Babylon the Great’s Nuclear Horn

This Pictures Should Terrify Russia, North Korea and China Like Nothing Else
The bomber’s weapons bay could end up being more of a mission payload bay, with surveillance, communications, drone or electronic warfare packages loaded inside to facilitate a variety of missions, particularly in denied environments. The Raider is on the path to being America’s first multirole bomber.
On October 27, 2015, nearly thirty-four years to the day after Northrop Grumman was awarded the contract to develop the first stealth bomber, the U.S. Air Force awarded Northrop a contract for a new bomber: the B-21 Raider. While many of the details of the Raider are shrouded in mystery, we do know a few things about it, and can infer others.
(This first appeared last year.)
The B-21 Raider bomber takes its name from both the twenty-first century and the legendary 1942 raid by Gen. James “Jimmy” Doolittle’s force of B-25 Mitchell bombers against targets in and around Tokyo, Japan. In invoking the Doolittle Raid, the Air Force is drawing attention to attack’s audacious nature, the strategic and tactical surprise, and the epic distances General Doolittle and his “raiders” flew to accomplish their mission.
A tailless, batlike aircraft, the official rendering of the B-21 Raider released by the Air Force bears a superficial resemblance to the B-2 Spirit bomber. There are important distinctions, however. The B-21 moves its engines closer to the wing root, where they occupy the juncture between wing and fuselage, whereas the B-2’s twin pairs of General Electric F118-GE-100 engines are distinctly apart from the fuselage on the wing. The Raider’s engine air intakes are angled and not serrated like those on the B-2 Spirit. The Raider also has overwing exhausts to mask the infrared signature of the four engines, unlike the B-2. (Interestingly, this is exactly how the B-2’s exhausts were depicted in an April 1988 artist’s conception of that bomber.)
The aircraft appears similar in size to the B-2 Spirit, almost certainly making it a four-engine bomber. The  announcement of Pratt and Whitney in 2016  as a B-21 subcontractor narrows down the new bomber’s engines to two designs: the F-100 and the F-135. The mature F-100, which powers the F-15 Eagle series of fighters, seems a sound choice, but the Air Force may want the F-135, which powers the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, for its growth potential and ability to lower engine costs for the F-35 fleet.
Like its predecessor, the B-21 Raider will be a heavy strategic bomber designed to carry both nuclear and conventional weapons. If the B-2 is of similar size, it follows it will carry a similar amount of ordinance. This means two bomb bays. In order to keep costs down, the Air Force may elect to reuse the Advanced Applications Rotary Launcher from the B-2 bomber. The AARL is fitted one per bomb bay, each capable of carrying eight bombs or missiles.
In the nuclear mission, the Air Force will arm the B-21 with the Long-Range Stand-Off (LRSO) missile, the next-generation stealthy nuclear cruise missile. It will also carry B-61 free-fall nuclear gravity bombs, particularly the new  B61-12 bomb  with “dial-a-yield” capability. A combination of these two weapons will allow the B-21 to use its stealthy cruise missiles to clear a path through the enemy air-defense network before dropping B-61 bombs on primary and secondary targets.
For conventional missions, the B-21 will carry the  JASSM-ER conventional cruise missile  and two-thousand-pound  GBU-31 Joint Directed Attack Munition  satellite-guided bombs. The B-21 could use these weapons in a similar manner as its nuclear weapons, blasting its way through the enemy’s defenses before dropping JDAMs. Alternately, the B-21 could be used as a missile truck, launching up to sixteen JASSM-ERs at enemy targets from a distance, or penetrating less sophisticated enemy defenses to deliver JDAMs on target. The B-21 will also need to carry the thirty-thousand-pound  Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb , the largest conventional bomb in the U.S. arsenal, as the B-2 is currently the only bomber capable of lifting the enormous bomb.
Like many new weapons systems, the Air Force has instructed Northrop Grumman to build the bomber with a so-called “open architecture” hardware and software system. As a result, unlike previous bombers, the B-21 could become much more than just a heavy bomber. The open-architecture specification should ensure that future upgrades will be relatively easy to integrate into the B-21, and for the bomber to adapt to a slew of new, different missions. The bomber’s weapons bay could end up being more of a mission payload bay, with surveillance, communications, drone or electronic warfare packages loaded inside to facilitate a variety of missions, particularly in denied environments. The Raider is on the path to being America’s first multirole bomber.
The B-21 Raider is set to fly in the mid-2020s, and the Air Force plans to buy at least a hundred of the bombers to replace the B-52H Stratofortress and B-1B Lancer bombers. A larger fleet of up to two hundred bombers is possible, but entirely bound to fiscal realities. We don’t know what the Raider in its final form will look like, or when the Air Force will release more information on an aircraft it wants to carefully protect. The B-21 has disappeared into the “black” world of military technology, and will only reemerge when the bomber is ready.
Kyle Mizokami is a defense and national-security writer based in San Francisco who has appeared in the  Diplomat, Foreign Policy, War is Boring  and the  Daily Beast.  In 2009 he cofounded the defense and security blog Japan Security Watch. You can follow him on Twitter:  @KyleMizokami.

US Ready to Break Russian Nuclear Deal

Pompeo says US suspending landmark nuclear deal because of Russian violations
By Conor Finnegan
Dec 4, 2018, 1:48 PM
One of the key treaties that helped to end the Cold War and reduce nuclear tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union and now Russia could be dead within a matter of months.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced at NATO Headquarters Tuesday that the U.S. will suspend its obligations under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty in 60 days because of Russia's continued violations of the treaty, shortly after NATO's foreign ministers affirmed its support for that conclusion in a new joint statement.
"We had a party-- a treaty that had two parties, only one of which is compliant!" Pompeo said Tuesday in Brussels, Belgium. "That's not an agreement, that's just self-restraint, and it strategically no longer made sense to remain in that position."
President Trump and National Security Adviser John Bolton had previously suggested the U.S. would withdraw from the treaty, but Pompeo's announcement Tuesday officially starts the clock.
The decision comes as the U.S. seeks to counter a "larger pattern of Russian lawlessness on the world stage," according to Pompeo, but also to take on China's growing military power, with the top U.S. diplomat warning the treaty gives China a military advantage. But to some arms control experts and Democrats in Congress, the decision was a hasty one that will make the world less safe.
The U.S. will remain in compliance for the next 60 days and then begin the six-month notice period before withdrawal, he said, adding that if Russia comes back into compliance before then, the U.S. could remain in the agreement.
"We would welcome a Russian change of heart, a change in direction, the destruction of their program, and their followed-on continuance of the terms of the treaty, and so over the next 60 days they have every chance to do so," he said. "But there's been no indication to date that they have any intention of doing so."
Pompeo said there is "complete unity" among NATO members on this decision, and it comes after the Foreign Ministers of NATO released a joint statement that says Russia's development and deployment specifically of the 9M729 missile system "poses significant risks to Euro-Atlantic security" and "is in material breach of its obligations under the INF Treaty," paving the way for U.S. withdrawal.
The U.S. has remained in compliance of the treaty, the group added, despite claims by Russia to the contrary.
Russia has denied violating the INF treaty, at first denying the existence of the weapons system and then later admitting it existed but arguing it was in compliance.

President Donald Trump and Russia's President Vladimir Putin arrive for a meeting at Finland's Presidential Palace on July 16, 2018 in Helsinki.
Russia's violations of the landmark nuclear treaty are also part of a "larger pattern of Russian lawlessness on the world stage," Pompeo added, citing its invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, its intervention in Syria in support of the Assad regime, its election interference in the U.S. and other countries, its use of a nerve agent against an ex-spy in the U.K., and most recently its seizure of Ukrainian ships and sailors in international waters.
But Pompeo did give other reasons for U.S. withdrawal, including the fact that China is not a party to the treaty and is beefing up its military capabilities.
China, North Korea, and Iran are not obligated by the treaty's limitations, and, "This leaves them free to build all the intermediate range missiles they would like," he said. "There is no reason the United States should continue to cede this crucial military advantage to revisionist powers like China, in particular when these weapons are being used to threaten and coerce the United States and its allies in Asia."
There was no immediate response in Moscow to Pompeo's announcement, but Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoygu said earlier on Tuesday that he and President Vladimir Putin had discussed how to take measures to increase Russian troops' "military capabilities" in response to a potential new "arms race."

