America Positions Itself Against Russia

US dispatches nuclear-capable B-52 bombers and 800 airmen for Nato exercises near Russia

Vasudevan Sridharan

The US Air Force has dispatched B-52 nuclear-capable bombers along with 800 airmen to Europe to take part in the Nato exercises as a show of strength against Russia. The US European Command said the units were deployed to the UK Royal Air Force base Fairford in England ahead of the training exercises with the Nato allies.
News about the latest mobilisation comes just hours after Moscow warned against Nato’s military build-up in Russia’s doorstep. Military exercises are set to take place in the Baltic Sea, the Arctic and in several Nato member states which share a border with Russia.
The US B-52H Stratofortresses bombers, capable of carrying nearly 31,000kg payload for more than 8,000 miles, are being sent as part of Washington’s bid the prepare the forces for “global challenges,” said the US European Command.
“Training with allied nations and joint partners improves coordination between nations and enables the US Air Force to build enduring relationships necessary to confront a broad range of global challenges. The strategic bomber deployment will support exercises Arctic Challenge, Saber Strike and Baltic Operations in the US European Command area of responsibility throughout the month of June 2017,” read a statement from the US European Command.
While the Arctic Challenge drills, which are taking place in Norway, Sweden, and Finland, will get over on 2 June, the Sabre Strike – war games hosted by Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia – will go on until 24 June.
In what is called as a deterrent move to counter Russia’s aggressive military posture in the region, Nato said as many as 4,600 of its troops will participate in the exercises.

B-52 Stratofortress bombers are sent to take part in Nato exercisesReuters

Speaking about the latest wargames, Russian envoy to Nato Alexander Grushko warned: “Nato countries should understand that all these efforts will not become unnoticed for us and will not stay without response in terms of military planning. With these military steps, military activities and military reinforcements, Nato is building a new military, security situation that we cannot ignore, that we should address using our own military instruments.”
Nato’s eastern states have been asked for bolster its defences ever since the Ukrainian region of Crimean peninsula became a part of Russia in 2014. Though the western world accuses Russia of annexing Crimea by force, Moscow denies the charges.

Preparing For The Great Nuclear War

US-NATO ‘Buildup on Russian Border Could Lead to Nuclear War’ – Nobel Laureate

By Sputnik

Global Research, January 13, 2017

On Thursday, US Secretary of Defense nominee James Mattis told a Senate committee in confirmation hearings that NATO must build capacity in eastern Europe to deter Russia’s alleged aggression. This came a day after Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson testified that the United States would defend NATO member states if Russia invaded.

“There is little or no evidence that Russia is being aggressive towards the NATO countries,” Caldicott, co-winner of the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize, told Sputnik. “That is a lie that the United States insists on maintaining.”

Caldicott pointed out, however, that it was the United States and NATO, not Russia, that was building up its armed forces to unprecedented levels in central and eastern Europe and exacerbating tensions in the region.

“The severely provocative buildup of military forces, ABM [anti-ballistic missile] systems and equipment on the Russian border is at the least unnecessary and at the most could lead to a nuclear war with Russia,” Caldicott warned.

Far from threatening nuclear war, the Russian government and media were warning their people about the dangers of the NATO military buildup, Caldicott claimed.

“Indeed, the Russian press and leading politicians in the Duma are now postulating that this could well be a future reality, and they are encouraging the Russian population to practice drills to shelter themselves from nuclear war,” she said.

The American public and US policymakers also need to take the threat of nuclear war and the nightmarish consequences that would flow from it far more seriously, Caldicott explained.

In the event of any thermonuclear conflict breaking out between Russia and the United States and NATO “we are all doomed to die a dreadful death of vaporization, severe burns, acute radiation sickness, or freezing and starving to death in the nuclear winter that will ensue,” Caldicott admonished.

Although US Vice President Joe Biden praised the record of outgoing President Barack Obama on reducing the threat of nuclear war during his eight years in office, Caldicott said Obama’s anti-Russian policies had made the danger far worse.

“What on earth Obama, the once-peace-maker, and [US Secretary of Defense] Ashton Carter think they are doing, God only knows unless they are obeying the dictates of their military industrial masters, who need war or the risk of such to survive economically,” Caldicott added.

Caldicott expressed the hope that President-elect Donald Trump would reverse the US force build-up in Eastern Europe after he took office on January 20.

“Once Trump is inaugurated one hopes that his close relationship with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin will lead to rapid withdrawal of these forces and a refashioning of the relationship between Russia and the United States which may ensure our survival,” she said.

Caldicott is the author of many books, including “The New Nuclear Danger: George W. Bush’s Military Industrial Complex” and “War in Heaven: The Arms Race in Outer Space.”

Russian Troops Preparing For Nuclear War

RUSSIA UPS NUCLEAR MISSILE TROOP DRILLS BY 50 PERCENT

Russia is to up the number of nuclear training drills it holds by 50 percent over the next year.

The increase will affect Russian troops of all military branches, including the Strategic Missile Troops (RVSN), responsible for maintaining the nation’s nuclear and non-atomic warheads.

Russia revamped its training exercises in the wake of its diplomatic fallout with the West over events in Ukraine in 2014—an incident that saw the country’s pro-Russian leadership toppled by a wave of pro-EU protesters.

The Kremlin responded by accusing the West of organizing the protests, before annexing Crimea from Ukraine and backing a pro-Russian insurgency in East Ukraine.

The Ministry of Defense has subsequently held more snap and mass drills to reflect the new militarized climate, and has stated that 2017 will see a further increase.

In a statement released by state news agency RIA Novosti, the troops’ command announced Tuesday that RVSN’s combat readiness drills will rise from 100 to 150 in 2017.

During each of the two annual training periods—held in the winter and summer—the troops will undergo 40 test deployments across the country in a bid to reach the highest possible battle readiness levels.

Russia’s missile drills have concerned neighbors and commentators in the past. However, experts such as former U.S. ambassador Steven Pifer have emphasized the need to look beyond Moscow’s nuclear posturing.

