The Amazing Hypocrisy Of Babylon The Great (USA)

Talk is cheap: Washington attends the humanitarian initiative on nuclear weapons impacts

Depleted uranium

Sharon Squassoni | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Woody Allen has been famously quoted as saying something to the effect that “80 percent of success is showing up.” The positive results of mere attendance may be what US diplomats and scientists are hoping for when they appear at the third international conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in Vienna December 8 and 9.

It came as a surprise when the State Department announced in early November that Washington would send representatives to the conference. The United States had skipped the first two conferences, held in Norway in 2013 and in Mexico earlier this year. The Vienna conference will focus on the health and environmental dangers of nuclear weapons use, testing and production, as well as international legal norms related to the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons use.

Why is the United States now participating in the humanitarian initiative after having previously declined to do so? The simplest answer may involve the next Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, scheduled for mid-2015. For the United States, success in Vienna is likely to be measured by how well the NPT conference goes. But there are also higher stakes.

The US decision to attend the Vienna conference comes at a delicate time for nuclear arms control, disarmament and nonproliferation. The afterglow of the 2009 Prague agenda and the successful 2010 NPT Review Conference have faded. Instead, the US-Russian nuclear arms control agenda is stalled, multilateral initiatives—including the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and fissile material treaty negotiations at the Conference on Disarmament—have lost momentum, and negotiations with Iran continue without resolution. It almost makes one forget that North Korea tested another nuclear device last year.

Even before Russia’s annexation of Crimea dimmed the prospects for further US-Russian nuclear weapons reductions, the slow pace of nuclear disarmament frustrated many non-nuclear weapon states, spurring them to try different approaches to reinvigorate action toward the disarmament promised by the NPT. After the indefinite extension of the NPT in 1995, eight states formed the New Agenda Coalition for that purpose; just four years ago, another handful of states coalesced under the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Initiative. The humanitarian initiative is the latest in a line of such efforts to give nuclear disarmament a nudge, but it has gone viral; the number of member countries has swelled to 151.

The hope, for some, is that the conferences on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons will lead to negotiating an international agreement that would ban possession of nuclear weapons. At the second conference earlier this year in Nayarit, Mexico, the chairman’s summary said, “The broad-based and comprehensive discussions on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons should lead to the commitment of states and civil society to reach new international standards and norms, through a legally binding instrument.” Mexican Deputy Foreign Minister Juan Manuel Gomez Robledo said, “It is the view of the chair that the Nayarit Conference has shown that time has come to initiate a diplomatic process conducive to this goal. Our belief is that this process should comprise a specific timeframe, the definition of the most appropriate fora, and a clear and substantive framework, making the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons the essence of disarmament efforts.”

The fear, for others, is that these conferences will become the forum for negotiating a nuclear weapons ban. And that is at least one reason why the nuclear weapon states have declined to participate until now. In the words of one State Department official,  “the U.S. won’t join any effort to negotiate nuclear disarmament.”

Still, US attendance at the upcoming Vienna meeting is a brave and welcome step, a shift in policy from the conspicuous absence of the United States at the first two conferences. It is unlikely that the Russians, French or Chinese will join the United States, but apparently their attendance (or lack of same) was not a factor in the US decision to go forward. At a minimum, the US break with the other permanent members of the UN Security Council, or P-5, could be seen as a positive (if potentially fleeting) signal to nuclear disarmament advocates that there is some room for maneuver in terms of moving disarmament along.

That said, there is no indication Washington will go along with a nuclear weapons ban arising from the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons movement. The United States supports the goal of a world without nuclear weapons—President Obama told Prague in April 2009 that he would seek a world without nuclear weapons—but prefers an incremental approach. US Ambassador Robert Wood told the UN First Committee on October 20, 2014 that “real and lasting disarmament will take sustained effort and commitment, requiring us to proceed in a deliberate and step-by-step way,” and that “unrealistic calls for immediate and total disarmament distract from and ignore more achievable and sober efforts.”

Ban-the-bomb advocates are unlikely to take heart from this practical, go-slow approach. While important, sober efforts like the annual P-5 conferences on technical aspects of nuclear weapons and disarmament yield few concrete results. And the concrete results they do produce—like the creation of a glossary of nuclear weapons terms for the P-5—are painfully small steps. After all, next year will mark the 70th anniversary of the creation and use of nuclear weapons.