Russian President Vladimir Putin, left, and U.S. National security adviser John Bolton shake hands during their meeting in the Kremlin in Moscow, Oct. 23, 2018.
"Measures were looked at for increasing the military capabilities of troops and forces in the conditions of an arms race, connected with the plans of the U.S. to withdraw from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty," Shoigu said, according to Russian-state media.
President Trump lamented this possible arms race in a tweet Monday, calling on Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping to meet to "start talking about a meaningful halt to what has become a major and uncontrollable Arms Race."
I am certain that, at some time in the future, President Xi and I, together with President Putin of Russia, will start talking about a meaningful halt to what has become a major and uncontrollable Arms Race. The U.S. spent 716 Billion Dollars this year. Crazy!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 3, 2018
It's that concern that upset Congressional Democrats, blasting the administration's decision as a dangerous move that "play[s] directly into President Putin's plans," according to Rep. Adam Smith, the incoming Democratic chair of the House Armed Services Committee.
"The Trump administration should instead work with our allies to take meaningful actions to hold Russia accountable for its violation of the treaty, press Russia back into compliance, and avoid a new arms race," said Smith, D-Washington, in a statement.
ABC News's Patrick Reevell contributed to this report from Moscow.

Democrats Try to Take Away Trump’s Nuclear Option

Democrats going nuclear to rein in Trump's arms buildup
Control of the House will give them 'the power of no — the ability to block programs, cut funding, withhold agreement.'
By BRYAN BENDER 11/24/2018 07:15 AM EST
Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) who is set to become the first progressive in decades to run the House Armed Services Committee. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Democrats preparing to take over the House are aiming to roll back what they see as President Donald Trump's overly aggressive nuclear strategy.
Their goals include eliminating money for Trump’s planned expansion of the U.S. atomic arsenal, including a new long-range ballistic missile and development of a smaller, battlefield nuclear bomb that critics say is more likely to be used in combat than a traditional nuke.
They also want to stymie the administration's efforts to unravel arms control pacts with Russia. And they even aim to dilute Trump's sole authority to order the use of nuclear arms, following the president’s threats to unleash “fire and fury” on North Korea and other loose talk about doomsday weapons.
The incoming House majority will have lots of leverage, even with control of only one chamber in the Capitol, veterans of nuclear policy say. They point to precedents in which a Democratic-controlled House cut funding for Ronald Reagan’s MX nuclear missile and a Democratic-led Congress canceled the development of a new atomic warhead under George W. Bush.
"They can block funding for weapon systems," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association in Washington. "The Democrats’ ascendancy will prove a much-needed check on the Trump administration's nuclear weapons policy and approaches."
Leading the charge is Rep. Adam Smith of Washington state, who is set to become the first progressive in decades to run the House Armed Services Committee, which is responsible for setting defense policy through the annual National Defense Authorization Act.
Smith has long criticized both President Barack Obama and Trump’s $1.2 trillion, 30-year plan to upgrade all three legs of the nuclear triad — land-based missiles, submarines and bombers — as both unaffordable and dangerous overkill.
He's made it clear in recent days that revamping the nation's nuclear strategy will be one of his top priorities come January, when he is widely expected to take the gavel of the largest committee in Congress.
"The rationale for the triad I don't think exists anymore. The rationale for the numbers of nuclear weapons doesn't exist anymore," Smith told the Ploughshares Fund, a disarmament group, at a recent gathering of the Democratic Party's nuclear policy establishment.
The daylong conference included leading lawmakers, former National Security Council aides, peace activists and an ex-secretary of Defense, William Perry, who was once an architect of many of the nation's nuclear weapons but is now a leading proponent for a major downsizing.
Arms control and disarmament groups see Smith's emergence as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to craft a much more sensible approach to nuclear weapons and reduce the danger of a global conflict.
The mere appearance of a would-be Armed Services chairman at the recent gathering demonstrated how much circumstances have changed.
"I have never seen a chairman give nuclear policy such a high priority, have such personal expertise in the area, and be so committed to dramatic change," said Joe Cirincione, president of Ploughshares Fund.
Cirincione served as a staffer to then-Rep. Les Aspin (D-Wis.), who chaired the panel during the fierce debates over nuclear weapons policies in the 1980s, which he sees as an instructive period for today.
"I know that a Democratic House can have a major impact on nuclear policy," he said. "It is the power of no — the ability to block programs, cut funding, withhold agreement to dangerous new policies. Democrats may not be able to enact new policies, but they can force compromises."
High on the priority list is halting or delaying the development of a planned new nuclear bomb that would have less explosive power than a more traditional atomic bomb. The Trump administration's Nuclear Posture Review called for the so-called low-yield weapon last year.
Advocates assert that the weapon, to be launched from a submarine, will provide military commanders with more options and better deter nations such as Russia, China, North Korea and Iran that are building up their own nuclear arsenals. Such a modest nuke would not destroy a city but would devastate a foreign army — and adversaries would have reason to fear that the U.S. might use it in a first strike.
But Smith, who will also influence the House Appropriations Committee's recommendations for Pentagon funding, insists such a new weapon "brings us no advantage and it is dangerously escalating."
"It just begins a new nuclear arms race with people just building nuclear weapons all across the board in a way that I think places us at greater danger," he told Ploughshares Fund.
Democrats are expected to revive legislation proposed earlier this fall in both the House and Senate to try to roll back the program.
“There’s no such thing as a low-yield nuclear war," said Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), one of the co-sponsors, who also gave his pitch at the Ploughshares Fund gathering this month. "Use of any nuclear weapon, regardless of its killing power, could be catastrophically destabilizing."
Leading Democrats also have their sights on a new intercontinental ballistic missile that is under development as the future land-based leg of the nuclear triad. The Ground Based Strategic Deterrent is set to replace current ICBMs that are deployed in underground silos in Western states such as Montana, Wyoming and North Dakota.
"The ICBM is where the debate will focus," predicted Mieke Eoyang, vice president of national security at Third Way, a centrist think tank, and a former aide on the House Intelligence Committee.
One key argument will be cost, she added.
"People make the case for all three legs of the triad, but when you look at the budget situation, the Pentagon is going to have to make some tough choices," Eoyang said in an interview. "The modernization of the triad is a big-ticket item that comes over and above what current Defense Department needs are — at a time when budget pressures are coming the other way."
Critics also argue that the ICBM has outlived its usefulness.
Perry, who served as Pentagon chief for President Bill Clinton, has argued that the land-based ICBM is the leg of the triad that is most prone to miscalculation and an accidental nuclear war. He said submarine- and aircraft-launched nuclear weapons would provide a sufficient deterrent on their own.
But not everyone thinks cutting one leg of the triad will be easy. They cite the political clout of defense contractors and their political supporters in both parties, including the so-called ICBM Caucus — especially in the Senate, which will remain under Republican control.
"They won't be able to take on the triad," warned former Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass.), executive director of the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, who chaired the national security and foreign affairs panel of the Government Oversight and Reform Committee.
But Tierney and others said the House can pursue other areas for reshaping nuclear policy — and force the Senate to take up their proposals.
One way is to revive legislation adopting a "no first use" policy for nuclear weapons, declaring that a president could not order the use of nuclear weapons without a declaration of war from Congress.
"We want to avoid the miscalculation of stumbling into a nuclear war," Smith said. "And this is where I think the No First Use Bill is incredibly important: to send that message that we do not view nuclear weapons as a tool in warfare."
The unfolding strategy will also rely on inserting new reporting requirements in defense legislation as a delaying tactic on some nuclear efforts or to compel the administration to reconsider its opposition to some arms control treaties.
While the president negotiates treaties and the Senate is vested with the constitutional authority to ratify them, the House also has some power to force the administration's hand.
Trump, citing Russian violations, has threatened to pull out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty that Reagan signed with the then-Soviet Union in 1987. He recently sent national security adviser John Bolton to Moscow to relay the message.
But critics say the landmark treaty, which banned land-based missiles with ranges from 50 to 5,500 kilometers, is still worth trying to salvage with the Russians. And Democrats can try to force the Trump administration to curtail plans for a new cruise missile that would match the Russians.
The Democrats can put the cruise missile "back on its heels," Tierney said. "Sometimes they can delay, sometimes defeat."
Democrats also worry that the Trump administration will opt to not renew the New START Treaty with Russia, which expires in early 2021. That pact, reached in 2010, mandates that each side can have no more than 1,550 deployed nuclear weapons and requires regular inspections to ensure each side is complying.
Trump and his advisers "are opposed to multilateralism just based on principle," Smith told the crowd of arms control advocates. "That is John Bolton’s approach, that he doesn’t want to negotiate with the rest of the world, almost regardless of what it is that we negotiate."
But Kimball, who met recently with Smith, said Democrats have options on that front, too.
"If the Trump administration threatens to allow New START to expire in 2021, the Democrats are not under any obligation to fund the administration's request for nuclear weapons," Kimball said.
He pointed out that Obama secured bipartisan Senate support for ratifying the New START treaty in return for a pledge to increase spending on upgrading the nuclear arsenal and new missile defense systems. "That linkage works the other way, too," Kimball said.
What is clear is that the nuclear arms control crowd sees Smith as the best hope for change in many years.
"I don't think it is going to be easy, but we see a chance that we haven't seen in a long time to have a different path forward on nuclear weapons," said Stephen Miles, director of Win Without War, an antiwar group. "There isn't enough money available for the wild plans we had before, let alone Trump's new objectives."

