The prophecy is more than seeing into the future. For the prophecy sees without the element of time. For the prophecy sees things as they were, as they are, and as they always shall be.
The tangible prospect of defeat in Ukraine has increased the likelihood of Russia using nuclear weapons in the conflict, a former British general said.
Moscow would probably use a 10-kilotonne warhead set on an Iskander missile, he said, creating a massive fireball incinerating people and buildings within 150 metres of ground zero, while causing third-degree burns within a 1.6-kilometre radius.
Kyiv’s forces recent gains, especially around the Russian-held city of Kherson, have raised the possibility of Russia facing “catastrophic success for Ukraine”, Sir Richard wrote in The Times, but if “Putin senses strategic defeat, he is likely to employ tactical nuclear weapons”.
A nuclear attack would “break an enormous taboo”, being the first use of the weapons since the US dropped two atom bombs on Japan in 1945, but it was not “inconceivable to Russians if the ends justify it in their eyes”. The Hiroshima blast stemmed from a 15-kilotonne bomb that killed 146,000 people.
The potential for a “catastrophic miscalculation” by Moscow could come as early as spring next year if its forces were being pushed out of Ukraine, said the former head of Britain’s Joint Forces Command.
The retired officer’s warning comes after concerns raised by western officials, who told The National late last month that “Russia had definitively lost the initiative” and faced with defeat had “other tools available which it could choose to employ which would escalate the situation”.
“It comes down to how threatened the Russian state feels,” Sir Richard said. “The more threatened or cornered it becomes, the more likely it will be to reach for essentially the types of tools [nuclear weapons] that you’re talking about.”
President Vladimir Putin oversees the test of a new Russian hypersonic missile system called Avangard, which can carry nuclear and conventional warheads, in Moscow. Reuters
Sir Richard wrote that Russian doctrine was to use small nuclear weapons “to impose unacceptable damage on an opponent as a means of coercion”, particularly when “the existence of the state is in question”.
To avoid the nuclear radiation from a ground detonation, it would likely be an air blast from 700 metres that fired over a town such as Kramatorsk would create a fatal radiation dose to anyone within 1km.
A warhead could also be dropped on a Ukrainian brigade of up to 5,000 personnel, causing mass casualties.
While a nuclear strike would “create great sense of peril around the world”, a smaller device would “not physically touch areas beyond the borders of Ukraine”, Sir Richard said.
“These weapons exist for just the sort of circumstances the war in Ukraine may lead to, so nobody should claim total surprise if they are used.”
Were such a devastating assault to materialise, defence alliance Nato might escalate efforts to remove Mr Putin from power.
While it was unlikely to lead to all-out nuclear Armageddon between the great powers, Sir Richard warned it could lead to countries such as India and Pakistan becoming more willing to use nuclear weapons on each other.
12:58, Thu, Aug 4, 2022 | UPDATED: 13:03, Thu, Aug 4, 2022
We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time.
The Kremlin warned that it could use the lethal weapons “if western countries try to test our resolve”. Russian diplomat Alexander Trofimov listed two “hypothetical scenarios” which could trigger a nuclear response. Speaking at the nuclear non-proliferation conference on Tuesday, Mr Trofimov denied that Russia has threatened to use its nuclear arsenal against Ukraine.
He said this is “utterly unfounded, detached from reality and unacceptable”.
However, he said Russia could use nuclear weapons “in response to weapons of mass destruction or a conventional weapons attack that threatened the existence of the Russian state”.
He added: “None of these two hypothetical scenarios is relevant to the situation in Ukraine”.
August 4, 2022: Sixty-four percent (64%) of voters believe that China has the capability to launch nuclear weapons that could reach the United States. A Scott Rasmussen national survey found that just 9% think they do not, and 26% are not sure.
However, the survey also found that 59% think it is likely that, if China launched such an attack, U.S. defense systems could stop those weapons. Twenty-three percent (23%) say that is not likely, and 19% are not sure.
Methodology The survey of 1,200 registered voters was conducted online by Scott Rasmussen on July 19-21, 2022. Fieldwork for the survey was conducted by RMG Research, Inc. Certain quotas were applied, and the sample was lightly weighted by geography, gender, age, race, education, internet usage, and political party to reasonably reflect the nation’s population of registered voters. Other variables were reviewed to ensure that the final sample is representative of that population.
The margin of sampling error for the full sample is +/- 2.8 percentage points.