Pifer has claimed that Russia’s nuclear modernisation is nearing its end due to budget cuts, and has argued that the U.S. still outmatches Russia in its ability to store and deploy nuclear warheads.

Russia Enters The New Nuclear Race

Putin urges Russian nuclear weapons boost

Moscow (AFP) - Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday called for the country to reinforce its military nuclear potential and praised the army's performance in its Syria campaign.

In a speech that recapped military activities in 2016, Putin said the army's preparedness has "considerably increased" and called for continued improvement that would ensure it can "neutralise any military threat".

"We need to strengthen the military potential of strategic nuclear forces, especially with missile complexes that can reliably penetrate any existing and prospective missile defence systems," the Kremlin strongman said.

"We must carefully monitor any changes in the balance of power and in the political-military situation in the world, especially along Russian borders, and quickly adapt plans for neutralising threats to our country."

He said Russia's military had successfully demonstrated its capabilities in Syria, showcased its technology to potential arms buyers and helped the Syrian army make considerable advances.

"The Syrian army received considerable support, thanks to which it carried out several successful operations against militants," he said.

"The effective use of Russian weapons in Syria opens new possibilities for military-technical cooperation.

"We must take maximum advantage of this. We know there is interest in modern Russian weapons from foreign partners."

Russia began its bombing campaign in Syria in September 2015 in support of President Bashar al-Assad, with its special forces also operating on the ground in the country.

Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said the military had used "162 types of modern armaments during the military campaign in Syria," including its Sukhoi warplanes and MiG and Kamov helicopters.

"They have shown to be highly effective," he said.

- '35,000 fighters' -

Shoigu produced figures for the entire campaign in Syria but did not mention any estimate of civilian casualties.

Russian warplanes have "liquidated 725 training camps, 405 weapon factories and workshops, 1,500 pieces of terrorist equipment, and 35,000 fighters, including 204 field commanders," he said.

The Russian airforce has conducted a total of 18,800 sorties and carried out 71,000 strikes since the start of its campaign, Shoigu said.

"In general, the operation has allowed (us) to solve several geopolitical problems," he said.

"We have considerably damaged international terrorist organisations in Syria, stopped their expansion... (and) prevented the breakup of Syria."

Russia is prioritising its Asian partners including India and China for arms sales, he added.

Shoigu said NATO activities along Russia's western borders have grown eight-fold over the past decade, forcing Moscow to send more warplanes to prevent breaches of Russian airspace.

Next year, four additional S-400 anti-missile defence systems will be delivered to the army, and Russia will pay particular attention to its Western flank and the Arctic, he said.

"First and foremost, we will continue to increase military capabilities... take measures to reinforce troops in the western, southwestern and Arctic strategic sectors," Shoigu said.

The New Cold War (Revelation 18)

Diving into the unthinkable cold truths of a nuclear war

by Jonathan Golob - Dec 27, 2016 2:40pm MST

Nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll in the 1940s. That's a scene some of us would rather not revisit in the near future.

Last Thursday, President-elect Donald Trump issued a few statements (guess where) about America's military, with this statement as a kicker: "The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its sense regarding nukes." Though much remains to be seen about how Trump's tweets will actually translate into policy, it seems likely that nuclear war will be back on the table. Are we going to roll back decades of policy and technology to return to the Atomic Age?

Despite Trump's assertion, the world has come to its senses about nukes (and not just in Hollywood). Political consensus over issues like denuclearization has been fairly stable since the 1980s, thanks in part to scientific researchers showing what would happen to a world ravaged by nuclear bombs. One such study was The Medical Implications of Nuclear War, published by Fred Solomon and Robert Q. Marston in 1986. This rigorous and grim estimate of nuclear war's effects on our planet is written in a bleak manner for good reason: to scare us straight.

"Our national security for the past 40 years has been based on the perception that nuclear war would be unhealthy," the study begins. "Understanding what the health consequences of a nuclear war would be, as best we can know them, is very important for informed opinions and actions by citizens and by government."

It seems we're due for a reminder.

Bright, hot, then cold

Nuclear war offers a multitude of bad ways to die. The bulk of the initial deaths from a nuclear bomb come from the intense heat from the detonation itself, followed by the firestorms triggered by the blast. Extrapolating from the incendiary bomb attacks in World War II (Tokyo and Dresden being among the more infamous), the authors note, “the projected number of injured requiring medical treatment would be drastically reduced relative to that projected by blast scaling, as many injured that would otherwise require treatment would be consumed in the fires.” If not vaporized at the center of a blast, many of those who survive the initial moments would then promptly be burned alive by a raging super-fire extending for many kilometers from the hypocenter of the blast.

Almost all of the energy of a nuclear bomb (fission or fusion) is released as very short wavelength light, in the X-ray range. These soft X-rays are rapidly absorbed by the surrounding air, heating it to immense temperatures. The result is the characteristic rapidly expanding fireball you’ve seen in stock film of nuclear explosions. For a one megaton airburst fusion bomb, the initial fireball is about 1.6 km (one mile) in diameter.

Shockwaves follow, demolishing structures and tearing apart human beings for miles. For a one-megaton airburst bomb, the EM radiation released is sufficiently intense to spark fires for about a 12km diameter circle around the detonation site, resulting in an enormous firestorm. The rapidly rising column of superheated air over the firestorm generates its own wind, drawing in more material, stoking the fire, and leading to a further expansion of the conflagration.

Noxious gases from burning things that make up cities will increase the death toll by suffocating and poisoning a significant percentage of those not burnt alive from the initial blast and firestorm.

The net result is that as horrible as the human consequences of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were, modern nuclear weapons are much more likely to generate gigantic firestorms (easily a hundred square miles around an American city). With the rosier projections, there would be no survivors within a 4km radius from an air-burst one-megaton bomb over a city; all within that radius would be expected to die within minutes of the detonation. People would be severely injured for at least 18km from the center of the blast—in vast and overwhelming numbers. If one considers the effects of the resultant firestorms, it’s reasonable to expect no survivors within 10km of such a blast. (For quick reference, all of Manhattan is roughly 60 square km.)