Babylon the Great Withdraws from Nuclear Treaty

US makes case for withdrawal from missile treaty with Russia
Maria Danilova, The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — Russia has for years been developing, testing and deploying a missile that violates a landmark nuclear weapons treaty, a senior White House official said Tuesday, making a case for the administration’s planned withdrawal from the accord ahead of a scheduled meeting between the leaders of the two nations.
The nuclear-capable missile, the official said, can reach over 300 miles (500 kilometers), in violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which was signed amid Cold War hostilities in 1987 and which the Trump administration is now seeking to exit.
Russia developed the weapon between 2000 to 2010 and completed testing by 2015, the official said. But when questioned about it in recent years, Moscow officials have denied violating the treaty and demanded to know how the U.S. detected the apparent violation, the official said.
The official said the Trump administration believes it was Russia's intention to keep the U.S. constrained by the treaty while they developed and deployed the illegal missiles that threaten Europe. The official briefed reporters on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive foreign policy issue.
The future of the treaty is likely to come up this week when President Donald Trump meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Group of 20 Summit in Argentina. Administration officials have said it is time to withdraw from an accord that is outdated, has prevented the U.S. from developing new weapons and has already been violated with this Russian missile, the 9M729.
It comes amid heightened tensions between the two countries. Trump suggested Tuesday in an interview with The Washington Post that he may cancel the sit-down with Putin over Russia’s seizure of three Ukrainian naval ships last weekend.
Russia has denied that it has violated the treaty, saying the 9M729 has not been tested for the range that would make it prohibited. Moscow has also alleged the United States has also breached the accord.
Putin has warned that a U.S. decision to withdraw from the treaty would destabilize Europe and prompt Russia to "respond in kind." On Monday, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov reiterated that position.
"We won't be able to turn a blind eye to the potential deployment of new U.S. missiles on the territories where they may threaten Russia," Ryabkov said.
The senior U.S. official said the administration, which is seeking support for withdrawal from NATO allies, can still reverse its plan to pull out if Russia acknowledges its violations and takes corrective steps.

The Danger of the Merchant of Merchants (Revelation 16)

America’s greatest danger: Nuclear war decision-making by Donald Trump
GREG NASH
BY LOUIS RENÉ BERES, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR
An inappropriate or irrational nuclear command decision by President Donald Trump is plainly conceivable. Nothing accurate can ever be said about the true probability of such a scenario, but it is not an unfounded worry.
Might this American president become subject to various forms of psychological debility? On 14 March 1976, in response to my specific query, I received a letter from General (USA/ret.) Maxwell Taylor, a former Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, concerning nuclear risks of U.S. presidential decisional irrationality. Most noteworthy, in this handwritten response, is the straightforward warning contained in the closing paragraph. Ideally, cautioned Taylor, presidential irrationality is a problem that should be dealt with during an election, and not later on: "As to dangers arising from an irrational American president, the best protection is not to elect one."
There are assorted structural protections built into any presidential order to use nuclear weapons, including substantial redundancy. Nonetheless, virtually all of these reassuring and mutually reinforcing safeguards could become operative only at the lower or sub-presidential nuclear command levels.
The safeguards do not apply to the Commander-in-Chief.
This means there likely exist no permissible legal grounds to disobey any presidential order to use nuclear weapons. In principle, certain very senior individuals in the designated military chain of command could sometime choose to invoke applicable "Nuremberg Obligations," but any such last-minute invocation would almost surely need to yield to considerations of U.S. domestic law.
Should an American president operating within a bewildering chaos of his own making issue an irrational or seemingly irrational nuclear command, the only way for the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the National Security Adviser, and several possible others to effectively obstruct this order would be illegal "on its face." Under the very best of circumstances, such informal safeguards might somehow manage to work for a time, but accepting the unrealistic assumption of "best case scenario" is hardly a rational or sensible path to nuclear security.
It follows that we Americans ought to ask for more predictable and promising institutional impediments to any debilitated president.
The United States is already navigating in uncharted waters.
While President Kennedy did engage in personal nuclear brinkmanship with the Soviet Union back in October 1962, he had calculated his own odds of a consequent nuclear war as "between one out of three and even." This seemingly precise calculation, corroborated both by JFK biographer Theodore Sorensen, and by my own later private conversations with former JCS Chair Admiral Arleigh Burke (my colleague and roommate at the Naval Academy's Foreign Affairs Conference of 1977) suggests that President Kennedy was either irrational in imposing his Cuban "quarantine" or that he was wittingly acting out certain untested principles of "pretended irrationality."
JFK operated with serious and manifestly capable strategic advisors.
The most urgent threat of a mistaken or irrational presidential order to use nuclear weapons flows not from any "bolt-from-the-blue" nuclear attack - whether Russian, North Korean, or American - but from an uncontrollable escalatory process. Back in 1962, Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev "blinked" early on in the "game," thereby preventing mutual and irrecoverable nuclear harms. Now, however, any escalatory initiatives undertaken by President Trump could express very unstable decision-making processes.
Donald Trump should understand the unprecedented risks of being locked into an escalatory dynamic. Although this president might be well advised to seek escalation dominance in selected crisis negotiations with determined adversaries, he would also need to avoid catastrophic miscalculations.
Whether we like it or not, and at one time or another, nuclear strategy is a bewildering game that President Donald Trump will have to play. To best ensure that this easily-distracted president's strategic moves will be rational, thoughtful, and cumulatively cost-effective, it will first be necessary to enhance the formal decisional authority of his most senior military and defense subordinates.
At a minimum, the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the National Security Advisor, and one or two others in appropriate nuclear command positions should immediately prepare to assume more broadly collaborative and secure judgments in extremis atomicum.
The only time for clarifying such indispensable preparations is now.
Louis René Beres, Ph.D. Princeton, is emeritus professor of international law at Purdue University. He is the author of 12 books and several hundred articles dealing with nuclear strategy and nuclear war. His newest book is "Surviving Amid Chaos: Israel's Nuclear Strategy" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2016; 2nd ed. 2018)

Putin and Trump are Trigger Happy

 
Vladimir Putin reveals he WILL fire nuclear weapon 'sparking global catastrophe'
Matthew Kirkham
| UPDATED: 14:35, Fri, Nov 23, 2018
VLADIMIR Putin says he will be ready and prepared to fire a nuclear weapon, if Russia is subject to an incoming missile attack.
It is no secret that Putin feels a world without Russia "will not be the same". In a personal interview with the Russian leader on Amazon Prime documentary “World Order”, Mr Putin discusses the controversial topic of Russia’s possible use of nuclear weaponry. Host Vladimir Solovjev asked: “When you have the nuclear button, when millions of lives are at stake, or maybe the whole humankind is in your hands, how do you make such decisions?"
In the documentary, released in March 2018, the Russian President claims “it is my Presidential responsibility”.
He then adds: “As for the nuclear button, I think it’s an inappropriate question, to put it mildly.
“We are not the first ones who started all this.
“Secondly, we have never used nuclear weapons. It was done by the United States in Japan. Who can guarantee it won’t happen again? Besides we are not the only nuclear state.”
He also pointed out that Russia’s military doctrine does not envision a preventive nuclear strike, underlining that Moscow would only use its nuclear weapons if an early warning systems detected missiles moving towards Russia.
He added: “But I want you to know, I want our people to know that our plans to use nuclear weapons, and I hope it will never happen, but, theoretically, it is the so-called ‘launch under attack’."
According to the Russian leader, the decision to use nuclear weapons can only be taken if their early-warning system not only registers the launch of missiles, but also gives the exact prognosis of the trajectory.

