gargash said organisations on the list could appeal to his country’s courts to revoke the decision if they could provide evidence that they were not involved in terrorist activities.

While it remains unclear how the UAE measures will affect foreign organisations, the move can still carry political and moral weight. Groups which have been included on similar lists in the past have suffered from negative publicity even after they are removed from them. Terrorism branding may also have political ramifications, such as condemning the political and ideological goals of the communities the groups represent.

This explains the strong reaction to the news of the inclusion of Shia militias like Asaib Al-Haq, Kataab Hizbollah and the Badr Organisation on the UAE list. These groups have joined the so-called “popular mobilisation” of Shia fighters who answered a call by Iraq’s most senior Shia cleric Ayatollah Ali Sistani to arms after the Islamic State group captured Sunni towns in the country in a major offensive in June.

“We condemn these false accusations,” said a statement by the leadership of the Iraqi National Alliance, a Shia party, after an emergency meeting chaired by its head, Iraqi Foreign Minister Ibrahim Al-Jaafari, and attended by Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi and other Shia leaders.

The sharply worded statement also slammed the UAE move as “hostile” to the Iraqi people and “clear support for terrorism and criminal forces”. “It is like throwing a rescue rope to IS while it is breathing its last,” the Shia leaders said, demanding that the UAE revoke its decision.

The Iraqi government, which has been reaching out to the country’s Sunni neighbours whose relations with Baghdad were strained in the years of former prime minister Nuri Al-Maliki’s rule, did not react immediately to the UAE decision. But the Alliance’s statement seems to reflect the views of Iraq’s ruling Shia elite.

There is controversy in Iraq over the Shia militias, and the country’s Sunnis have accused them of committing atrocities while carrying out retaliatory attacks. Last week, Sunni vice-president Osama Al-Nujiafi told senior Shia politician and leader of the Iraqi Supreme Islamic Council Ammar Al-Hakim that the government should “put a halt to violations by irresponsible groups” against the Sunnis.

The UN human rights agency and international rights groups have accused the Shia militias of gross violations, including abducting and murdering Sunnis in retaliation for attacks by IS. Amnesty International has said that the militias, armed and supported by the Iraqi government, enjoy impunity for their actions.

The Al-Abadi government has vowed to rein in the Shia militias, and on Friday minister of the interior Mohammad Salim Al-Ghaban denied any connection between “these factions and the kidnapping or blackmailing of citizens.” However, Shia leader Muqtada Al-Sadr acknowledged that violations had been carried out by “some” of these militias, though he distanced his Sadrist Movement from the atrocities.

“Those who terrorise people and attack them and their property are not part of our Movement. They are infiltrators who belong to enemy militias,” Al-Sadr said.

Iraq’s Shia militias were created after the US-led invasion of the country in 2003 in order to fill the security vacuum and resist attacks on Shia neighbourhouds by extremist Sunni insurgents. Some of them, such as the Mahdi Army and the Asaib Ahl Al-Haq, joined armed confrontations with the US troops.

The issue of the Shia militias became even more contentious after the IS advance and its seizure of nearly one-third of Iraq’s territory earlier this year. Iranian-backed Shia militias are reported to have played a key role in halting the IS onslaught, protecting the capital Baghdad and key Shia shrines and retaking key towns from the terror group.

In recent months the Iraqi government has been talking about integrating the Shia militias into the security forces. It is already paying their salaries and providing them with weapons. Many of the militias also wield enormous influence in Shia neighbourhouds. They are represented in parliament and government and play an increasing role in Iraqi society.

Many questions now surround the UAE’s decision to include the Iraqi Shia militias on its terrorism black list. While the UAE has not explained why the Iraqi Shia militias are on its list of terrorist organisations, the simmering sectarian crisis in Iraq has cast a shadow over the move. Many Iraqi Shias feel that they are being targeted by the Arab Sunni world as Iraq’s sectarian tensions reach fever pitch.

One precondition set by the US-led international coalition to help Iraq combat IS is for a political process to be designed that will allow the various communities of Iraq to come back together. A central piece of that strategy, pushed for by the coalition, which includes the UAE and several other Arab countries, is to create a mainly Sunni national guard to police Sunni-dominated Iraqi provinces.