Note: Neither Scott Rasmussen, ScottRasmussen.com, nor RMG Research, Inc. have any affiliation with Rasmussen Reports. While Scott Rasmussen founded that firm, he left nearly a decade ago and has had no involvement since that time.
Scott Rasmussen is founder and president of the Rasmussen Media Group. He is a political analyst, author, public speaker, independent public opinion pollster and columnist for Creators Syndicate. Read Scott Rasmussen’s Reports
12:58, Thu, Aug 4, 2022 | UPDATED: 13:03, Thu, Aug 4, 2022
We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time.
The Kremlin warned that it could use the lethal weapons “if western countries try to test our resolve”. Russian diplomat Alexander Trofimov listed two “hypothetical scenarios” which could trigger a nuclear response. Speaking at the nuclear non-proliferation conference on Tuesday, Mr Trofimov denied that Russia has threatened to use its nuclear arsenal against Ukraine.
He said this is “utterly unfounded, detached from reality and unacceptable”.
However, he said Russia could use nuclear weapons “in response to weapons of mass destruction or a conventional weapons attack that threatened the existence of the Russian state”.
He added: “None of these two hypothetical scenarios is relevant to the situation in Ukraine”.
A Russian sailor prepares for Navy Day in Kronstadt Navy base, outside St.Petersburg, Russia, … [+] COPYRIGHT 2020 THE ASSOCIATED PRESS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
With No U.S. Pushback, China Follows Russia, Eying New Nihilistic Weaponry
I evaluate national security threats and propose solutions.Follow
Aug 3, 2022,08:54am EDT
As the Biden Administration prepares to roll out an abruptly revised and more Russia-focused national security strategy within the next few weeks, it is no secret that the process of formulating America’s national security strategy is broken. America’s strategic challenges are multi-faceted, the formative process is bureaucratically painful, and, by the time America’s grand new national defense strategy is finally ready to be implemented, it is either overtaken by events or a whole new team is settling into the White House.
It is a corrosive exercise. As one administration after another produces National Security Strategies full of little more than watered-down, overly-broad proclamations about protecting the “American people, the homeland and the American way of life,” talented national security operators are opting out of the entire process, leaving it to folks who enjoy nothing more than long DC meetings and slapping backs during mid-meeting coffee klatches. But the failure to produce a durable, long-term national security strategy is trickling down to other components within the national security space. Rather than build to a defined strategy, the U.S. Navy and others take refuge in a “warfighter” ethos, focusing on building a grab-bag of tactics with no defined goal or end-state.
At the top, America’s leisurely path towards an underwhelming and watered-down strategic “document” does America no good. This failure to quickly generate bold, responsive and longer-term strategies leads to strategic paralysis and has real national security consequences.
The world moves quickly. Rivals quickly identify and focus in on America’s policy gaps, knowing that America’s ponderous national security processes won’t respond.
Few push back on Vladimir Putin’s strategic nihilism AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES
CHINA has unveiled plans for fearsome nuclear drone torpedoes that would be able to fire swarms of devastating torpedoes across the entire Pacific Ocean.
Beijing scientists claim the new torpedo could be mass-produced, allowing it to be fired from virtually any warship or submarine.
China has unveiled designs for its new nuclear drone torpedoesCredit: GettyIt is similar to the Russian Poseidon uncrewed nuclear droneCredit: Twitter
However, China claims that, unlike Russia’s model, their torpedo will be easier to produce, and can be placed into a standard torpedo tube, rather than needing a custom-designed tube.
Researchers in Beijing say they have completed the design for its small, low-cost nuclear reactor which would be able to unleash a swarm of torpedoes across the Pacific Ocean in around a week.
Each torpedo would use a throwaway nuclear reactor to keep it at its cruising speed of over 30 knots (35mph) for 200 hours before dumping it on the seafloor.
Lead scientist Guo Jian from China’s Institute of Atomic Energy claimed in a paper published this month by the peer-reviewed Journal of Unmanned Undersea Systems that there is a key difference between their design and the Russian “Poseidon”.
“Thanks to its high flexibility and low cost, this unmanned underwater vehicle equipped with the nuclear power system can be used as a conventional force like an attack nuclear submarine, rather than as a nuclear missile.”
Russia’s Poseidon was touted as being capable of flattening an entire city or larger area using its two-megaton nuclear weapon – around 100 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
But Chinese researchers claim such a weapon would spark a nuclear war that would destroy the world, making it unlikely to ever be developed.