The Vienna conference will focus, once again, on some of the technical repercussions of nuclear weapons use, including how some states are thinking about and preparing for emergency response. It will also cover the waterfront of international humanitarian law. While the United States may be able to recover some lost diplomatic good will by attending the Vienna conference, merely showing up may not be enough to avoid the game of diplomatic dodgeball that nuclear weapon states will have to endure when the 2015 NPT Review Conference convenes in the springtime in New York.

The China Nuclear Horn Extends Into Indian Waters (Daniel 7:7)

China’s submarine noose around India

Submarine game: How China is using undersea vessels to project power in India’s neighbourhood
Sandeep Unnithan  December 4, 2014 | UPDATED 10:53 IST
India Today
Chinese Submarine-Dec15.qxp 
Four decades after the 1971 India-Pakistan war, India’s intelligence agencies are once again scanning a stretch of coastline in southern Bangladesh. Cox’s Bazar was rocketed and strafed by INS Vikrant’s fighter aircraft to cut off the enemy’s retreat into the Bay of Bengal. Today, 43 years later, it sets the stage for China’s dramatic entry into India’s eastern seaboard.Assessments from the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) and naval intelligence say the Bangladesh Navy will station two ex-Chinese Ming-class submarines on bases that are less than 1,000 km away from Visakhapatnam, home to the Indian Navy’s nuclear powered submarine fleet and the Defence Research and Development Organisation’s (DRDO) missile test ranges at Balasore.The developments on India’s Arabian Sea flank are equally ominous. Intelligence officials say that over the next decade, China will help Pakistan field submarines with the ability to launch nuclear-tipped missiles from sea. Submarines, analysts say, are China’s instrument of choice to not just challenge the Indian Navy’s strategy of sea domination but also to undermine India’s second-strike capability. These developments have been accompanied by a flurry of Chinese submarine appearances in the Indian Ocean this year-Beijing sent two nuclear submarines and a conventional submarine. Two of them made port calls in Colombo, triggering concern in New Delhi.
Toehold in the Bay
“No one interested in geopolitics can afford to ignore the Bay of Bengal any longer,” geopolitical analyst Robert Kaplan wrote in a seminal essay in Stratfor in November. “This is the newold centre of the world, joining the two demographic immensities of the Indian subcontinent and East Asia.” For India, the Bay of Bengal is the launch pad for a ‘Look East’ policy that has received renewed attention under Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The Indian Navy is enhancing force levels at its Visakhapatnam naval base even as it has begun building a secret base for a proposed fleet of nuclear powered submarines at Rambilli, south of Visakhapatnam. Equipped with the 700-km range B05 submarine launched missiles, the Arihant-class submarines will have to patrol closer to the shores of a potential adversary. But equipped with the 3,500-km range K-4 missiles currently being developed by the DRDO, the Arihant and her sister submarines can cover both Pakistan and China with nuclear-tipped missiles from within the Bay of Bengal, providing the “robust second-strike capability” as stated in India’s nuclear doctrine.
Inputs suggest Bangladesh has acquired land and fenced locations at the Kutubdia Channel near Cox’s Bazar and the Rabnabad Channel near West Bengal. Kutubdia, intelligence officials say, is likely to feature enclosed concrete ‘pens’ to hide submarines. The possibility of Chinese submarines using this base provides a fresh equation to the strategic calculus.

“Our submarines become susceptible to tracking from the time they leave harbour,” says veteran submariner and former Southern Naval Command chief vice-admiral K.N. Sushil (retired). “But a far more worrying strategy is China’s ability to be able to threaten our assured second-strike capability. That effectively tips the deterrence balance.”
Chinese Submarine-Dec15.qxp
Chinese Han-class submarine Changzheng 2 in Colombo.West Coast Worries

Of greater long-term worry to Indian analysts is a strategic submarine project China finalised with Pakistan in 2010. Intelligence sources say this three-part programme will transform the Pakistan Navy into a strategic force capable of launching a sea-based nuclear weapons strike. Pakistan will build two types of submarines with Chinese assistance: the Project S-26 and Project S-30. The vessels are to be built at the Submarine Rebuild Complex (SRC) facility being developed at Ormara, west of Karachi. Intelligence sources believe the S-30 submarines are based on the Chinese Qing class submarines-3,000-tonne conventional submarines which can launch three 1,500-km range nuclear-tipped cruise missiles from its conning tower. A Very Low Frequency (VLF) station at Turbat, in southern Balochistan, will communicate with these submerged strategic submarines. The Project S-26 and S-30 submarines will augment Pakistan’s fleet of five French-built submarines, enhance their ability to challenge the Indian Navy’s aircraft carrier battle groups and carry a stealthy nuclear deterrent. “Submarines are highly effective force multipliers because they tie down large numbers of naval forces,” says a senior naval official.