The Shia political groups that dominate the government have been reluctant to endorse the creation of such an autonomous force for fear that it will be infiltrated by loyalists to former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and other Sunni insurgents who might turn against the government once they are allowed to operate independently.

As a counter-proposal, the Shia groups want to incorporate the Shia militias into the national guard, which, they say, should also be put under the prime minister’s command. Some Shia lawmakers say that if a bill to set up the guard comes before parliament they will insist that the Kurdish Peshmergas forces are also part of the new guard units, a move the Kurds have vehemently rejected.

The fury of the Iraqi Shia leaders at the inclusion of several Iraqi Shia armed groups on the UAE terrorism list comes from the continuing ethno-sectarian tensions in the country, with Iraq’s communal factions expected to rely more heavily on their armed groups as an insurance policy.

This trend is expected to continue until an all-inclusive security system is established and a political solution to Iraq’s sectarian crisis found.

By branding their armed groups terrorists, the Iraqi Shias feel that there has been a deliberate attempt by some Sunni Arab governments to mix what the Shias perceive as their legitimate self-defence against terrorism with the brutal violence driven by the ideological appeals of the IS.

Antichrist Defends His Men (Revelation 13:16)

Row over Iraqi Shia militias

Al Ahram

A UAE list of terrorist organisations has provoked outrage in Iraq’s ruling Shia coalition, writes Salah Nasrawi

Every time Iraqi Shia armed groups are accused of abuses against Sunnis, the country’s Shia ruling elite comes to their defence. They even express indignation for their being called militias, insisting that they are paramilitary forces which function as back-ups to the regular security forces.

But last week’s reaction to the United Arab Emirates move to include some of these militias on its new terrorism list was so furious that it almost provoked a diplomatic tussle. Iraq’s vice-president and former prime minister Nuri Al-Maliki accused the UAE of itself supporting terrorism, while some Shia leaders accused it of being sectarian. Protesters in several Shia cities demanded that the oil-rich state make an apology.

The controversy started on 15 November when the UAE blacklisted 83 organisations as terrorists in line with a law it has issued to combat terrorism crimes. The measure is part of the Gulf state’s crackdown on Islamist-oriented groups deemed to be a threat to its security. Though the list includes the Islamic State (IS), the Al-Nusra Front and other jihadist groups, it also includes well-known Sunni Muslim organisations active in politics or charities.

At least one UAE group, Al-Islah, which the authorities say is part of the Muslim Brotherhood, is included on the list.

The UAE move has satisfied a promise by its government to crack down on Islamist political groups in co-ordination with other countries in the region such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia which also consider groups like the Muslim Brotherhood to be terrorist organisations.

In August, the UAE passed a law which defined a wide range of activities as terrorism crimes. Under the law, people charged with crimes like attempts on the lives of the UAE president, the rulers of other emirates or their families, or endangering their freedoms or safety risk being sentenced to death by hanging.

The law also imposes harsh punishments on other “terrorism crimes”, including attending meetings by people deemed to be terrorists. Those who “declare publicly their hostility” to the state or the regime, or show “disloyalty to the leadership”, risk being punished by ten years in jail.

UAE officials did not comment on the reaction of the Iraqi Shia groups to the list, but Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Mohamed Gargash said organisations on the list could appeal to his country’s courts to revoke the decision if they could provide evidence that they were not involved in terrorist activities.

While it remains unclear how the UAE measures will affect foreign organisations, the move can still carry political and moral weight. Groups which have been included on similar lists in the past have suffered from negative publicity even after they are removed from them. Terrorism branding may also have political ramifications, such as condemning the political and ideological goals of the communities the groups represent.

This explains the strong reaction to the news of the inclusion of Shia militias like Asaib Al-Haq, Kataab Hizbollah and the Badr Organisation on the UAE list. These groups have joined the so-called “popular mobilisation” of Shia fighters who answered a call by Iraq’s most senior Shia cleric Ayatollah Ali Sistani to arms after the Islamic State group captured Sunni towns in the country in a major offensive in June.

“We condemn these false accusations,” said a statement by the leadership of the Iraqi National Alliance, a Shia party, after an emergency meeting chaired by its head, Iraqi Foreign Minister Ibrahim Al-Jaafari, and attended by Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi and other Shia leaders.