Vladimir Putin watches the launch of a missile during a military exercise (Image: Getty)
In other words, if someone decides to destroy Russia, “we will have a legitimate right to retaliate," Vladimir Putin confirms.
Mr Putin adds: “Yes, it will be a global catastrophe, a catastrophe for the entire world.”
Earlier this year, Putin also praised Russia’s growing hypersonic arsenal as “invincible” during a state of the nation address.
Vladimir Putin hits out at US for 'political incompetence'
The weapons included a nuclear-powered cruise missile, a nuclear-powered underwater drone and a new hypersonic missile.
Speaking at an international policy forum in the Black Sea resort city of Sochi earlier this year, Mr Putin revealed: ”The aggressor should know that retaliation is inevitable, and he will be destroyed.
"We would be victims of an aggression and would get to heaven as martyrs."

Nuclear Threshold Drastically Reduced

Senators propose change of doctrine so Russia could respond with nukes to any ‘strategic strike’
Published time: 21 Nov, 2018 17:54
An Iskander-M launcher on display. The system is capble of shooting short-range nuclear-tipped missiles. ©Sputnik / Ramil Sidrikov
Russia should be allowed to use its nuclear arsenal in response to a non-nuclear strike with a strategic weapon, Russian senators believe. Their recommendation is to amend Russia’s nuclear posture accordingly.
A suggestion to make the Russian nuclear doctrine more flexible was one of the recommendations backed by the upper chamber of the Russian parliament late on Wednesday.
The senators said the Russian National Security Council should prepare and propose an amendment on the nuclear doctrine, which would allow “taking a decision to retaliate in case of enemy use of hypersonic and other strategic conventional weapons” against Russia, reported RIA Novosti.

Yars ICBM launchers during a military parade. Sputnik / Ilya Pitalev
Russian nuclear doctrine was last reviewed in 2014, when the current escalation of tensions with the West was just unfolding.
It allows the armed forces to deploy nuclear weapons on two scenarios. One is in response to a strike with a nuclear weapon or another weapon of mass destruction against Russia or one of its allies. Another is when a nuclear strike is necessary to prevent a conventional attack threatening the existence of Russia as a sovereign state.
The US has since amended its nuclear posture, relaxing restrictions on when it could use nuclear weapons.
The latest review published in February is intentionally somewhat vague, but it called for developing new kinds of nuclear weapons and indicated that the US may nuke a country for as little as launching a cyberattack against America or one of its allies.

The US has also recently announced its intention to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, a key Cold War era agreement with Russia which led to large-scale denuclearization of Europe. The treaty banned both the US and Russia from developing and deploying nuclear-capable land-based missiles with the range best suited for an exchange between Russia and European members of NATO.
Hundreds of such weapons deployed by each side prior to sealing the INF agreement were a major destabilizing factor. They required only minutes in flight to reach their targets, as opposed to dozens of minutes for intercontinental missiles. So if a launch were to be detected, it would leave almost no time to assess whether it was an actual attack requiring a response or a false alarm.
The recommendations from the Senate were the result of a round table discussion with officials from the Defense Ministry, the General Staff and the Security Council.

Preparing the Asian Nuclear Horns (Daniel 7/8)

Dangerous Nuclear Arms Race Brewing in Asia Between India, Pakistan, China, Iran and Israel
November 19, 2018
A dangerous Nuclear Arms Race is brewing in Asia involving India, Pakistan, China, Iran, Israel and North Korea. The Nuclear Arms Race which was initially prevalent in the West has now precariously shifted to Asia. The Asian region urgently needs new diplomatic initiatives to reduce nuclear dangers and prevent the arms race in the region before a catastrophe strikes. A EurAsian Times Analysis.
Experts that EurAsian Times talked to say that one cannot deny the glaring gap between the ambitious disarmament goals set out in the relevant goal treaties, namely the 1968 UN adopted ‘Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)’ and the ‘Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)’. Moreover, one cannot overlook the growing regional arms race, which even Saudi Arabia plans to join.
The three Asian neighbours – India, China and Pakistan are all nuclear powered and have made South Asia a very dangerous place. The pattern is quite obvious. If one country masters nuclear technology and announces it, its neighbours and enemies will immediately develop weapons, both for national defence as well as national pride.
More countries are now developing state-of-the-art weapons, and sharing technology and resources. More money is being spent on it, nuclear proliferation is very much evident now than ever before. According to various media reports and analysis, Pakistan has been accused of assisting Iran in nuclear development, while the US has suspected Iran and North Korea of colluding on weapons development.
What Could Happen
Experts are of the opinion that even a small-scale nuclear incident would prove to be disastrous. According to Brookings “it would produce casualties of unprecedented magnitude given the region’s weak medical and emergency infrastructure and the close proximity of urban areas. 
Even a single nuclear detonation over a major South Asian city would produce considerable devastation.
A ‘small’ nuclear war would be an unprecedented catastrophe for the region, a ‘major’ one would have global, physical, environmental and biological repercussions.” This is a wake-up call for the world.
Lack of Arms Control Leadership
There is a lack of arms control leadership distinctly in Asia. Experts say that strategic communities in Asia have been preoccupied with nuclear and missile developments in states that haven’t been constrained by the INF treaty; China, India, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have been free to test and deploy dual-capable missiles that are banned under the treaty.
The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty was a Cold War-era US and Soviet arms control agreement. It still remains in force but talks have been to dissolve it but US allies have warned that a dissolution would undermine European security.
China has been openly sceptical about arms control and this will definitely pose a big challenge. According to an expert, “Asian leaders can pursue a common strategy of diplomatic persuasion to encourage the extension of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), designed to verifiably reduce the US and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals.”
Therefore, the New START extension is an essential building block for Asian arms control and strategic stability in general. But getting Asia’s nuclear-armed states on board will definitely be a tedious task.

Evolving Nuclear Horns (Daniel 7/8)

These are the 9 nuclear-armed countries and the 31 allies they have vowed to defend with the world's most devastating weapons

Caitlin Foster, Shayanne Gal

 

---

Los Alamos National Laboratory.An estimated 14,485 nuclear weapons exist.
The United Nations has introduced a treaty that it believes will eventually lead to the total elimination of nuclear weapons. A recent watchdog report said the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) is a historically significant effort that’s gaining traction, which highlights the profound power imbalance between the few nuclear powers and the many countries without the devastating weapons.
“The rate of adherence to the TPNW is faster than for any other weapons-of-mass-destruction (WMD) treaty,” the report says.
But with an estimated 14,485 extant nuclear weapons, total elimination is more of a long-term goal.
This is an overview of the nine nuclear-armed states and the 31 nuclear-weapon-endorsing states – countries that do not develop or possess nuclear weapons but rely on another nuclear-armed state for protection.
All of these countries would need to make profound changes to reach the UN goal of a nuclear-weapons-free world.

---

Russia has the world’s largest nuclear arsenal.

Shayanne Gal/Business Insider
The Russian Federation has an estimated 6,850 nuclear weapons in its arsenal.
Armenia and Belarus, who both rely on Russia’s arsenal for “umbrella” protections, stand in violation of TPNW.

---

Russia is also only one of three nations to possess a nuclear “triad,” which includes intercontinental ballistic-missile delivery.

A nuclear “triad” refers to a nation’s ability to deploy its nuclear arsenal through intercontinental ballistic missiles, sea-launched ballistic missiles, and strategic bombers, as defined by the Nuclear Threat Initiative, an advisory board that conducts research and provides analysis to encourage diplomacy.

---

The US is the only country to detonate nuclear weapons against an enemy, as it did in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks against Japan in August 1945.