This unmanned underwater vehicle equipped with the nuclear power system can be used as a conventional force like an attack nuclear submarineGuo JianLead scientist
Instead, Guo says China’s weapon would be able to be used “in reconnaissance, tracking, attack and strategic strike”.
The low-cost reactor would produce more than 1.4 megawatts of heat from less than 8.8lbs (4kg) of low-concentration uranium fuel.
This would be enough energy to power the torpedo across the Pacific Ocean.
“When the manufacturing cost is low enough, even if the nuclear-powered device can only be used once, the overall cost will be low,” the researchers said.
“This, in turn, stimulates us to make the system simpler and smaller.”
According to the team, the rector could run for up to 400 hours while travelling some 10,000km, roughly the distance between Shanghai and San Francisco.
Putin’s massive Poseidon drone will carry a two-megaton nuclear weapon
It could be in regular operation this year
Putin said the weapon was designed so Russia could destroy enemy naval bases
If deployed underwater, it could cause a tsunami as big as 300ft
It will travel at speeds of 60-70 knots underwater in a specially built submarine
The weapon was unveiled by Vladimir Putin during his State of the Nation address on March 1, 2018
Experts have warned the damage could match Japan’s 2011 tsunami when 20,000 people died
As it travels across the ocean, the reactor would separate from the torpedo and sink to the bottom of the ocean, triggering a safety mechanism to kill the remaining chain reaction.
This, the scientists claim, would prevent any form of nuclear accident from being triggered by the torpedos.
“Even if the hull is broken, the interior is filled with water, and the whole body falls into the wet sand on the seabed, the reactor will not have a critical accident,” they added. “Safety is ensured.”
Last year, US diplomat Robert Wood claimed that China is looking at exotic nuclear delivery systems such as Russia’s Poseidon drone and Burevestnik nuclear-powered cruise missile, the Associated Press reported.
However, Asia Times reported that the weapon may never get beyond a prototype.
Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, said that China is known for following the lead of the US and Russia and then leaving its designs unbuilt.
While a study last year by the Nautilus Institute found that the Poseidon drone may only have marginal military value despite its devastating capabilities.
By Danyal Hussain For Daily Mail Australia 11:23 EDT 23 Jul 2022 , updated 20:27 EDT 23 Jul 2022
Chinese scientists have claimed to have developed long-range ‘disposable’ nuclear-powered torpedoes that could hit Australia in just a week.
The Communist superpower wants to use tiny ‘disposable’ nuclear reactors to propel its long-range torpedos, which would make the weapons smaller and harder to detect.
Under the plans, is proposing to gather a large fleet of low-cost ‘killer robots’ that can be carried by any military ship or submarine and placed into a standard torpedo tube.
China wants to use tiny ‘disposable’ nuclear reactors to propel its long-range torpedos, which would make the weapons smaller and harder to detect Beijing could use the weapon to ‘strike submarines as they leave a port in home waters that is difficult to reach by manned platforms’. It has been compared to Russia’s Poseidon nuclear-powered drone (pictured)
could use the weapon to ‘strike submarines as they leave a port in home waters that is difficult to reach by manned platforms’, according to the .
It would be able to drive a swarm of torpedoes across the Pacific Ocean in about a week, researchers have claimed.
Scientist completed a conceptual design for the weapons system in a paper published this month.
Scientist Guo Jian from the China Institute of Atomic Energy says China will build the weapon with ‘mature and simple technology that is easy to use and maintain, inexpensive and suitable for mass production.’
‘We need to think out of the box,’ he explained. ‘Thanks to its high flexibility and low cost, this unmanned underwater vehicle equipped with the nuclear power system can be used as a conventional force like an attack nuclear submarine, rather than as a nuclear missile.’
The scientist likened the weapon system to Vladimir Putin’s notorious Poseidon system.
Under the plans, China is proposing to gather a large fleet of low-cost ‘killer robots’ that can be carried by any military ship or submarine and placed into a standard torpedo tube British nuclear-powered attack submarine HMS Astute at HMAS Stirling Royal Australian Navy base in Perth, Western Australia, Australia, 29 October 2021. Britain is to send a fleet of nuclear submarines to the Pacific in a decisive move to thwart Chinese aggression in the region
Poseidon is a Russian nuclear weapon that is a blend of torpedo and drone.