Steel sharks on silk route

Speaking in Indonesia’s Parliament last October, Chinese President Xi Jinping articulated a “21st century Maritime Silk Road”. His vision calls for investments in port facilities across south and south-east Asia to complement a north Asian route. This year, the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) put steel into Xi’s vision. In February, a Shangclass nuclear-powered attack submarine made China’s first declared deployment in the Indian Ocean. This was followed by port calls made by a Han-class submarine in Colombo to coincide with a state visit by President Xi and a visit by a Song-class conventional submarine in November.

China’s heightened activity in the Indian Ocean region is underscored by investments in a new port in Gwadar at the mouth of the Strait of Hormuz, Hambantota port in Sri Lanka, a container facility in Chittagong and Kyaukpyu port in Myanmar. “Such developments have sharpened China’s geopolitical rivalry with India, which enjoys an immense geographic advantage in the Indian Ocean,” says Brahma Chellaney of the Centre for Policy Research. “Aspects related to their (Chinese) deployment in international waters are part of securing their maritime interests,” Navy chief Admiral Robin K. Dhowan told journalists in Delhi on December 3.

China’s new military posture reflects the ‘Malacca dilemma’ faced by the world’s largest oil importer. Close to 80 per cent of China’s crude oil imports of 11 million barrels per day, the life blood of its economy, is shipped through the narrow Malacca Strait. Any disruption to this could threaten its economic growth. “Hence, China’s economic interests in the Indian Ocean have now taken on an overt military dimension,” says an intelligence official.

Naval intelligence officials who correctly predicted that China would use anti-piracy patrols as a pretext for deployments in the Indian Ocean feel vindicated. Their prognosis of this game of ‘weiqi’-a game of Chinese chess which uses encirclement, is gloomy. “A full-scale Chinese deployment in the Indian Ocean is inevitable,” an admiral told India Today.

“You can only watch it and prepare yourself for it.” The preparations include acquisitions of long-range maritime patrol aircraft such as the US-made P8-I Poseidon, investment in anti-submarine warfare and inducting new submarines and helicopters to fill up critical deficiencies in force levels.

Measured Response

China’s submarine thrust into South Asia coincides with Narendra Modi’s renewed emphasis on securing India’s perimeter. “India’s response has to be nuanced, a mixture of coercion and largesse,” says Jayadeva Ranade, a former RAW official and member of the National Security Advisory Board. While the Manmohan Singh-led UPA government scoffed at encirclement theories, the new Government is clearly concerned over the creeping Chinese presence.

National Security Adviser Ajit Doval voiced India’s concerns at the ‘Galle Dialogue’ in Sri Lanka on December 1. He cited a 1971 United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution mooted by Sri Lanka calling on the “great powers to halt further escalation and expansion of their military presence in the Indian Ocean”.

India’s defence diplomacy has been severely limited by its inability to offer military hardware to offset the Chinese presence. Over half the military hardware of Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are of Chinese origin. In 2008, India called off a plan to transfer the INS Vela to the Myanmar Navy when it discovered the vintage Russian-built submarine was past its service life.

When plans to transfer hardware materialise, they are too feeble to make a difference-a solitary helicopter such as the one gifted to Nepal by Modi in November and a small ex-Indian naval patrol craft gifted to Seychelles recently. Often, there is a demand for capabilities where India itself is deficient. Bangladeshi officials stumped Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) officials last year when they asked India, and not China, to provide submarines. The Indian Navy is down to just 13 aging conventional submarines. The MEA suggested Bangladesh buy Russian submarines instead. Their efforts are yet to bear fruit. It is a gap China willingly fills.

– Follow the writer on Twitter @SandeepUnnithan.

The “Mystery” Is Called PAKISTAN

Mystery behind deaths of India’s Defence Mind

Nuclear
New Delhi Times
December 6, 2014

“Energy will be the immediate test of our ability to unite the nation, and it can also be the standard around which we rally. On the battlefield of energy we can win for our nation a new confidence, and we can seize control again of our common destiny”
– Jimmy Carter

This quote fits quite well in for every developing country that has taken steps of strengthening its ability to run the rat race that the powerful nations of the world have organized long back. The rat race is not in terms of maintaining peace and spreading harmony but dispersal of insecurity around the globe. It has hence become a dire need of the developing countries to lead the race of the nuke development. India has surged as a great leap of success in the minimum of decades compared to other developing countries.