Emerge from bunkers, battle superfires

For those who don’t perish in minutes or hours following the blast itself, the environmental consequences of a nuclear exchange become the next nightmare. The nuclear blast and resultant superfires will create massive amounts of black soot (the charred remains of the people, buildings, plants, and other material that made up the city), about 50 percent of which will be injected into the upper troposphere or stratosphere levels of the atmosphere—well above the heights where soot can be rapidly cleared. The remainder will fall as intensely radioactive black rain upon the straggling survivors below. The dark smoke high in the atmosphere will block out the Sun.

Regions below the cloud could see about a 20- to 40-degree Celsius local reduction in temperature within about a week (more during summer months, somewhat less in winter), with the most severe temperature drops persisting for weeks to months. The dramatic change in temperature would then drive winds that would further spread the cloud and the effect. The result is nuclear winter. Slowly, over years, the radioactive dust will drift down to the surface, eventually letting sunlight back through as temperatures gradually return to normal.

Radiation, curiously, contributes relatively little to the overall immediate misery after a nuclear war. The area surrounding a blast site remains intensely radioactive for days to weeks—with weather playing a big effect on the exact spread and locations of the more intense radioactivity. But radioactivity decays exponentially; the long-term effects are subtler, insidious, and include increased rates of cancer.

Exotic chemical changes to the atmosphere are possible, particularly in a larger war over multiple cities, with complex petrochemicals brewing in the upper atmosphere and comprehensive destruction of the ozone layer allowing much more ultraviolet radiation to reach the surface when sunlight returns. This results in a damaging "UV spring" following the nuclear winter. The projections here become less certain, as we lack the data to develop the right models.

Bunkers and shelters can attenuate some of the effects (mostly from the radiation, provided one is far enough away to avoid the blast and firestorm). A survivor of a nuclear war in which many nuclear devices are detonated would then contend with crumbling societies, failing crops, and chaotic, disturbed weather. For a large war, the end of modern life as we know it is probable; the extinction of humans as a species is possible.

"Everything needed for thinking clearly"

The aftermath of even a single nuclear detonation over an urban center is surreal in the sheer scope and nature of the horror induced. A larger nuclear exchange of hundreds or thousands of devices is and should be mortally terrifying to consider. Nuclear war is often described as unthinkable, but "unthinkable" is the wrong word.

In the study's forward, Dr. Lewis Thomas emphasizes the importance of researching the aftermath of such catastrophe: “Unthinkable is the word for whatever is in front of our eyes but too big to figure out, too frightening. Pay attention, in this book, to the doctors and the scientists here assembled. Everything needed for thinking clearly, wincing all the way but thinking anyway, is written down in these chapters. Anyone, any age, can read what's here and understand what we could be in for if we stay on this road. What to do is another matter, but at least the facts of the matter are laid out here. You'd better bet your life it's thinkable.”

In an era where our leaders look past the worst possibilities with blind optimism, it’s important once again to wince, read, think, and describe the "unthinkable."

Jonathan Golob is an MD-PhD physician scientist and science writer based in Seattle, Washington. His takes on modern science and medicine can be found at The Stranger and at his own personal site. His primary research interest is human microbiome research.

Trump Planning For A Nuclear Showdown With Russia

Bob Woodward: US in nuclear arms race with Russia

Mark Hensch

Journalist Bob Woodward says President-elect Donald Trump recognizes the U.S. must keep pace with Russia’s growing nuclear arsenal.

“You talk to the military and the intelligence people and they say, ‘This is a giant buildup,’” he said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Tuesday. "I think what’s happened here is Trump is responding to this.”

“This is years of work to build up the nuclear deterrence that this country has,” added Woodward, whose reporting helped expose the Watergate scandal in the 1970s. "I think if you asked Trump he’d say, ‘Yeah, that’s job one. We’ve got to do that.’”

“Our weapons are very old. They go back to the Kennedy and Reagan buildup. If you look at plans for say, new ballistic submarines, they’re 10 years away. [It’s going to be] very expensive, very controversial, so keep your seatbelts on, once again.”

Woodward said he recently spoke with retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump’s incoming national security adviser, about the president-elect's strategy for handling Russia’s nuclear weapons expansion.

“What Flynn said is that Trump is convinced that we have to modernize, spend vast amounts of money on this, and bring ourselves in a position of strength,” he said of his talk with Flynn Monday.

“It’s kind of a page from the Reagan playbook — talk tough, act tough, build up and then, I guess, presumably, negotiate,” Woodward added, referencing former President Ronald Reagan.

Trump last week tweeted about expanding America’s nuclear weapons stockpile, without making clear what inspired his remark.

“The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capacity until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes,” he said Dec. 22.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said the same day his nation must “strengthen [its] strategic nuclear forces” to handle any potential global threat.

MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski claimed last Friday Trump privately told her he is comfortable with a nuclear arms race as the U.S. can “outlast” any other nation.

Trump spokesman Jason Miller, however, clarified that the president-elect’s remarks were “referring to the threat of nuclear proliferation and the critical need to prevent it."

Trump Wants A Nuclear Arms Race

Trump on nuclear weapons tweet: "Let it be an arms race" - MSNBC

Reuters

WASHINGTON, Dec 23 (Reuters) - U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, asked to clarify his comments about expanding U.S. nuclear weapons capability, said, "Let it be an arms race," and that the United States would win it, MSNBC reported on Friday.
Trump had alarmed non-proliferation experts on Thursday with a Twitter post that said the United States "must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes."

MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski spoke with Trump on the phone and asked him to expand on his tweet. She said he responded: "Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all."

Shares of uranium producers and a nuclear fuel technology company have jumped on Trump's comments with Uranium Resources Inc, Uranium Energy Corp, Cameco Corp and Lightbridge Corp all trading higher on Friday.