Moscow claims it is unstoppable by current nuclear defences, and could be used to destroy coastal cities or blow up aircraft carriers and their battle groups.
The weapon is designed to trigger a tsunami off any coastal city with a nuclear warhead.
Now, Chinese researchers claim they can deliver their version of the weapon within 10 years.
They have also insisted it is not a ‘dirty bomb’ or a nuclear weapon in disguise.
The small reactor would be ‘ejected’ to the seabed shortly before the torpedo strikes its target – with an on-board battery pushing it to its target.
This would leave the radioactive material outside any blast radius.
Guo says the submarine’s high speed and endurance will also allow it to inspect distant waters and track potential targets.
Two Australian Collins class submarines (front) and the UK nuclear-powered attack submarine, HMS Astute (rear) are seen at HMAS Stirling Royal Australian Navy base in Perth The AUKUS deal was signed by the Morrison government and has the backing of Anthony Albanese (pictured)
The revelation comes as Britain prepares to send a fleet of nuclear submarines to the Pacific in a decisive move to thwart Chinese aggression in the region.
The dramatic decision could see UK subs based in Australia until 2040, operating within striking distance of .
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, the head of the Armed Forces, will agree the arrangement at a naval conference in next week. Assigning submarines to patrol the South China Sea will be Britain’s most assertive move yet against .
According to reports in Australia, Royal Navy submarines would be based at on the country’s western coast and Australian submariners would be incorporated into British crews to improve their skills.
Basing the Royal Navy boats thousands of miles from UK shores is part of the AUKUS (Australia, United Kingdom and United States) security alliance.
AUKUS was set up last year primarily to confront Chinese military expansionism in the Indo-Pacific.
Then defence minister Peter Dutton signed a formal agreement in November last year alongside the US and UK to allow the countries to share information on nuclear-powered vessels
Australia has become embroiled in a trade war and diplomatic stand-off with China.
The deepening of defence ties with the UK is likely to cause further outrage with the Communist regime, which is vehemently opposed to AUKUS.
The Royal Navy declined to say how many of its submarines could be relocated to Australia, as all operational details surrounding Britain’s sub-surface fleet are classified.
The ‘Pacific tilt’ was signalled last year as part of the MoD’s Integrated Review.
The review set the target for the UK to become ‘the European partner with the broadest and most integrated presence in the Indo-Pacific’.
Why is Australia building nuclear-powered submarines?
Why nuclear submarines?
Nuclear submarines are powered by nuclear reactors which produce heat that creates high-pressured steam to spin turbines and power the boat’s propeller.
They can run for about 20 years before needing to refuel, meaning food supplies are the only limit on time at sea.
The boats are also very quiet, making it harder for enemies to detect them and can travel at top speed – about 40kmh – for longer than diesel-powered subs.
The first nuclear submarines were put to sea by the United States in the 1950s. They are now also in use by Russia, France, the United Kingdom, China, and India.
A senior US defence official told reporters in Washington DC: ‘This will give Australia the capability for their submarines to basically deploy for a longer period, they’re quieter, they’re much more capable.
‘They will allow us to sustain and to improve deterrence across the Indo-Pacific.’
Zack Cooper, a senior fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, said nuclear submarines would hugely boost Australia’s military capability.
‘They are going to be much, much more capable in the large, expansive ocean that is Australia has to deal with,’ he told the ABC.
Will Australia have nuclear weapons?
Scott Morrison made it clear that the nuclear-power submarines will not have nuclear missiles on board.
Australia has never produced nuclear weapons and signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in 1973 which prevents non-nuclear states which don’t already have them from developing nuclear weapons.
Mr Morrison also said the Australia has no plans to build nuclear power stations which are widely used around the world.
‘But let me be clear, Australia is not seeking to acquire nuclear weapons or establish a civil nuclear capability,’ he said.
‘And we will continue to meet all our nuclear non-proliferation obligations.’
Are they safe?
The nuclear reactors are shielded from the rest of the submarine in a separate section to protect the crew from dangerous radiation.
The US has an excellent safety record with its nuclear-powered fleet although early Russian subs suffered a few accidents which caused 20 servicemen to die from radiation exposure between 1960 and 1985.
At the end of their 20-year lifetimes, the contaminated parts of nuclear reactors need to be disposed deep underground in special waste storage cells.
Anti-nuclear campaigners say any leaks of radioactive waste could lead to an environmental disaster.