Energy has been universally recognized as one of the most important input for economic growth and human development. There is a strong two way relationship between economic development and energy consumption. On the other hand, growth of an economy, with global competitiveness, hinges on availability of cost effective and environmentally benign energy resources.

India has been a part of the race ever since it was considered necessary by the country to deter the foreign forces. India’s nuclear weapons program is described by its government as a necessary minimum deterrent in the face of regional nuclear threats that include a considerably larger Chinese nuclear arsenal as well as Pakistan’s nuclear arms. This achievement that India is gaining in the span of time is making its neighbors a little restless it seems.

Amid all the success and development there comes a shocking revelation of mysterious deaths of a number of Indian Nuclear and Defence scientists over the past decade. In the past 3 years, two major nuclear institutions; Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) and Kaiga Nuclear Facility, have reported at least 9 unnatural deaths of nuclear scientists and engineers who had been working with them. The latest casualty was discovered on 7th October, 2013, in the state of Andhra Pradesh, Visakhapatnam; two engineers K.K Josh and Abhish Shivam (chief engineers connected with the building of India’s indigenous nuclear-powered submarine, Arihant.) were found dead in a very strange condition.

They were poisoned first and then left on railway tracks to make it look like an accident. The story of other scientists is strikingly similar. One thing in common: all deaths were in mysterious circumstances. There is obviously a well planned conspiracy behind this and our nation is under attack. Further investigation revealed that, they were working on one of the nation’s first nuclear projects of its kind and was under the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO).
In 2009 a senior scientist, Lokanathan Mahalingam, was reported to have committed suicide. The fact that no secret and sensitive documents were reported to be found near his body led the case to being treated lightly, and no serious investigations were conducted.

Similar reports reveal that, such abnormal deaths of individuals connected with nuclear projects have been going on since few years. Earlier, on 23rd February, 2010, M.Iyer; engineer in Bhabha Atomic Research Centre was found dead at home. The killer had used a duplicate key to enter the house and strangled the engineer in his sleep.

A year later on 29th April, 2011, a former scientist of BARC Uma Rao died unnaturally and was termed as suicide, while the suicide verdict was challenged by the family members as there was no contemplation than he was about to take such an extreme step.

These deaths point out the unnatural or conspired cause, these cases cannot be neglected by the government. Life and death are not within the control of human beings. Neither is natural birth nor death an anticipated event, but they call for astonishing attention. All these incidents probe us to think about a conspiracy behind it. Who all are becoming uncomfortable or feeling insecure because of India’s nuclear missions? Mysterious death of even a common man creates a wave of terror in the minds of the people,whereas these deceased people are scientists of vital importance to the country, the deaths of these people surely raises a question for the country’s security from unknown factors that might be the cause of these incidences.

As a matter of fact, it is true that Pakistan has always maintained envy towards India’s development and strength, if one considers the motive of such mysterious death it is quite obvious to point out the benefiter of the situation. A detailed investigation is needed by the government to understand the causality of these deaths; moreover the security of scientists working for such important cause should be the priority of the nation. Scientists like these have helped India stand as a superpower but the neighboring countries are trying to curtail the capability of Indian nuclear development by involving in such invincible cowardly acts.

The Evolving Shia Crescent, Sickle, and Horn (Daniel 8:8)

Iran’s Military Mastermind Is ‘The Leader Of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, And Yemen’

As the US provides air cover for Iranian-backed militias fighting ISIS (aka the Islamic State, ISIL, and/or Daesh) in Iraq, the longest continuously serving American official in the country has strong opinions about who is in control.

Ali Khedery, who served as a special assistant to five US ambassadors and a senior adviser to three heads of US Central Command between 2003 and 2009, told The New York Times: “For the Iranians, really, the gloves are off.”
He highlighted the role of Qassem Suleimani, the head of the Qods Force, the foreign arm of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps. Qods is directing sectarian militias in both Iraq and Syria. At the same time, Suleimani is nurturing the guerilla proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis rebel group in Yemen — in other words, he is controlling powerful Shia proxies all across the Middle East.
screen shot 2014-06-16 at 8.58.01 am-1
Suleimani is the leader of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen,” Khedery said. “Iraq is not sovereign. It is led by Suleimani, and his boss, [Iranian Supreme Leader] Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.”

For the Americans, any campaign against ISIS means US planes and combat advisors working in parallel with Iranian planes and Shia militias who have US blood on their hands.

“In Iraq, a degree of coordination between the American military and Iran’s is imperative but also awkward,” The Times notes, “making it appear that the United States is working in tandem with its adversary.”