It was not clear what prompted Thursday's tweet by Trump, a Republican who takes office on Jan. 20, but it came the same day Russian President Vladimir Putin said his country needed to boost its nuclear forces.

In his year-end news conference in Moscow on Friday, Putin said Trump's comment on Wednesday was not out of line and that he did not consider the United States to be a potential aggressor.

Trump spokesman Sean Spicer said in several television interviews on Friday that there would not be an arms race because the president-elect would ensure that other countries trying to step up their nuclear capabilities, such as Russia and China, would decide not to do so.

"He's going to ensure that other countries get the message that he's not going to sit back and allow that," Spicer, who was named this week as White House spokesman for the president-elect, told NBC. "And what's going to happen is they will come to their senses, and we will all be just fine." (Reporting by Eric Walsh; Additional reporting by Susan Heavey and Dan Burns; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn and Bill Trott)

Russia’s Nuclear Strategy Is Provoking A Nuclear Race

Russia’s provocative nuclear strategy

Putin’s endorsement of a limited first-use policy require an allied response

By Keith B. Payne – – Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Russian President Putin has said that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. He views the West as the culprit and a threat to Moscow’s vision of reestablishing Russian dominance over the former lands of the Soviet Union, by force if necessary. Russia’s 2008 military operation against Georgia, 2014 occupation of Crimea and continuing military actions in Ukraine all reflect this vision. Russia apparently put its nuclear forces on alert during its military operations against Georgia, and President Putin considered doing so again in 2014.
Russia has been modernizing its conventional military forces for almost a decade and seeks to prevent any significant collective Western defensive opposition by threatening limited nuclear first-use in response. Russian military officials speak openly of the preemptive employment of nuclear weapons in a conventional war, and Moscow frequently makes direct nuclear threats to U.S. allies and partners.
Russian first-use nuclear threats essentially provide cover for Moscow’s military actions that destroy the post-Cold War settlement and established European boarders. Russia’s coercive use of nuclear weapons is a new reality more dangerous than the Cold War. If Russian planning follows this declared nuclear first-use strategy, then U.S. and NATO deterrence policy already is failing in a fundamental way, and the consequences of that failure could be catastrophic.
Russia reportedly is pursuing specialized, low-yield nuclear weapons to make its first-use threats credible. In December 2002, then-director of Russia’s Sarov nuclear weapons laboratory, Viktor Mikhailov, reported that considerable work was being done to develop a “nuclear scalpel” capable of “surgically” destroying local military targets. Very low-yield weapons, Mr. Mikhailov argued, can be used in the event of large-scale conventional conflict. Such capabilities are destabilizing when developed to support territorial expansion and a strategy of nuclear coercion.
Moscow’s sophisticated propaganda complements this strategy. It vilifies the United States and NATO with what can only be described as a repetition of big lies. Russian defense expert Alexi Arbatov has observed that Russian defense and foreign policies are now based on consensus beliefs in Moscow, including the notion that the United States is using the pro-democracy opposition inside Russia to subvert the Putin regime, and that the U.S. with its allies may invade any time to seize Russia’s natural riches. Noted Russian journalist Alexander Golts rightly calls such views dangerous and self-induced “paranoia.”
Russia’s grand strategy also includes across-the-board nuclear modernization programs and defensive preparations for nuclear war, most of which appear to predate the Obama administration’s fledgling nuclear modernization programs. Again, such capabilities are destabilizing when developed to destroy the established international order via a strategy of nuclear coercion.
Nevertheless, U.S. perceptions remain divided regarding Russia and the appropriate Western policies at this point. Some claim that Russia poses no serious threat and that a robust U.S. response will serve only to provoke Russia. Senior U.S. civilian and military leaders, however, now have no doubt Russia is an “antagonist” that poses a “very, very, significant threat,” and that the absence of a robust U.S. response will provoke further Russian aggression. The key question is, what should be that response?
First, we must recognize that the optimistic post-Cold War expectations about Russia do not reflect reality and adjust U.S. policies accordingly. The numerous confident claims that serious military crises and possible conflict with Russia were a thing of the past have proven to be false, as has the U.S. planning assumption that Russia would comply with arms control treaties.
Second, we must reinvest in intelligence capabilities to better understand contemporary Russia, including its nuclear developments. Gen. Philip Breedlove, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, said recently that after nearly two decades of treating Russia as a potential ally, the intelligence community needs to adjust because, “Now we see that, possibly, we didn’t have the partner we thought we had.” The U.S. intelligence community reportedly has largely divested itself of the capacity to understand Russian nuclear-weapons policy, programs and war-planning. This is a dangerous and even destabilizing deficiency. If we hope to deter effectively, the intellectual resources necessary to understand adversaries must be reconstituted.
Third, Western declaratory policies must be clear and coordinated to help ensure that Mr. Putin understands that any use of nuclear weapons against us or our allies always would be the worst of all Moscow’s possible options.
Fourth, we need to re-establish the credibility of U.S. deterrence threats and red lines, particularly against Russian nuclear first use. U.S. and NATO nuclear capabilities must help to deny Moscow’s apparent confidence that the West would be compelled to concede following Russian nuclear first use. That gap in U.S. deterrence capabilities must be closed. Modernizing the U.S. nuclear deterrent will likely help in this regard, which is why the Obama administration’s announced programs to rebuild U.S. nuclear forces after decades of coasting and reductions are critical. Every Republican and Democratic administration for five decades ultimately has rejected the ever-smaller and narrower U.S. nuclear deterrent advocated by anti-nuclear activists in favor of a more credible U.S. deterrent with diverse capabilities.
Finally, to assure nervous allies, NATO’s will and conventional capabilities must be sufficiently united and robust to deny Mr. Putin’s claim that Russian troops could be in five NATO capitals within two days. That is a tall order, but given Moscow’s revisionist foreign policy and nuclear threats, perceptions of NATO disunity and conventional weaknesses are highly provocative and destabilizing.
We may not, metaphorically, be at 1938 again. But many current similarities to that perilous time are troubling. U.S. nuclear policies and NATO capabilities now must counter contemporary realities, particularly including Moscow’s destabilizing nuclear strategy.
• Keith B. Payne is president of the National Institute for Public Policy, department head in the Graduate School of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State University (Washington campus), and former deputy assistant secretary of defense.