Greens leader Adam Bandt called the submarines ‘floating Chernobyls’ in reference to the 1986 nuclear power plant explosion in the Soviet Union.
Why now?
Australia needs to replace its six ageing Collins-class submarines.
In 2016 it signed a deal with French Company Naval Group to build 12 diesel-electric attack subs – but the parties were in dispute over the amount of building that would be done in Australia.
That deal has now been torn up in favour of nuclear powered subs aided by the US and UK who will provide the technology to Australia.
The West is becoming increasingly concerned about the growing assertiveness of China in the Indo-Pacific region where it has made huge territorial claims in the South and East China seas, clashed with Indian troops and repeatedly flown planes over Taiwan.
Mr Morrison wants Australia to have serious defence capability to deter China from encroaching in the Pacific and long-range nuclear submarines are just the ticket.
China has vastly built up its military in the past few years and now possesses six Shang-class nuclear powered attack submarines, equipped with torpedoes and cruise missiles.
It has been reported that firestorms would release soot and smoke into the upper atmosphere that would block out the Sun, resulting in crop failure around the world.
In the first month following explosions, average global temperatures would plunge by about 13 degrees Fahrenheit which is more than during the most recent Ice Age.
The Ice Age ended 11,700 years ago and lasted more than 100,000 years, making the world about 10 degrees Fahrenheit colder than today.
Lead author Dr Cheryl Harrison, of Louisiana State University, said: “It doesn’t matter who is bombing whom. It can be India and Pakistan or NATO and Russia.
“Once the smoke is released into the upper atmosphere, it spreads globally and affects everyone.”
Russian Defence Ministry on April 20, 2022 shows the launching of the Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile(Russian Defence Ministry/AFP via)
It has been reported that firestorms would release soot and smoke into the upper atmosphere that would block out the Sun, resulting in crop failure around the world.
In the first month following explosions, average global temperatures would plunge by about 13 degrees Fahrenheit which is more than during the most recent Ice Age.
The Ice Age ended 11,700 years ago and lasted more than 100,000 years, making the world about 10 degrees Fahrenheit colder than today.
Lead author Dr Cheryl Harrison, of Louisiana State University, said: “It doesn’t matter who is bombing whom. It can be India and Pakistan or NATO and Russia.
“Once the smoke is released into the upper atmosphere, it spreads globally and affects everyone.”
Russian Defence Ministry on April 20, 2022 shows the launching of the Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile(Russian Defence Ministry/AFP via)
The 3 nations have all followed different paths. Russia concentrated on nuclear weapons and prepared for large battles to be fought in the open terrain of the steppes. They followed a defensive strategy, to make Russia too strong to invade.
The USA concentrated less on nuclear weaponry, and more on nuclear power, added great depth to our air, sea and land forces, and after WWII, have concentrated on a power forward aggressive strategy, taking the battle to the enemy first.
The United States concentrates on weaponry that is reliable and effective. That means some of our best weapons aren’t the most advanced in terms of new technology, but are older designs at their peak of effectiveness through steady refinement, often under actual battle conditions.
Advanced weaponry such as hypersonic missiles are often much more show than go. They sound threatening, but every super-weapon ever made has always been countered with an adequate defense against it. The more complicated a weapon’s technology becomes, the more hidden vulnerabilities it has to something that’s older and simpler.
We learned that lesson very vividly a few years ago. The Swedish Navy is tiny, befitting the small size of the nation. Sweden is too small to afford a large Navy, but the Swedes are fully savvy to modern technology and they have good engineers that know how to make good weapons. Submarines are best-buys for small Navies. Since the Swedes can’t afford a nuclear navy, they concentrated on designing a diesel-powered sub that has a completely new engine design that makes the sub both silent and able to renew its air supply internally.
A few years ago, the sub was tried out in a NATO exercise agains our most advanced battle carrier group. The aircraft carrier was our newest, and it was protected in 3D, with aircraft above, advanced surface battle ships- a new cruiser, several new destroyers, and other vessels, and 2 hunter-killer submarines below.
The Swedish Captain was a lady, the engineer who designed the sub’s engine. She was able to penetrate the carrier’s defenses and surfaced so close to the carrier it could have been struck by a thrown rock. Using old technology that had overlooked capabilities.