Shayanne Gal/Business Insider
The US has agreed to potentially use its nuclear weapons to protect NATO member states, as well as Japan, Australia and South Korea.
Because of these agreements, all 29 NATO member states, and the three who hold bilateral protection agreements with the US, are in violation of TPNW.
The US, which has a nuclear arsenal that’s nearly the size of Russia’s, is the only nation in the western hemisphere that possesses nuclear weapons, and one of three countries to possess the nuclear “triad.”

---

The US is also the only nation in the world to store nuclear weapons in other countries.

Shayanne Gal/Business Insider
According to the Nuclear Weapons Ban Monitor, the US is believed to store some 180 nuclear weapons in other countries.
This number has been “significantly reduced since the Cold War,” according to the report.

---

The United Kingdom can only launch its nuclear weapons from its four Vanguard-class submarines.

Andrew Linnett/Ministry of Defence Crown/GettyHMS Vengeance departs for Davenport, United Kingdom, prior to refit. Vengeance is one of only four Vanguard-class submarines, which is the only military platform that can launch the UK’s nuclear weapons.
The United Kingdom is a NATO member state and shares in the umbrella protections of the alliance.
The kingdom maintains at least one nuclear-armed submarine on patrol at all times, under a Continuous at Sea Defence Posture, according to NWBM.
British policy also states that the country will not threaten the use of nuclear weapons against any “non-nuclear weapons state.”

---

The French Dassault Rafale fighter jet can deploy a nuclear weapon with a warhead 20 times the size of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

Marine nationaleA French Dassault Rafale flies above the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier.
France, also a NATO member state, can only deliver its nuclear weapons via aircraft and submarines.
The ASMP-A is a 300 kiloton warhead, approximately 20 times the size of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, at the end of World War II.
If a warhead of that size were to drop over Washington, DC, it would result in approximately 280,000 casualties.

---

Israel maintains a policy of “opacity,” while other nations promise not to use their nukes against countries that don’t have them.

Shayanne Gal/Business Insider
China possesses a nuclear “triad,” but has agreed not to employ nuclear weapons against any nation in a Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone, which include Latin American and Caribbean nations, as well as some in Africa, the South Pacific and Central Asia.

---

US-based think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies reported 13 undeclared missile bases in North Korea.

Although North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has publicly proclaimed a desire to denuclearize the entire Korean peninsula, there is no evidence that he has made any attempt to do so.
Reports vary as to the size of the North Korean nuclear arsenal. While the monitor follows conventional views that the country possesses 10 to 20 nukes, The Washington Post has previously reported that it may hold up to 60, citing confidential US assessments.

---

Negev Nuclear Research Center in Israel is said to have produced enough plutonium for 100 to 200 nuclear warheads.

Israel has never publicly admitted to possession of nuclear weapons.
Nevertheless, the international community operates on the assumption that since its inception, Israel has developed and maintained a nuclear arsenal.
The size of Israel’s cache remains unclear, and though it is possible that the nation holds enough enriched plutonium for 100 to 200 warheads, the NWBM accepts estimates from the Federation of American Scientists, which show that Israel possesses approximately 80 nuclear weapons.

---

The next Cold War may be between India and Pakistan, neither of which will back down its nuclear stance.

Reuters stringerPakistan’s Hatf VII (Babur) missile takes off during a test from an undisclosed location in December 2007.
Attempts to develop intercontinental and submarine-launched nuclear missiles indicate that India may soon possess the nuclear “triad.”
Mainly due to tensions with Pakistan, some experts have questioned whether India’s “no first-use” posture will endure.
Pakistan can deliver its nuclear weapons from the ground and air and is allegedly developing methods of sea-based delivery to complete the nuclear “triad.”
Despite facing sanctions, Pakistan is reportedly expanding its nuclear arsenal faster than any other nation.
Similar to British policy, Pakistan claims it will not use or threaten to use its nuclear arsenal against any “non-nuclear” state, leaving many questions unanswered on the potential use against neighbour India, which also maintains nuclear weapons.

Russian Horn to Retaliate Against Babylon the Great

Putin Says Russia Will Retaliate if U.S. Quits Nuclear Missile Treaty: Agencies

 

 

Nov. 19, 2018, at 1:03 p.m.

 

Putin Says Russia Will Retaliate if U.S. Quits Nuclear Missile Treaty: Agencies

Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks during a ceremony to mark the completion of the sea part of the TurkStream gas pipeline, in Istanbul, Turkey November 19, 2018. REUTERS/Murad SezerReuters

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Monday the Kremlin would retaliate if the United States withdrew from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty, Russian news agencies reported.
Putin discussed possible Russian retaliation with top Russian Defence Ministry officials and added that the Kremlin was ready to discuss the INF treaty with Washington.
The Cold War-era treaty, which rid Europe of land-based nuclear missiles, has come into question against a backdrop of renewed tensions between the West and Russia, most notably over Moscow's 2014 annexation of Crimea and role in eastern Ukraine.
U.S. President Donald Trump's administration has accused Russia of non-compliance with the 31-year-old missile accord and warned it will pull out of the deal as a result. The Kremlin denies violating the pact.
NATO and Russian envoy addressed the dispute during rare talks on Oct. 31, with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg urging Moscow to make quick changes to comply in full with the treaty. He said Russia's development of the land-based, intermediate-range SSC-8 cruise missile posed "a serious risk to strategic stability".
European leaders worry any collapse of the INF treaty could lead to a new, destabilizing arms race.
(Reporting by Maxim Rodionov; Editing by Mark Heinrich)
Copyright 2018 Thomson Reuters.

Last Failed Attempt to Avoid Nuclear War (Revelation 16)

European diplomats mount last-ditch effort to stop US scrapping INF treaty
1987 treaty has kept nuclear weapons out of Europe
Trump announced withdrawal from deal with Russia in October
Julian Borger in Washington
Sun 18 Nov 2018 03.00 EST
Last modified on Sun 18 Nov 2018 10.52 EST
European officials are seeking to act as intermediaries between Russia and the US in the hope of salvaging a cold war-era arms control treaty that Donald Trump has threatened to scrap.
However, the diplomats involved are not confident of success in the effort to save the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty. Although they have the support of senior officials in the US defence and state departments, they face opposition from the White House, particularly from the national security adviser, John Bolton.
Nor is it clear whether Moscow is interested in a deal. The collapse of the INF would leave the Russian military free to deploy short- and medium-range nuclear missiles along its borders with Nato in Europe, and in China.
It would be hard for the US to benefit militarily from the treaty’s demise, as it would need allied states to offer launch sites for its missiles if they were to be deployed within range of Russia and China – and it is far from clear what country would offer its territory and thus make itself a target.
Yet Trump’s abrupt declaration at a political rally in Nevada on 20 October that he was going to pull the US out of the treaty, without informing allies, has focused criticism on Washington rather than Moscow. European officials have asked for time to make a last-gasp attempt to rescue the treaty, which they see as a key pillar of arms control in Europe.
They have sought to persuade their American counterparts that US abrogation of the treaty – without giving Russia a final opportunity to come into compliance – could further undermine global support for the US, and allow Moscow to escape the full blame for the treaty’s breakdown.
“The US administration needs to take the Europeans with them,” a European diplomat said. “It’s important that if the agreement fails it is clear to everyone that it is the Russians’ fault. I think the administration gets this.”
Trump will meet Vladimir Putin and the G20 meeting in Buenos Aires at the end of this month, but it is not clear that the issue will be raised. Bolton told Putin when they met in Moscow in October that Trump had made up his mind to dump the treaty, which has kept nuclear missiles out of Europe for more than three decades.
US confirms withdrawal from nuclear arms treaty with Russia
The US has been accusing Russia of violating the treaty for more than four years, through the development and deployment of a new ground-launched medium-range missile. Nevertheless, Trump’s declaration of intent on October 20 to pull the US out of the treaty marked a sharp break in US policy, which until then had been to ratchet up pressure on Russia, in part by the US announcing plans to develop its own counterpart missile, to use as a bargaining chip.
The declaration took the defence and state departments by surprise. A cabinet-level meeting to discuss policy on the INF scheduled for 15 October was scrapped without explanation by Bolton, officials said.
Russia has denied its new weapon violates the INF restrictions banning nuclear missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500km. It also accuses the US of breaking the treaty on the grounds that launchers for interceptors in the Aegis ground-based missile defence system in Romania and soon to be deployed in Poland, could be used for an offensive cruise missile.