India Provokes Nuclear Buildup (Daniel 8:3)

 
India’s New Secret Nuclear Facility Risks Military Build-Up in Asia
OLIVER MICHEALS

@RYOTnews

According to the report, some experts believe that the new facility and its work on creating thermonuclear weapons is a direct response to China’s assertiveness on the continent.

The new nuclear facility is said to be near the city of Mysore and parts of it may open in 2016. The construction of the site was what tipped off locals and finally journalists. Locals complained that their grazing and pastoral land was being snatched up mysteriously by the government with no answers.
An environmental group finally filed a lawsuit in 2012 and the government revealed that the land was going to the Indian military.

Little by little the real plans began to leak out.

India maintains a strict no first-use policy with its nuclear weapons. It claims that it only wants them as a deterrence.

India is not a signatory to either the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) but a rapprochement between the U.S. and India in 2007 over nuclear issues has at least seen its civilian nuclear reactors come under inspection by the IAEA.

Nebuchadnezzar Builds Up Babylon’s Nuclear Arms (Ezekiel 17)

A Trident II D5 missile built by Lockheed Martin for the Navy is tested.

Obama Backs Biggest Nuclear Arms Buildup Since Cold War

Loren Thompson, Contributor

National security is shaping up to be the top issue in next year’s presidential election. The media are awash in worries about terrorism and cyber attacks, with President Obama generally getting low marks for his handling of threats. Republican presidential candidates say he has no coherent strategy for dealing with the danger posed by radical jihadists, and complain that he has deprived the military of the funding needed to protect America.

However, there is one facet of national security — arguably the most important one — where President Obama is turning out to be a real hardliner. That area is nuclear weapons. Obama has backed investment in new nuclear delivery systems, upgraded warheads, resilient command networks, and industrial sites for fabricating nuclear hardware that, when added to the expense of maintaining the existing arsenal, will cost $348 billion between 2015 and 2024. At least, that’s what the Congressional Budget Office estimated earlier this year. If the Obama plan continues to be funded by his successors, it will be the biggest U.S. buildup of nuclear arms since Ronald Reagan left the White House.

This isn’t what most observers expected from Obama. A longtime supporter of nuclear disarmament, he gave a speech shortly after being inaugurated in 2009 highlighting “America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” He backed up that commitment with concrete actions. When his administration completed the third post-Cold War review of America’s nuclear posture in April of 2010, it called for “a multilateral effort to limit, reduce, and eventually eliminate all nuclear weapons worldwide.” A nuclear arms pact signed with Russia the same year called for cutting the number of warheads in the strategic arsenal to a quarter of the level agreed to in 1991 — about 1,500. The New York Times reported early the following year the administration wanted to cut the warhead count yet again to 1,000.

That doesn’t sound like much of an arsenal for a country that had over 30,000 nuclear warheads the year Obama began elementary school. Granted, there are several thousand additional warheads in storage or not counted by the 2010 pact, but the general trend in inventory levels has been down, down and down, and the Obama Administration began its time in office planning to stay on that vector. So what changed?

What changed was that the White House ceased believing it could work with Russia at a time when much of the Cold War nuclear arsenal was reaching an advanced state of decay. With prospects for further arms reduction agreements rapidly receding, the administration decided it had to move forward with modernization of the entire nuclear enterprise. Although plans to sustain a nuclear “triad” of land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, sea-based ballistic missiles, and long-range nuclear bombers had been endorsed by the 2010 posture review, the White House initially appeared ambivalent about spending the money needed to revitalize the nuclear arsenal. But any resistance to “recapitalizing” the arsenal disappeared after Russia began threatening Eastern Europe, and conducting nuclear exercises seemingly aimed at scaring the West.

So now Barack Obama, the longtime proponent of nuclear disarmament, finds himself presiding over a vast reconstruction of the nation’s strategic force, not to mention the introduction of new aircraft and weapons for conducting tactical nuclear operations in places like Europe. The basic goal is to dissuade any enemy from nuclear aggression by fielding a resilient retaliatory force that can survive a surprise attack, and then destroy the assets that matter most to the aggressor. The strategy is called deterrence, and in the absence of active defenses capable of intercepting a nuclear attack, it is the main bulwark America has against a threat that could destroy the Republic in a single day. Here are the key elements of the Obama buildup.

A new ballistic missile submarine. The U.S. Navy’s 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines are the most survivable part of the nuclear triad, but the subs will begin retiring at the rate of one per year toward the end of the next decade. To have a replacement ready, the Obama Administration is pushing ahead with the Ohio Replacement Program which will commence construction of a new class of subs in 2021. There will be twelve such vessels, each carrying 16 ballistic missiles equipped with multiple warheads. General Dynamics GD -0.72% Electric Boat division, builder of the Ohio class, is leading development of the next-generation subs, and will likely perform most of the construction. A separate Navy program is extending the life of the Lockheed Martin LMT -0.93% D5 missiles carried on the Ohio class, and at least initially on its successor. Both the missiles and their improved warheads will be operational for another 30 years.

A new strategic bomber. The airborne part of the nuclear triad currently consists of 76 aged B-52 bombers and 20 newer B-2s, both of which also perform non-nuclear missions. However, a senior Air Force officer told Congress earlier this year that the bombers “are becoming increasingly vulnerable to modern air defenses,” so last month the service awarded a contract to Northrop Grumman for development of a “Long Range Strike Bomber” that will provide 80-100 very stealthy successors beginning in 2025 (loser Boeing is protesting the award). Meanwhile, all of the nuclear missiles and gravity bombs carried on the bombers are being upgraded to extend their lives, improve their accuracy, and assure their safety. A new air-launched cruise missile is also planned, but the administration is taking no chances, pouring billions of dollars into enhancing the performance and connectivity of the existing fleet.