The sharply worded statement also slammed the UAE move as “hostile” to the Iraqi people and “clear support for terrorism and criminal forces”. “It is like throwing a rescue rope to IS while it is breathing its last,” the Shia leaders said, demanding that the UAE revoke its decision.

The Iraqi government, which has been reaching out to the country’s Sunni neighbours whose relations with Baghdad were strained in the years of former prime minister Nuri Al-Maliki’s rule, did not react immediately to the UAE decision. But the Alliance’s statement seems to reflect the views of Iraq’s ruling Shia elite.

There is controversy in Iraq over the Shia militias, and the country’s Sunnis have accused them of committing atrocities while carrying out retaliatory attacks. Last week, Sunni vice-president Osama Al-Nujiafi told senior Shia politician and leader of the Iraqi Supreme Islamic Council Ammar Al-Hakim that the government should “put a halt to violations by irresponsible groups” against the Sunnis.

The UN human rights agency and international rights groups have accused the Shia militias of gross violations, including abducting and murdering Sunnis in retaliation for attacks by IS. Amnesty International has said that the militias, armed and supported by the Iraqi government, enjoy impunity for their actions.

The Al-Abadi government has vowed to rein in the Shia militias, and on Friday minister of the interior Mohammad Salim Al-Ghaban denied any connection between “these factions and the kidnapping or blackmailing of citizens.” However, Shia leader Muqtada Al-Sadr acknowledged that violations had been carried out by “some” of these militias, though he distanced his Sadrist Movement from the atrocities.

“Those who terrorise people and attack them and their property are not part of our Movement. They are infiltrators who belong to enemy militias,” Al-Sadr said.

Iraq’s Shia militias were created after the US-led invasion of the country in 2003 in order to fill the security vacuum and resist attacks on Shia neighbourhouds by extremist Sunni insurgents. Some of them, such as the Mahdi Army and the Asaib Ahl Al-Haq, joined armed confrontations with the US troops.

The issue of the Shia militias became even more contentious after the IS advance and its seizure of nearly one-third of Iraq’s territory earlier this year. Iranian-backed Shia militias are reported to have played a key role in halting the IS onslaught, protecting the capital Baghdad and key Shia shrines and retaking key towns from the terror group.

In recent months the Iraqi government has been talking about integrating the Shia militias into the security forces. It is already paying their salaries and providing them with weapons. Many of the militias also wield enormous influence in Shia neighbourhouds. They are represented in parliament and government and play an increasing role in Iraqi society.

Many questions now surround the UAE’s decision to include the Iraqi Shia militias on its terrorism black list. While the UAE has not explained why the Iraqi Shia militias are on its list of terrorist organisations, the simmering sectarian crisis in Iraq has cast a shadow over the move. Many Iraqi Shias feel that they are being targeted by the Arab Sunni world as Iraq’s sectarian tensions reach fever pitch.

One precondition set by the US-led international coalition to help Iraq combat IS is for a political process to be designed that will allow the various communities of Iraq to come back together. A central piece of that strategy, pushed for by the coalition, which includes the UAE and several other Arab countries, is to create a mainly Sunni national guard to police Sunni-dominated Iraqi provinces.

The Shia political groups that dominate the government have been reluctant to endorse the creation of such an autonomous force for fear that it will be infiltrated by loyalists to former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and other Sunni insurgents who might turn against the government once they are allowed to operate independently.

As a counter-proposal, the Shia groups want to incorporate the Shia militias into the national guard, which, they say, should also be put under the prime minister’s command. Some Shia lawmakers say that if a bill to set up the guard comes before parliament they will insist that the Kurdish Peshmergas forces are also part of the new guard units, a move the Kurds have vehemently rejected.

The fury of the Iraqi Shia leaders at the inclusion of several Iraqi Shia armed groups on the UAE terrorism list comes from the continuing ethno-sectarian tensions in the country, with Iraq’s communal factions expected to rely more heavily on their armed groups as an insurance policy.

This trend is expected to continue until an all-inclusive security system is established and a political solution to Iraq’s sectarian crisis found.

By branding their armed groups terrorists, the Iraqi Shias feel that there has been a deliberate attempt by some Sunni Arab governments to mix what the Shias perceive as their legitimate self-defence against terrorism with the brutal violence driven by the ideological appeals of the IS.