John Bolton, Donald Trump’s national security adviser, scrapped an interagency meeting to discuss the treaty last month. Photograph: Yuri Kadobnov/AFP/Getty Images
Russia has so far not agreed to allow inspections of its new missile or suggested any compromise involving the Aegis missile-defence system. The US has also been uncompromising. In the last discussions between Washington and Moscow on the INF, in June, the US arms control ambassador, John Ordway, passed on a US demand for a freeze in Russian deployment of its new missile.
According to sources familiar with the Russian account of the talks, Ordway’s terms also included a requirement for Moscow to admit it had violated the treaty, a condition the Kremlin was almost certain to refuse.
The state department confirmed Ordway’s meeting with a Russian delegation, but declined to provide further details.
Under the terms of the treaty, it would take six months for a US withdrawal to take effect, from the date of Washington’s formal notification of its intention to withdraw. But in the month since Trump’s declaration in Nevada, no such notification has been made.
The under secretary of state for arms control and international security, Andrea Thompson, told journalists on Thursday that no decision on timing had been made and appeared to suggest the president had not yet made a final decision on withdrawal.
“We’re in the middle of the interagency process. I don’t want to get ahead of it. Know that everyone involved with this is all hands on deck and getting information so that the president has everything that he needs to make the next decision,” Thompson said. She added that the US was sharing intelligence with Nato allies to help build support for the US case on the INF.
“The bottom line is they support us. They ask for more information. Obviously, the intelligence is key on showing partners and allies the continued violations. And we’re talking through next steps, and that’s the important thing, that it’s a collaborative process whether it’s with Nato partners or here at home, that we’re getting input for next steps to make sure that there is no gap between us as – when the president makes his decision.”
A group of US, Russian and German nuclear weapons experts, known as the Deep Cuts commission issued a statement on Sunday, warning of the dangers of allowing the INF to break down, and arguing for another effort to negotiate a compromise.
“The repercussions of a collapse of the INF treaty would be tremendous: it could trigger a new arms race, significantly increase the risk of nuclear escalation, further undermine political relations between the United States, Russia and Europe,” the commission said.
“We believe the United States and Russia should exhaust all cooperative options to solve the INF treaty crisis instead of scrapping the treaty.”

Our Luck is About to Run Out (Revelation 16)

Sheer luck has helped us avoid nuclear war so far -- now we need to take action

Ira Helfand

---

Ira Helfand, a medical doctor, is a member of the international steering group of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, the recipient of last year's Nobel Peace Prize. He is also co-president of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the founding partner organization of ICAN and itself the recipient of the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
(CNN)The 100th anniversary of the World War I armistice last weekend underscored the great folly of President Donald Trump's threat to pull out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia. President Vladimir Putin's response that "there would be nothing left except an arms race" shows our world leaders have failed to learn from history.
The Great War, also known as "the war to end all wars," engulfed an unwitting world because the leaders of the great powers did not understand the enormity of suffering they were about to unleash when they stumbled needlessly into conflict.
Today, Trump, Putin and other leaders pursue their nuclear policies with a similar disregard for the potentially catastrophic effects. They plot their moves as if they were playing a game of global chess. But nuclear weapons are not chess pieces, and nuclear war will certainly not be a board game. War involving today's nuclear arsenals would be a disaster beyond our imagining.
And that may be the root of the problem we face: We literally cannot imagine how destructive nuclear weapons are. Our defense policies treat them like ordinary weapons, and we seek the security of bigger arsenals to ensure our enemies' fear of the nuclear unknown is greater than ours.
For much of human history, a bigger stockpile, or more advanced weapons, granted a greater advantage in combat. But nuclear weapons should be understood as suicide bombs. Even the "successful" use of our own nuclear weapons against an enemy that doesn't fire back could potentially destroy the world as we know it.

Recent studies have shown that even a conflict between smaller nuclear powers such as India and Pakistan could trigger dire consequences. If just a fraction of the world's nuclear weapons (say, 100 bombs the size of the one dropped in Hiroshima) were deployed on urban industrial targets, the resulting fires would put enough soot into the upper atmosphere to cause climate disruption. This could then lead to a global famine that would place up to 2 billion people at risk of starvation, according to one study.
There are enough weapons on board a single US Trident submarine to trigger this kind of catastrophe many times over. To put this into context, the United States has 14 of these submarines as well as land-based missiles and a fleet of long-range bombers. All told, the United States has 6,550 warheads -- most of which are 10 to 50 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb -- with about 1,350, or 1 in 5, deployed and ready to use.
There is no conceivable security benefit from having more of these weapons, nor do we need to worry if Russia has more than we do. Astronomer Carl Sagan compared the arms race between the United States and Russia to two men "standing waist deep in gasoline; one with three matches, the other with five." We all understood how crazy this was, but that is exactly how our current leaders think about nuclear arsenals.
Far from protecting us, nuclear weapons are, in fact, the greatest threat to our security. There have been several instances during the Cold War when either Washington or Moscow began the process of launching their nuclear arsenals in the mistaken belief they were under attack by the other side. Each time, in former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara's words, "We lucked out." Current nuclear policy is little more than hope for continued luck. Pulling out of the INF treaty will only increase the odds that our luck runs out sooner rather than later as the United States, Russia and perhaps China field new nuclear weapons instead of working to eliminate those they already possess.
Last year, 122 nations called for a dramatically different approach and voted to adopt a new Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Here in the United States, a national grassroots campaign, Back from the Brink, is calling for the US government to embrace this treaty.
Rather than destroying agreements such as the INF we should be working with the other eight nuclear-armed states to negotiate a verifiable, enforceable, time-bound framework for dismantling the 14,500 nuclear weapons that remain in the world. Despite the terrible carnage, the world survived World War I and World War II. We will not survive a world war fought with nuclear weapons. We need to eliminate them before they eliminate us.

WW3: Why the European Nuclear Horns Will Rise

World War 3 ALERT: Fears Russia armed with ILLEGAL NUCLEAR missiles that can reach Europe
Lithuanian Minister fears Moscow has the ability to fire illegal nuclear missiles as far as Europe (Image: Getty)
RUSSIA has violated key commitments of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), giving Moscow the ability to fire illegal nuclear missiles as far as Europe, the foreign minister of Lithuania has claimed.
By MARTINA BET
PUBLISHED: 04:10, Thu, Nov 15, 2018
UPDATED: 08:11, Thu, Nov 15, 2018
Russian president Vladimir Putin warned that he will target any nations that host US missiles, including Europe.
The INF Treaty was established in 1987 between the leader of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev and US President Ronald Reagan at the height of the Cold War. Linas Linkevicius told Deutsche Welle that Moscow has been violating the terms of the agreement for years. Under the INF Treaty, Russia promised not to possess, produce, or flight-test a ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) with a range capability of 500km to 5,500km, or to possess or produce launchers of such missiles.
According to a 2016 State Department report, the Russian Novator 9M729 is thought to have a range that falls between 500km and 5,500km, and is therefore illegal under the terms of the accord.
Mr Linkevicius explained: “We all understand that all these arms control agreements are very important.
“But a very important condition is that all parties must comply.
“So if not, something should be done in order to force them to.

Linkevicius told Deutsche Welle that Moscow has been violating the terms of the agreement for years (Image: Getty)
“So far, all the calls and the criticism have had no effect.”
The foreign minister added Lithuanians are extremely concerned about the Kremlin.
He noted: “When Russians are talking about balance, about adequate responses, it's by no means adequate because we do not have defence capabilities.
“And we're not going to be aggressive.
And we're not going to be aggressive.
“But this is really not a move for confidence building.
“And by the way, these missiles can reach not just Riga, Tallinn and Vilnius, but also Berlin.
“And they're nuclear-capable. So I believe it's really an escalation measure.”