A new intercontinental ballistic missile.  The third leg of the nuclear triad consists of 450 Minuteman III missiles deployed in hardened silos at three bases in the western U.S.  The Air Force is spending $7 billion to modernize the propulsion systems, guidance, warheads and other elements of the Minuteman force, but the force’s projected service life only extends to 2030.  In 2014, the command responsible for managing the missiles conducted an analysis of alternatives for developing a next-generation “Ground Based Strategic Deterrent,” meaning a new ICBM.  InsideDefense.com reports that the Air Force will begin operating the new missile in 2027.  Missile silos and launch control centers, which have become quite decrepit, will be renovated for decades of additional service.  A parallel effort is under way to upgrade the warheads carried on ICBMs, substituting more powerful weapons from the retired MX missile.

An enhanced command, control & communications network.  Credible deterrence requires a resilient command system that can ride out a surprise attack and then execute appropriate responses (there are numerous retaliatory options in nuclear war plans).  The network of assets supporting this system includes sensors that can detect an attack, flying command posts, hardened underground operations centers, secure communications satellites, and a complex array of links between them.  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that administration plans for modernizing the nuclear command and control system will cost $52 billion between 2015 and 2024, with the biggest outlays going to Boeing for flying command posts, Lockheed Martin for satellites, and Northrop Grumman for sensors and networks.  Raytheon will also likely be a key player in nuclear-related sensors and networks.

New tactical nuclear systems.  Although the Obama nuclear posture has sought to minimize the role of nuclear weapons outside the area of strategic deterrence, the administration faces a practical problem in countering thousands of tactical nuclear systems that Russia has deployed in Europe.  Under the doctrine of “extended deterrence,” the U.S. must have credible retaliatory options for dealing with the regional threat that these weapons pose in order to reassure its overseas allies.  The administration therefore plans to equip at least some Lockheed Martin F-35 fighters with a capability to deliver tactical nuclear weapons, and is upgrading the inventory of nuclear munitions suitable for conducting such operations.

A revitalized nuclear weapons industrial base.  Much of the responsibility for supporting the U.S. nuclear posture resides not in the Department of Defense, but in the Department of Energy.  DoE is expected to spend $121 billion between 2015 and 2024 on its nuclear-weapons functions, over a third of the $348 billion spent on the nuclear enterprise during that period.  A big chunk of that money will go to the laboratories and industrial facilities involved in researching, refurbishing, modifying or demilitarizing nuclear devices.  Although the U.S. no longer builds new nuclear warheads, it is constantly reclaiming nuclear material from old devices and enhancing the features of warheads already in the stockpile.  That requires extensive investment in revitalizing the plant and equipment at facilities that often trace their origins to the dawn of the Cold War.

Some might quibble with using the word “buildup” to characterize this sprawling effort, since the Obama Administration does not plan to exceed weapons levels specified in arms reduction agreements.  However, the reality is that President Obama is backing efforts to upgrade and replace every nuclear delivery system in the U.S. arsenal, plus the warheads they carry, plus the command networks and industrial base that supports them.  None of his recent predecessors undertook nuclear efforts this ambitious — the Arms Control Association says the life-cycle cost of the new submarine alone will be over $300 billion through 2080 — and whether the arsenal shrinks or grows will be left to his successors.  So for all of the criticism about Mr. Obama being weak on defense, when it comes to the most fearsome weapons humanity has devised, he will be remembered as the president who kept America on top.

(Disclosure: All of the companies mentioned here have contributed to my think tank at one time or another; some are consulting clients.)

Babylon Vs. Russia (Daniel 7:7)

Russia Announces Nuclear Arms Race With U.S.

By Polina Tikhonova on November 14, 2015 5:23 am in Politics, Russia

 

With the Pentagon’s top expert on Russia warning that Moscow is ready to use nuclear weapons against the U.S. and its allies, Russian President Vladimir Putin has just made a series of strong statements about his nation’s nukes.

In what appears to be an announcement of the start of a nuclear arms race with the U.S., Putin said Russia is developing strike systems capable of penetrating any missile defense shield, including America’s missile defense shields.

“We’ll be working on the anti-missile defense system as well, but at the first stage, as we have said on many occasions, we’ll also be working on strike systems capable of penetrating any anti-missile defense shield,” Putin said at a meeting on the development of the Russian Armed Forces, as reported by ITAR-TASS.

Putin at the meeting, they will continue discussing the development of such nuclear weapons, which could get the Russian Armed Forces ahead of the U.S. in terms of military capabilities and present a direct response to U.S. efforts to “neutralize nuclear potential of Russia.”

“The references to the Iranian and North Korean nuclear threats only disguise true plans. And their true purpose is to neutralize the strategic nuclear potential of other nuclear states, except the United States and its allies, first of all, the nuclear potential of our country, Russia,” Putin said.

Putin: Russia will take all measures to strengthen its nuclear force

The Russian president also said that the U.S. and its allies will continue building the global missile defense system, but, “Unfortunately, they are not taking into account either our concerns or proposals for cooperation,” Putin added.

Putin also said Russia does not believe that the U.S. missile defense shield is being developed to counter a potential threat from Iranian ballistic missiles, on which the U.S. and its allies have been trying to assure Moscow on many occasions.

“However, we know that the situation with the Iranian nuclear problem has been settled and the relevant agreements have been signed. Moreover, they have been approved by the relevant parliaments. Nevertheless, the work on anti-missile defense systems is continuing,” Putin said.
So the Kremlin believes that the references to the Iranian and North Korean nuclear threats are mere excuses for the Washington’s true plans to deter Russia’s nuclear capabilities.

“And the US true goals are to neutralize the strategic nuclear potential of other nuclear states, except the United States and its allies, first of all, the nuclear potential of our country, Russia. Hence the desire to get decisive supremacy with all ensuing consequences,” Putin said.