Norman Solomon is co-founder and national director of RootsAction. He was a Bernie Sanders delegate from California to the 2016 and 2020 Democratic National Conventions. Solomon is the author of a dozen books, including War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. His book Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America’s Warfare State was republished this year in a new edition as a free e-book. He founded the Institute for Public Accuracy, where he is executive director.
President Joe Biden and top subordinates have refused to publicly acknowledge the danger of nuclear war — even though it is now higher than at any other time in at least 60 years. Their silence is insidious and powerful, and their policy of denial makes grassroots activism all the more vital for human survival.
In the aftermath of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, President John F. Kennedy was more candid. Speaking at American University, he said: “A single nuclear weapon contains almost 10 times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the Second World War.” Kennedy also noted, “The deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn.” Finally, he added, “All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours.”
Kennedy was no dove. He affirmed willingness to use nuclear weapons. But his speech offered some essential honesty about nuclear war — and the need to seriously negotiate with the Kremlin in the interests of averting planetary incineration — an approach sorely lacking from the United States government today.
At the time of Kennedy’s presidency, nuclear war would have been indescribably catastrophic. Now — with large arsenals of hydrogen bombs and what scientists know about “nuclear winter” — experts have concluded that a nuclear war would virtually end agriculture and amount to omnicide (the destruction of human life on earth).
In an interview after publication of his book The Doomsday Machine, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg summed up what he learned as an insider during the Kennedy administration:
What I discovered — to my horror, I have to say — is that the Joint Chiefs of Staff contemplated causing with our own first strike 600 million deaths, including 100 million in our own allies. Now, that was an underestimate even then because they weren’t including fire, which they found was too incalculable in its effects. And of course, fire is the greatest casualty-producing effect of thermonuclear weapons. So the real effect would’ve been over a billion — not 600 million — about a third of the Earth’s population then at that time.
Ellsberg added:
What turned out to be the case 20 years later in 1983 and confirmed in the last 10 years very thoroughly by climate scientists and environmental scientists is that that high ceiling of a billion or so was wrong. Firing weapons over the cities, even if you call them military targets, would cause firestorms in those cities like the one in Tokyo in March of 1945, which would loft into the stratosphere many millions of tons of soot and black smoke from the burning cities. It wouldn’t be rained out in the stratosphere. It would go around the globe very quickly and reduce sunlight by as much as 70 percent, causing temperatures like that of the Little Ice Age, killing harvests worldwide and starving to death nearly everyone on Earth. It probably wouldn’t cause extinction. We’re so adaptable. Maybe 1 percent of our current population of 7.4 billion could survive, but 98 or 99 percent would not.
Even before the Russian invasion of Ukraine four months ago, the risks of global nuclear annihilation were at a peak. In January, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists set its Doomsday Clock at a mere 100 seconds from apocalyptic Midnight, compared to six minutes a decade ago. As Russia’s horrific war on Ukraine has persisted and the U.S. government has bypassed diplomacy in favor of massive arms shipments, the hazards of a nuclear war between the world’s two nuclear superpowers have increased.
But the Biden administration has not only remained mum about current nuclear war dangers; it’s actively exacerbating them. Those at the helm of U.S. foreign policy now are ignoring the profound lessons that President Kennedy drew from the October 1962 confrontation with Russia over its nuclear missiles in Cuba. “Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war,” Kennedy said. “To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy — or of a collective death-wish for the world.”
In sync with the overwhelmingly hawkish U.S. media, members of Congress and “national security” establishment, Biden has moved into new Cold War overdrive. The priority aim is to make shrewd moves on the geopolitical chessboard — not to engage in diplomacy that could end the slaughter in Ukraine and prevent the war from causing widespread starvation in many countries.
As scholar Alfred McCoy just wrote, “With the specter of mass starvation looming for some 270 million people and, as the [United Nations] recently warned, political instability growing in those volatile regions, the West will, sooner or later, have to reach some understanding with Russia.” Only diplomacy can halt the carnage in Ukraine and save the lives of millions now at risk of starvation. And the dangers of nuclear war can be reduced by rejecting the fantasy of a military solution to the Ukraine conflict.
In recent months, the Russian government has made thinly veiled threats to use nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the U.S. has been shipping huge quantities of weapons to Ukraine, while Washington has participated in escalating the dangerous rhetoric. President Biden doubled down on conveying that he seeks regime change in Moscow, and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has declared that the U.S. wants the Russian military “weakened” — an approach that is opposite from Kennedy’s warning against “confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war.”