Donald Trump announced less than a month ago he wants to pull out of the INF treaty (Image: Getty)
Russian president Vladimir Putin warned that he will target any nations that host US missiles, including Europe.
Mr Linkevicius’ remarks echoed the words of US President Donald Trump who announced less than a month ago he wants to pull out of the INF treaty.
Speaking at a rally in Nevada at the end of October, he said: “Russia has not, unfortunately, honoured the agreement so we’re going to terminate the agreement and we’re going to pull out.
“We’re not going to let them violate a nuclear agreement and go out and do weapons and we’re not allowed to.”
Trump’s decision to withdraw from the treaty has drawn sharp criticism from Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet Union's last leader, who warned it increased the risk of nuclear conflict and a new arms race.

Russia Now Threatens the German Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7)

A Russian Yars RS-24 intercontinental ballistic missile system drives through Red Square in Moscow, on May 7, 2015, during Victory Day parade rehearsals. The Kremlin's development of the short- to medium-range Novator 9M729 missile threatens the Cold War-era INF Treaty. Photo: KIRILL KUDRYAVTSEV/AFP/Getty Images
Russia Has Deployed Nuclear Missiles That Can Reach Germany, Claims Lithuania Foreign Minister
On Wednesday, November 14, 2018 - 10:54
Russia has been violating an international arms control agreement for years, the foreign minister of Lithuania has claimed, giving Moscow the ability to fire banned nuclear weapons at targets as far away as Berlin.
Linas Linkevicius told Deutsche Welle the Kremlin has been ignoring the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty for some time, leaving all of central and eastern Europe at threat from Russian missiles.
The treaty was signed by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987, banning ground-launch nuclear and conventional missiles with ranges from 500 kilometers (310 miles) to 5,500 kilometers (3,417 miles). This forced the superpower foes to remove roughly 2,700 short- and medium-range missiles from the front lines, eliminating a dangerous element from the Cold War equation.
But in recent years, Vladimir Putin is believed to have overseen an expansion of short- and medium-range weaponry, likely even deploying missiles to Russia’s western frontiers and Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad.
The medium-range nuclear-capable Novator 9M729 missile—known to NATO as the SSC-8—is the catalyst for the impending treaty collapse. Little information about the weapon has been released by the U.S., but a 2016 State Department report alleged that its range fell within the bracket banned by the INF Treaty.
Linkevicius explained to Deutsche Welle: “We all understand that all these arms control agreements are very important. But a very important condition is that all parties must comply. So if not, something should be done in order to force them to. So far, all the calls and the criticism have had no effect.”
The minister said Lithuanians were seriously concerned about missile proliferation in Russia. “When Russians are talking about balance, about adequate responses, it's by no means adequate because we do not have defense capabilities. And we're not going to be aggressive. But this is really not a move for confidence building.”
“And by the way, these missiles can reach not just Riga, Tallinn and Vilnius, but also Berlin,” Linkevicius added. “And they're nuclear-capable. So I believe it's really an escalation measure.”
Last month, President Donald Trump said he would withdraw the U.S. from the INF Treaty, citing consistent Russian non-compliance. “Russia has violated the agreement,” the president told reporters after a rally in Nevada. “They’ve been violating it for many years and I don’t know why President [Barack] Obama didn’t negotiate or pull out.”
“We’re not going to let them violate a nuclear agreement and do weapons and we’re not allowed to,” he added. “We’re the ones that have stayed in the agreement and we’ve honored the agreement but Russia has not unfortunately honored the agreement so we’re going to terminate the agreement, we’re going to pull out.”

Unwrapping Nuclear Armageddon (Revelation 16)

Intermediate-range missiles on display at the Korean War Memorial Museum in Seoul, South Korea. | Lee Jin-man / AP
Unwrapping armageddon: U.S. discards another nuclear weapons treaty
Conn Hallinan
The decision by the Trump administration to withdraw from the Intermediate Nuclear Force Agreement (INF) appears to be part of a broader strategy aimed at unwinding over 50 years of agreements to control and limit nuclear weapons, returning to an era characterized by the unbridled development weapons of mass destruction.
Terminating the INF treaty—which bans land-based cruise and ballistic missiles with a range of between 300 and 3,400 miles— is not, in and of itself, a fatal blow to the network of treaties and agreements dating back to the 1963 treaty that ended atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. But coupled with other actions—George W. Bush’s decision to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) in 2002 and the Obama administration’s program to upgrade the nuclear weapons infrastructure—the tapestry of agreements that has, at least in part, limited these terrifying creations, is looking increasingly frayed.

National Security Adviser John Bolton is a key voice in the Trump administration advocating a U.S. exit from any treaty that might restrain American power–whether military or economic. Here, Bolton speaks at a Federalist Society luncheon at the Mayflower Hotel, Sept. 10, in Washington. | Andrew Harnik / AP
“Leaving the INF,” says Sergey Rogov of the Institute of U.S. and Canadian Studies, “could bring the whole structure of arms control crashing down.”
Lynn Rusten, the former senior director for arms control in the National Security Agency Council warns, “This is opening the door to an all-out arms race.”
Washington’s rationale for exiting the INF Treaty is that the Russians deployed the 9M729 cruise missile that the US claims violates the agreement, although Moscow denies it and the evidence has not been made public. Russia countercharges that the U.S. ABM system—Aegis Ashore—deployed in Romania and planned for Poland could be used to launch similar medium range missiles.
If this were a disagreement over weapon capability, inspections would settle the matter. But the White House—in particular National Security Advisor John Bolton—is less concerned with inspections than extracting the U.S. from agreements that in any way restrain the use of American power, be it military or economic. Thus, Trump dumped the Iran nuclear agreement, not because Iran is building nuclear weapons or violating the agreement, but because the administration wants to use economic sanctions to pursue regime change in Tehran.
In some ways, the INF agreement is low hanging fruit. The 1987 treaty banned only land-based medium range missiles, not those launched by sea or air—where the Americans hold a strong edge—and it only covered the U.S. and Russia (then the Soviet Union). Other nuclear-armed countries, particularly China, India, North Korea, Israel, and Pakistan have deployed a number of medium range nuclear-armed missiles. One of the arguments Bolton makes for exiting the INF is that it would allow the U.S. to counter China’s medium range missiles.
But if the concern was controlling intermediate range missiles, the obvious path would be to expand the treaty to other nations and include air- and sea-launched weapons. Not that that would be easy. China has lots of intermediate range missiles, because most its potential antagonists, like Japan or U.S. bases in Asia, are within the range of such missiles. The same goes for Pakistan, India, and Israel.
Intermediate range weapons—sometimes called “theater” missiles—do not threaten the U.S. mainland the way that similar U.S. missiles threaten China and Russia. Beijing and Moscow can be destroyed by long-range intercontinental missiles, but also by theater missiles launched from ships or aircraft. One of the reasons that Europeans are so opposed to withdrawing from the INF is that, in the advent of nuclear war, medium range missiles on their soil will make them a target.
But supposed violations of the treaty is not why Bolton and the people around him oppose the agreement. Bolton called for withdrawing from the INF Treaty three years before the Obama administration charged the Russians with cheating. Indeed, Bolton has opposed every effort to constrain nuclear weapons and has already announced that the Trump administration will not extend the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) when it expires in 2021.
START caps the number of U.S. and Russian deployed nuclear weapons at 1,550, no small number.
The Bush administration’s withdrawal from the 1972 ABM treaty in 2002 was the first major blow to the treaty framework. Anti-ballistic missiles are inherently destabilizing, because the easiest way to defeat such systems is to overwhelm them by expanding the number of launchers and warheads. Bolton—a longtime foe of the ABM agreement—recently bragged that dumping the treaty had no effect on arms control.
But the treaty’s demise has shelved START talks, and it was the ABM’s deployment in Eastern Europe—along with NATO’s expansion up to the Russian borders—that led to Moscow deploying the cruise missile now in dispute.
While Bolton and Trump are more aggressive about terminating agreements, it was the Obama administration’s decision to spend $1.6 trillion to upgrade and modernize U.S. nuclear weapons that now endangers one of the central pillars of the nuclear treaty framework, the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).
That agreement ended the testing of nuclear weapons, slowing the development of new weapons, particularly miniaturization and warheads with minimal yields. The former would allow more warheads on each missile, the latter could increase the possibility of using nuclear weapons without setting off a full-scale nuclear exchange.
Nukes are tricky to design, so you don’t want to deploy one without testing it. The Americans have bypassed some of the obstacles created by the CTBT by using computers like the National Ignition Facility. The B-61 Mod 11 warhead, soon-to-be-deployed in Europe, was originally a city killer, but labs at Livermore, California and Los Alamos and Sandia, New Mexico turned it into a bunker buster, capable of taking out command and control centers buried deep in the ground.
Nevertheless, the military and the nuclear establishment—ranging from companies such as Lockheed Martin and Honeywell International to university research centers—have long felt hindered by the CTBT. Add the Trump administration’s hostility to anything that constrains U.S. power and the CTBT may be next on the list.
Restarting nuclear testing will end any controls on weapons of mass destruction. And since Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) requires nuclear-armed powers to eventually disarm their weapons of mass destruction, that agreement may go as well. In a very short time, countries like South Korea, Japan, and Saudi Arabia will join the nuclear club, with South Africa and Brazil in the wings. The latter two countries researched producing nuclear weapons in the 1980s, and South Africa actually tested one.
The demise of the INF agreement will edge the world closer to nuclear war. Since medium range missiles shorten the warning time for a nuclear attack from 30 minutes to 10 minutes or less, countries will keep their weapons on a hair trigger. “Use them or lose them” is the philosophy that impels the tactics of nuclear war.
In the past year, Russia and NATO held very large military exercises on one another’s borders. Russian, U.S., and Chinese fighter planes routinely play games of chicken. What happens when one of those “games” goes wrong?
The U.S. and the Soviet Union came within minutes of an accidental war on at least two occasions, and, with so many actors and so many weapons, it will be only a matter of time before some country interprets a radar image incorrectly and goes to DEFCON 1—imminent nuclear war.
The INF Treaty came about because of strong opposition and huge demonstrations in Europe and the United States. That kind of pressure, coupled with a pledge by countries not to deploy such weapons, will be required again, lest the entire tapestry of agreements that kept the horror of nuclear war at bay vanish.