Russia’s nuclear weapon to bypass NATO radars and all existing defense systems

During the broadcast of Putin’s meeting with senior generals and representatives from the arms industry, a secret document revealing Russia’s plans to develop a nuclear torpedo system was accidentally shown on state-owned television. In what Moscow claims was an accident, a close-up of the secret document detailing the “Ocean Multipurpose System: Status-6” was shown for a few seconds by state-controlled Channel One Russia and NTV during the broadcast of the senior military meeting. The document said the submarine-fired nuclear torpedoes will be capable of destroying their targets, creating “zones of extensive radioactive contamination making them unsuitable for military or economic activity for a long period.”

Russia Today later reported that the deadly nuclear weapon is developed to bypass NATO radars and all existing defense systems to hit coastal areas of the Alliance. The “oceanic multiple-target Status-6 system” is designed to “destroy important economic installations of the enemy in coastal areas and cause guaranteed devastating damage to the country’s territory by creating wide areas of radioactive contamination, rendering them unusable for military, economic or other activity for a long time,” according to the secret document.

Has Russia just shown off its nuclear strength?

The submarine-fired nuclear torpedoes will create “wide areas of radioactive contamination,” the document says. With many analysts believing that the “secret” document was broadcast on purpose to show off Russia’s nuclear capabilities, the Kremlin seems to have taken measures to take down the clip. Other documents seen in the broadcast had been blurred in the footage, and the clip was later deleted, but the screenshots have managed to get leaked on the Internet. Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s official spokesman, said “measures” would be taken to avoid any similar leaks of Russia’s secret documents.

“It’s true some secret data got into the shot, therefore it was subsequently deleted,” he told journalists, as reported by the Washington Free Beacon. “In future we will undoubtedly take preventive measures so this does not happen again,” Peskov added. However, he refused to comment on speculation that Moscow may have staged the “accident” as a show off of its nuclear strength.

Last week, The Wall Street Journal reported that some 4,000 NATO combat troops will be stationed in countries neighboring Russia. In Poland and the Baltics of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, from 800 to 1,000 troops will be stationed amid the coldest tensions between Moscow and Washington since the end of the Cold War. The NATO’s decision has a high chance to unleash military confrontation between the world’s two largest nuclear powers: the U.S. and Russia.

And a nuclear war involving the U.S., NATO and Russia “would probably spell, if not the end of humanity, the end of any possibility of a comfortable future for humanity,” as reported by ValueWalk, citing Press TV’s interview with Don DeBar, U.S. political analyst.

China Horn Accelerates Nuclear Race (Daniel 7:7)

China triggers regional nuclear race

by Angus Grigg 

 

As China paraded nuclear weapons past Tiananmen Square in Beijing on Thursday, defence planners were contemplating a far larger nuclear expansion across the region.

While the land-based nuclear arsenal seen in the Chinese capital was suitably menacing – despite going by the benign name “East Wind”– the bigger strategic battle is happening below the water. That is submarines equipped with nuclear weapons.

According to a new paper from the Lowy Institute, both China and India are moving from the “test and design” phase to active deployment of sea-based nuclear weapons.

“The deployment of these weapons will exacerbate existing regional tensions,” said the paper’s authors Brendan Thomas-Noone and Rory Medcalf.

Add into this mix the prospect of Pakistan and North Korea obtaining similar capabilities and the author’s are understandably sanguine about the ability of such weapons to act as a deterrent or force for stability across the region.

“Stability in the new Indo-Pacific nuclear balance remains many years away, and will be precarious even if attained,” they wrote.

Much of this instability can be attributed to China which has spent the last decade modernising its military and now has the world’s second-biggest defence budget behind the US.

According to the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London, China accounts for 38 per cent of defence spending in Asia, up 10 percentage points in just four years.

Such a rapid rise has forced its neighbours to respond, including Japan which said late last month it would seek parliamentary approval for its largest ever defence budget.

But Beijing’s ambitions are not just confined to its submarines, which ventured into the Indian Ocean for the first time in 2013.

According to Taiwan’s Defence Ministry, China is building two new aircraft carriers to complement its existing vessel, bought from Ukraine in 1998.

The report obtained by Reuters said the ships were being built in Shanghai and Dalian, but gave no timeframe on when they might be operational.

China’s existing aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, has taken part in military exercises, but is not expected to be fully operational for some years.

It got a small mention during Thursday’s giant military parade through central Beijing where the focus was on China’s home-grown military technology.

In keeping with this spirit, President Xi Jinping eschewed the traditionally western suit favoured by most Chinese leaders these days.

Instead, he chose a slate-grey, high buttoned suit made famous by Sun Yat-sen, but named after the founder of Communist China, Mao Zedong.

On social media the suit created some buzz, but more comments were made about Xi’s decision not to wear a military uniform. This and his left handed salute were interpreted as signs that China was not a war.

It should be noted that while the Mao suit is meant to represent “proletarian unity”, it also symbolises “permanent revolution”, a concept favoured by Mao.

During a 2014 state dinner in the Netherland, Xi was also seen in a Mao suit, which Xinhua said “displayed the leader’s national pride and confidence in Chinese culture”.

There was plenty of this confidence on display during Thursday’s parade as Xi inspected the troops in an open top car, occasionally shouting “good morning comrades” and “hard working comrades”.
In a brief address before the parade, he announced a troop cut of 300,000 for the People’s Liberation Army, which is the fourth reduction in 35 years.

Then it was on with the parade where Xi’s protestations of China’s “peaceful rise” were somewhat undermined by the official commentary.

“Look at this missile, it can hit Hawaii,” said one commentator. Other state media also made no attempt to down-play the capability of the weapons on display.

Xinhua’s official Twitter account posted a photo of the Dongfeng 21D taking part in the parade and referred to it as the “carrier killer”, as has the missile has the potential to destroy an aircraft carrier from over 900 kilometres away.

Other posts included photos of China’s inter-continental strategic missiles, which Xinhua said were “designed to carry nuclear warheads”.