We’d be gravely mistaken to wait for Washington’s officialdom to level with us about nuclear war dangers, much less take steps to mitigate them. The power corridors along Pennsylvania Avenue won’t initiate the needed changes. The initiatives and the necessary political pressure must come from grassroots organizing.
A new “Defuse Nuclear War” coalition of about 90 national and regional organizations (which I’m helping to coordinate) launched in mid-June with a livestream video featuring an array of activists and other eloquent speakers, drawn together by the imperative of preventing nuclear war. (They included antiwar activists, organizers, scholars and writers Daniel Ellsberg, Mandy Carter, David Swanson, Medea Benjamin, Leslie Cagan, Pastor Michael McBride, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Hanieh Jodat Barnes, Judith Ehrlich, Khury Petersen-Smith, India Walton, Emma Claire Foley, retired Army Col. Ann Wright and former California Gov. Jerry Brown.)
The U.S. government’s willingness to boost the odds of nuclear war is essentially a political problem. It pits the interests of the people of the world — in desperate need of devoting adequate resources to human needs and protection of the environment — against the rapacious greed of military contractors intertwined with the unhinged priorities of top elected officials.
With Russia, China and North Korea developing their own hypersonic missile capabilities, with some being able to carry nuclear warheads, the Pentagon is feeling the pressure.
A flight test of a new US hypersonic missile system in Hawaii, named “Conventional Prompt Strike,” failed, most likely due to a problem that took place after ignition, the US Department of Defense said in a statement.
“Program officials have initiated a review to determine the cause to inform future tests,” he said. “While the Department was unable to collect data on the entirety of the planned flight profile, the information gathered from this event will provide vital insights.”
“While the Department was unable to collect data on the entirety of the planned flight profile, the information gathered from this event will provide vital insights.”Pentagon spokesman Navy Lieutenant Commander Tim Gorman
The recent failure marks the second unsuccessful test flight of the prototype weapon, in October 2021, a booster malfunction, which prevented the missile from leaving the launch pad, rendered the weapon system’s first test flight a failure as well.
The Conventional Prompt Strike weapon system is expected to be installed on Zumwalt destroyers and Virginia-class submarines.
With Russia, China and North Korea developing their own hypersonic missile capabilities, with some being able to carry nuclear warheads, the Pentagon is feeling pressure to deploy the newly developed weapon system as soon as possible.
China
The Chinese military believes hypersonic weapons will change the nature of the battle and is investing heavily to advance their capabilities.
“China tested a nuclear-capable hypersonic missile in August that circled the globe before speeding towards its target, demonstrating an advanced space capability that caught US intelligence by surprise,” according to the Financial Times.
China has been working on these missiles for decades, according to the US Defense Intelligence Agency’s 2019 China Military Power Report, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) “is developing a range of technologies to counter US and other countries’ ballistic missile defense systems, including maneuverable reentry vehicles (MARVs), MIRVs [multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles], decoys, chaff, jamming, thermal shielding, and hypersonic glide vehicles.”
On 1 October 2019, the 70th anniversary of the establishment of the People’s Republic of China, in a parade that reviewed the PLA’s troops and weapon systems, the PLA revealed a new hypersonic missile, the Dong Feng (DF) 17.
A PRC blog devoted to military affairs described the DF-17 as a “combat-ready hypersonic weapon.”
China is investing heavily in heat-seeking hypersonic weapons, claiming that they “will be able to hit a moving car at five times the speed of sound,” with a new system that is set to deploy by 2025, according to scientists involved in the project.
The research team, led by Yang Xiaogang from the PLA Rocket Force University of Engineering in Xian, said “important progress” had been made towards solving the main problem of how to pinpoint a moving target at extreme speeds.
Over distance, the infrared signature of a small moving target “constitutes just a few pixels without detailed information such as shape, texture and structure,” making identification and tracking “extremely difficult”, they explained in a paper published in the Chinese peer-reviewed journal Infrared and Laser Engineering.
The hypersonic heat-seeker would also be able to go after a target in the air, according to a separate paper in the series by Qin Hanlin from the school of optoelectronic engineering at Xidian University.
Qin and his team demonstrated a technology that would allow a hypersonic ground-to-air missile to hit a target as small as a commercial drone. The missile could identify the drone hanging low over buildings or trees with nearly 90 percent accuracy, they said.
The PLA’s hypersonic program employs about 3,000 scientists, 50 percent more than those working on traditional weapons, according to a study published in January by the Chinese peer-reviewed journal Tactical Missile Technology.