Russia is "Winning" the Nuclear Race

Russia Pulls Ahead In Middle East Nuclear Race | OilPrice.com

Vanand Meliksetian

In most of the industrialized world, nuclear energy has lost its appeal due to, among other reasons, the disaster at Fukushima in 2011. Few countries have ordered new plants to supplement or replace aging ones. China is an exception with 44 reactors under construction meaning that by 2030 almost 150 GW of nuclear energy will be produced. Saudi-Arabia could become the second largest growth market and a boon to companies specialized in nuclear energy across the world. Riyadh will order its first two reactors in 2019 and an additional 19 power plants until 2030.
As there are no Saudi companies with the required nuclear know-how, expertise will be provided by foreign companies. Several corporations have been shortlisted to provide the necessary expertise. In order to export American nuclear technology, Congress needs to approve the deal. Strong ties and mutual interests such as the containing of Iran would have smoothened a deal on nuclear energy in the past. Recent developments, however, paint a gloomier picture.
Saudi-U.S. relations and challenges
Washington has maintained close relations with Riyadh since the end of Second World War due to the Arab country’s strategic importance. Every president has dedicated precious time and resources to maintain good relations with the Saudis. President Trump is no exception. The destination of his first foreign trip was Saudi-Arabia where $110 billion in military hardware deals were signed.
Despite Riyadh making several foreign policy blunders such as the blockade of Qatar and alleged kidnapping of Lebanese prime minister Hariri, Washington’s support for Saudi-Arabia remained unchallenged. Even the disastrous war in Yemen didn’t change the situation. The murder of one man, however, could possibly do more harm.
The killing of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul and the obvious involvement of senior leaders in Riyadh have fraught relations. Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 requires several prerequisites as guarantees for the peaceful use of nuclear energy before foreign companies and states are able to use American technology. Five key Republican Senators are pushing President Trump to take punitive actions. According to Senator Marco Rubio "no relationship is too big to fail".
In addition, Democratic Senator Edward Markey urged Trump to “suspend discussions on civilian nuclear cooperation with Saudi-Arabia and to revoke any approvals for the transfer of nuclear services, technology or assistance”. Bipartisan pressure on Trump’s administration threatens to derail negotiations. This was before the midterms. The Democrats, which after 8 years have regained control over the House of Representatives, are more critical towards Riyadh on the subject of Khashoggi than the Republicans. This could become a serious challenge for the U.S. administration and for U.S. companies trying to do business in Saudi Arabia going forward.
Russia’s potential win
Among the countries vying for lucrative contracts to build nuclear power plants, is Russia’s state-controlled Rosatom. The company is currently constructing 34 reactors in 12 countries while several other states have shown interest. The order book has increased to $300 billion which adds up to 60 percent of all nuclear power plants under construction. In order to land new deals and service existing agreements in the Arab world, Rosatom has opened an office in Dubai.

Until recently, Russia and Saudi-Arabia were competitors on the global energy market with little cooperation between the energy superpowers. The dramatic fall of oil prices caused by the surge of U.S. shale forced the countries to cooperate which led to the OPEC+ agreement and increased prices. According to Minister of Energy, Khalid Al-Falih Saudi-Arabia is also considering investing $5 billion in the Arctic-2 LNG project led by Novatek and Total.
Although it cannot be said with certainty that Rosatom will receive lucrative orders, Moscow has positioned itself well in recent years to profit from good relations with Riyadh. In case Washington decides to withhold American nuclear technology, Riyadh has plenty of alternatives. The extended track record of Rosatom and attractive conditions have in the past assured the nuclear energy giant of several deals. The Russians meet, on paper at least, the requirements to succeed in Saudi-Arabia which will be assisted by the absence of American competitors.
By Vanand Meliksetian for Oilprice.com

The Strength of the Russian Nuclear Horn

World War 3: Vladimir Putin claimed he has a weapon able to resist any anti-missile systems (Image: RUSSIAN DEFENCE MINISTRY/GETTY)
World War 3: Russia to arm an 'INVINCIBLE' nuclear weapon by 2019 says Putin
RUSSIA is finalising a nuclear weapon capable of wiping out an entire city by descending on Earth “like a meteorite” at 20 times the speed of sound, Vladimir Putin has claimed, sparking World War 3 fears.
By ALICE SCARSI
PUBLISHED: 21:43, Fri, Nov 9, 2018
UPDATED: 21:59, Fri, Nov 9, 2018
Tensions between Washington and Moscow reached a new high as the Russian President claimed he has a weapon that can resist any anti-missile systems, making it almost invincible. Mr Putin said: "We know for certain, it’s an obvious fact and our colleagues realise it, that we surpassed all our competitors in this area. "Nobody has precise hypersonic weapons. Some plan to test theirs in 18 to 24 months. We have them in service already."
And blaming the need of a second nuclear race after the Cold War on the US, which has an advanced ballistic missile defence, he added: “Responding to the development of anti-ballistic missile systems by the US, we are improving our strike capabilities.
"Some are already in service, others will be deployed soon."
Called Avangard, the weapon will go into active service by next year with the Red Banner Missile Division, based in the Urals, according to a Russian defence industry source.
Speaking to Russian news agency TASS, they said: “The scheduled period for placing the lead regiment on combat duty is the end of 2019.
“Initially, the regiment will comprise at least two systems but eventually their number will rise to their organic quantity of six units.”
According to the claims made by Russia, the Avangard is an hypersonic glide vehicle, a spacecraft which is lofted into the atmosphere atop an intercontinental ballistic missile, such as the Satan II, to then glide down at hypersonic speed.
Being 20 times faster than the speed of sound means the Avangard could travel as fast as at 6860 m/s. 
The Avangard is loaded with countermeasure systems able to neutralise defence systems - but it can also count on its exceptional manoeuvrability, which makes it almost impossible to track.
Each Avangard can be loaded with a nuclear warhead of as much as two megatons, making its power of annihilation even bigger.
According to Russia, the Satan II, nickname for the RS-28 Sarmat Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, can carry up to 24 Avangard, meaning Russia could destroy a country’s main cities with one single strike.

This is not the first time Russian officials have spoken out about the Avangard.
During the state-of-the-nation speech on March 1, Mr Putin described his hypersonic arsenal as “invincible”, claiming the Avangard strikes “like a meteorite, like a fireball”.
And in June, Mr Putin said “the Avangard system” was almost completed, adding “is already in the process of its manufacture and has entered its serial production and in 2019 we are planning to deliver it to the Armed Forces.