South Korea And Saudi Arabia Nuclear Horns (Dan 7:7)

 
S Arabia, S Korea sign MOU on nuclear power
Mar 04 2015 19:05

Khobar – Saudi Arabia and South Korea have signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to co-operate on the development of nuclear energy, Saudi state news agency SPA said, building on a deal signed in 2011.

South Korean President Park Geun-hye met with Saudi Arabia’s King Salman on Tuesday in Riyadh during an official visit, SPA said.The MOU calls for South Korean firms to help build at least two small-to-medium sized nuclear reactors in Saudi Arabia, the South Korean presidential office said in a statement.”If the two units go ahead, the cost of the contract will be (near) $2bn,” the statement said.Saudi Arabia aims to build 17GW of nuclear power by 2032 as well as around 41GW of solar capacity. The oil exporter currently has no nuclear power.

Those plans are likely to take until 2040, the head of the King Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable Energy (K.A.CARE), in charge of overseeing such projects, said in January.

On Tuesday, K.A.Care said in a statement: “The two sides will discuss the current mutual activities and ways and means of future collaboration, building on the bilateral agreement already signed between the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Republic of South Korea in 2011 with a view to develop and apply nuclear energy for peaceful uses.”

That agreement called for cooperation in research and development, as well as in construction and training.

Separately, Saudi Electricity signed four energy-related agreements on Tuesday with US company General Electric as well as South Korea’s Korea Electric Power Corp (Kepco) , Doosan Heavy Industries and Construction and Eximbank.

The KEPCO agreement calls for co-operation in development of nuclear and renewable energy.
Al Hassan Ghazi Ibrahim Shaker Co. also signed a non-binding MOU with South Korea’s LG Electronics on co-operation in cooling systems for nuclear reactors.

The United Arab Emirates was the first Gulf Arab state to start building a nuclear power plant. In December 2009, the UAE awarded a group led by Kepco a contract to build four 1 400MW nuclear reactors to meet surging demand for electricity.

Middle East Nuclear Race Heats Up (Daniel 7)

The Middle East Nuclear Race Is Already Under Way

• Karl Vick @karl_vick

March 23, 2015

With the exception of Israel, which has never publicly acknowledged its widely known nuclear arsenal, no Middle Eastern country beyond Iran had a nuclear program — peaceful or otherwise — until the wealthy United Arab Emirates began building a reactor in July 2012 (due for completion in 2017). The list now includes, in addition to Egypt, Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia — the last Iran’s archrival, and which last year revealed plans to build 16 nuclear plants over the next two decades. When the President of South Korea — which has 23 nuclear plants of its own — visited the Kingdom earlier this month, leaders of both countries signed a memo of understanding calling for Seoul to build two of the nuclear plants. The Saudis have made similar arrangements with China, Argentina and France.

“It’s not just because nuclear power is seen as a first step toward a nuclear-weapons option,” says Mark Fitzpatrick, a former U.S. State Department nuclear expert who now runs the nonproliferation and disarmament program at London’s International Institute for Strategic Studies. “There is also a prestige factor: keeping up with the neighbors.”

Middle Eastern nations may have legitimate reasons to invest in nuclear energy. Jordan, for instance, has almost no oil in liquid form, and almost less water. Saudi Arabia and the UAE possess huge crude reserves, but lose potential export revenue when they burn oil at home to create electricity — huge amounts of which are sucked up by desalination plants. Turkey, despite impressive hydroelectric potential, must import oil and natural gas.

But all that has been true for decades. What’s changed in recent years is the nuclear capabilities of Iran — a Shi‘ite Muslim country Sunni leaders have come to regard as major threat. Jordan’s King Abdullah II famously warned of a “Shia crescent” of Iran-aligned countries reaching from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf. The Saudis have made it clear that they will acquire a nuclear weapon should Iran get one.

 “This is not the shortest way to a nuclear weapon, by any means,” says Sharon Squassoni, director of the proliferation-prevention program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. “But if I put myself in their shoes, I’d think it probably makes sense to start down this path to see if we can develop a civilian nuclear [program], and if we pick up some capabilities along the way, that’s all right.”

Suspicion rises with every new announcement partly because the Middle East is bucking a global trend. Worldwide, the number of nuclear plants has declined since the meltdown at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant in 2011. Reactions differed by country. Germany forswore nuclear energy altogether after the disaster, while China pressed ahead, planning more than 100 new reactors. But in most places, the environmental risks and high costs have turned countries off nuclear power.

“My beef with nuclear energy is that it’s sort of held up as this very prestigious thing,” Squassoni tells TIME. “We do nuclear deals with our best allies … all this stuff about strategic partnership. And really, it’s this extremely expensive, complicated, slightly dangerous way to boil water. And that’s what you’re doing, right? You’re boiling water to turn those turbines.”

The expense alone may prevent some Middle Eastern nations from every actually joining the “nuclear club.” Building an atomic plant costs at least $5 billion, Fitzpatrick notes, and Egypt is desperately poor; Jordan relies heavily on remittances and foreign aid. But the Saudis still have money to burn and, according to former White House official Gary Samore, have consistently rebuffed U.S.

imprecations to sign a pledge not to divert any nuclear program toward producing a bomb (a pledge the UAE took). Saudi Arabia has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but then so has Iran, and in the end a race can be run by as few as two: India and Pakistan, bitter neighbors, neither of which are rich, went nuclear in 1974 and 1998, respectively. They’ve gone to war once since, raising anxiety levels around the world.

So the talks in Switzerland are about more than preventing Iran from getting the bomb. They are also about persuading Iran’s neighbors that the nuclear option is effectively off the table. If the talks end with a final agreement that looks like a win for the Islamic Republic, diplomats say its neighbors will fast track their own plans. “If the accord is not sufficiently solid then regional countries would say it’s not serious enough, so we are also going to get the nuclear weapon,” French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told Europe 1 Radio on Saturday. “And that would lead to an extremely dangerous nuclear proliferation.”