The Obama administration, while denying any coordination, does not seem to mind Iran’s empowerment as the two countries negotiate a potential nuclear deal that Obama hopes will rebalance the region for the better.

The consequences of the Iran-backed agenda are becoming increasingly clear, however, as the regime of Bashar Assad continues to rain barrel bombs on civilians, Al Qaeda’s Syria affiliate routs US-backed rebels, Tehran sends more fighters to bolster Assad, Iraqi Shia militias torch Sunni villages in Iraq, and ISIS runs a self-declared caliphate across both Iraq and Syria.

In August, Khedery told Reza Akhlaghi of the Foreign Policy Association that these circumstances will only breed more sectarian violence.

“So what will happen is that the spiral of sectarian warfare will increase more and more, radicalizing the Sunni populations more and more and eventually spilling over into countries across the region almost all of which have mixed Shia-Sunni populations,” the former adviser said.

Khedery has been very critical of the Obama administration’s handling of Iraq.

The thrust of his critique involves Obama’s decision to back former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, an Iran-backed Shia, in December 201o while also betraying promises made to the Sunni tribal leaders who had previously fought with American troops against ISIS predecessor Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).

America’s continued support of Maliki made it so that “Iraq’s path toward civil war was really inevitable,” Khedery said in August, explaining that Maliki steered Baghdad “toward a very pro-Iranian and sectarian agenda, which inevitably disillusioned and disenfranchised Sunni Arabs for a second time.”

Meanwhile, the US turned away from Iraq after Washington went along with the plan created by Suleimani, effectively handing off the country to Iran as a way to remove US troops and still stabilize the country.

“Maliki’s misrule in Iraq and Assad’s misrule in Syria, and their cooperation along with the Iranians and Hezbollah to wage a campaign of genocide, led to a region-wide sectarian war while the United States under President Obama stood back and watched and did nothing as the violence spiraled further and further out of control,” Khedery argued in August.

 

Preparing For The Nuclear Holocaust (Revelation 15:2)

The Islamic State eyes nukes, Asia

Revelation 15-2

Pakistan (MNN) — While the Islamic State (ISIS) has been in Pakistan since October, the Pakistani government is finally acknowledging the group’s presence. In a weekly briefing yesterday, the foreign ministry spokeswoman confirmed that people with links to ISIS (known in Pakistan by its Arabic acronym “Daish”) are in police custody.
Despite knowing at least one month ago about the Islamic State’s foothold in Pakistan, authorities repeatedly denied the group’s presence in their country.
“Pakistan, where Islamic State is now really getting a foothold, is a nuclear power. And the government is unstable; it’s shaky,” Bruce Allen of Forgotten Missionaries International (FMI) observes.
“If these [nuclear] weapons get into the hands of Islamic State, that’s a global catastrophe.”

A nuclear Islamic State

Allen says one way or another, the terrorists will undoubtedly get their hands on nuclear power.
“Even if ISIS doesn’t immediately grab nuclear weapons, there are elements in Pakistan that can sell that nuclear technology or nuclear weapons to ISIS,” he explains.
“That would give them such strength that I don’t think many leaders around the world are prepared to deal with.”
Obtaining nuclear warfare and/or intelligence would give Islamic State the ability to launch attacks anywhere in the world. And establishing a stronghold in Pakistan would give them a portal to the world’s largest and most-populous continent: Asia.

Stepping stone

Right next door to Pakistan is Afghanistan, where the U.S. is getting ready to withdraw almost all of its combat troops. Less than 10,000 U.S. soldiers will be left in Afghanistan by year’s end, and those staying will only be equipped to “advise and assist” Afghan Security Forces.

According to a FoxNews.com report, the Taliban is already stepping into the power vacuum created by the withdrawal of U.S. troops. In the past three weeks, terrorists have staged at least 12 attacks specifically targeting foreigners.

Earlier this week, Christian missionaries from South Africa were slaughtered in Kabul.As they’ve clearly stated before, the Islamic State intends to create a global caliphate (more about their intentions here).The thought of uniting under the banner of radical Islam often falls flat among most of the world’s Muslims. However, the Islamic State’s strength and sustainability keep it a viable threat.

The fact that ISIS is gaining ground and, potentially, easy entry to Asia should stir the world’s prayer warriors to action.

“God’s hand is not so short that He can’t turn this tide, so pray for the Lord to halt the spread of the Islamic State,” says Allen.

Pray also for FMI-supported pastors and their congregations in Pakistan. Pray that their faith will be strengthened and that they will have courage in the Lord. Pray for their safety as Islamic State advances.