Russia
In March 2022, the Russian navy conducted a test of a prospective hypersonic missile, the ‘Zircon,’ in a demonstration of the military’s long-range strike capability amid the fighting in Ukraine.
The Admiral Gorshkov frigate of the Northern Fleet in the White Sea launched the Zircon cruise missile in the Barents Sea, successfully hitting a practice target in the White Sea about 1,000 kilometers away, according to Russia’s Defense Ministry.
Zircon is intended to arm Russian cruisers, frigates and submarines and could be used against both enemy ships and ground targets. It is one of several hypersonic missiles under development in Russia.
Russian officials have boasted about Zircon’s capability, claiming that it’s impossible to intercept with existing anti-missile systems.
Earlier, in 2018, a demonstration of the ‘Avangard’ hypersonic missile proved successful, according to the Russian Defence Ministry.
After separating from its carrier in the stratosphere, the HGV maneuvered 6000 kilometers across Siberia at a searing Mach 27, according to Russian officials, then hit a target on the Kamchatka Peninsula.
Putin’s ‘brandishing of nuclear sword’ to backfire as ‘Russia will also be destroyed’
VLADIMIR Putin will not launch a nuclear missile as if it does Russia itself would risk being wiped off the map, a military expert has said.
Russia’s ‘brandishing of nuclear sword’ discussed by expert
Mark Voyger, Senior Fellow of the Centre of European Analysis, has dismissed Vladimir Putin‘s nuclear threats as “unthinkable” as Russia would also disappear from the map if it were to execute its threat. Putin has reportedly told Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko the Kremlin will hand over nuclear-capable missile systems to Belarus in the coming months. Putin’s latest announcement follows a series of veiled nuclear threats against the West and Ukrainein its more than 100-day war against its neighbour.
Mr Voyger argues Russia is again bluffing and attempting to intimidate.
When asked about the potential for Russian response to the Kaliningrad blockade, Mr Voyger said: “For as long as the Russian army, especially the majority of the ground forces, are bogged down in Ukraine with no easy end, with no easy victory, they won’t. They won’t be able to.
“I don’t think Russia can take any offensive action at least in terms of land warfare. You know, they keep talking about brandishing the nuclear sword. But you know, global nuclear war is not the purpose of this regime, what they want. They will also be destroyed like anybody else. So, that’s out of the question.”
On the type of response he would expect, he said: “I would expect some hybrid actions, maybe pressure of course along the borders, maybe subversive moves, cyber pressure, potentially the threat of tactical nukes.
“That’s the most probable in terms of military action Russia would use. But they’re not in a position to fight NATO, especially with an additional 300,000 troops on the eastern flank. That’s unthinkable.”
According to a Kremlin readout, Putin told Lukashensko the short-range ballistic missiles systems with a range of up to 310 miles “can use both ballistic and cruise missiles, both in conventional and nuclear versions.”
Some military analysts fear the humiliation for Putin will lead Russia to deploy chemical or nuclear weapons. As a result, several world leaders have suggested offering him a way out such as giving up parts of Ukraine’s territory.
However, CIA Director William Burns told the US Congress that has not seen any “practical evidence” suggesting Putin is preparing nuclear weapons for immediate use.
In early June, Putin announced Russia will deploy the nuclear-capable missile RS-28, also known as Satan II, by the end of this year in case of a “threat” to Russia’s “sovereignty.”
Former chief Treasury Secretary David Mellor branded Putin as a “madman”, linking his deteriorating sanity to repeated nuclear threats.
“If he really is dying of various diseases that have lined up to get him, would he like to take the rest of us with him?” he asked.
In a Kremlin meeting on Tuesday, President Putin said: “Successful test of the Sarmat heavy intercontinental ballistic missile has been carried out. It is planned that the first such complex will be on combat duty by the end of the year,” according to Russian state-owned publication RIA Novosti.
Upon announcing its deployment, Putin added: “This truly unique weapon will strengthen the combat potential of our armed forces, reliably ensure Russia’s security from external threats and provide food for thought for those who, in the heat of frenzied aggressive rhetoric, try to threaten our country.”
:quality(70)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/thenational/MI5KEO6BFSTVAS4PUFNOEDVEQI.jpg)
:quality(70)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/thenational/6VUPBYD5M3RODSL23435LZFWTY.jpg)
