Nuclear Winter Is Unavoidable (Revelation 8:10)

Global Fallout of Nuclear War Unavoidable: US Research Center

nuclear winter

10:47 09.12.2014(updated 11:37 09.12.2014)

Scientists from the US National Center for Atmospheric Research said even if a small scale nuclear war broke out in one region of the world, the entire planet would be at risk, as the planet would experience falling temperatures, less precipitation and reduced sunlight, among other grave consequences.

VIENNA, December 9 (Sputnik), Daria Chernyshova — In the event if a nuclear war breaks out in one region of the Earth, the entire planet would suffer grave consequences, characterized by falling temperatures, less precipitation and reduced sunlight, Mike Mills, a scientist at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, told Sputnik Tuesday.

“Even if the nuclear war happened in one part of the planet – India and Pakistan – the whole globe would be affected by the temperatures dropping, precipitating dropping, sunlight dropping and also the amount of harmful ultra-violet would increase, because of the ozone layer,” Mills said on the sidelines of the Vienna Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons.He described a scenario where after an initial explosion cities would be engulfed by giant firestorms, like those seen during World War II – in Tokyo and Hiroshima.

“And this would produce a tremendous amount of smoke. We looked at a scenario in which India and Pakistan each used 50 of the smallest nuclear weapons, the size used on Hiroshima – on each other’s cities. Researchers estimated this would produce about 6.5 million tons of smoke, black smoke that would absorb a lot of sunlight,” the atmospheric scientist said, citing results of his research.

Heat from the sun would encourage smoke from the fires to rise up into the stratosphere, where the ozone layer is. Since weather features like rain do not occur this high up in the atmosphere, the smoke could not be simply washed away by rain, like it would lower down. Thus it could remain in the stratosphere for years, absorbing sunlight, preventing it from reaching the surface of the Earth. As a result, temperatures at the surface would drop and precipitation patterns would be affected. This in turn would have an impact on agriculture and ecosystems, leading to reductions in crop production, which in turn could give rise to a global famine.

Mills pointed out that as long as countries possess nuclear weapons, it is not a question if they will be used, but when.

“You know that governments change, and relations between countries can change; and as long as we possess the ability to annihilate each other and pose this catastrophic risk to the survival of our species and others on the planet, if we gave as long enough time, they would be used, eventually. Right now there is an increasing number of countries with nuclear weapons and that increases the risk of conflict between different nuclear armed states exponentially,” Mills told Sputnik urging to reverse that.

He stressed that nuclear powers are not doing enough to eliminate nuclear weapons. For instance, the new START treaty signed in 2010 between the United States and Russia, did not consider the climatic consequences of nuclear war. Mills pointed out the need to raise awareness about the risks of a nuclear winter, as in his view, greater awareness would put more pressure on governments to push for disarmament.“You really can’t ignore the impact on humanity of that kind of a war, and if someone were to say – well, we don’t care what happens to human beings after nuclear war, we have to question that kind of leadership whether it is coming from the military or diplomats,” Mills said adding that the well-being of society should be at the forefront of international leaders’ minds.

The Vienna Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons is taking place on December 8-9 in Hofburg Palace in the Austrian capital. Its aim is to promote nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation. According to the conference’s organization committee, over 16,000 nuclear warheads still exist, many of which are on “high alert”.

The Ending Begins In Babylon Where It All Began (Genesis 11)

The Threshold For Nuclear War Between Pakistan And India Keeps Dropping

Mukesh Gupta/ReutersAn Indian Border Security Force soldier patrols near the fenced border with Pakistan in Suchetgarh, southwest of Jammu January 11, 2013.

 India-Pakistan border

Most people think that, since the end of the Cold War, chances that a nuclear war will break out are slim to none.

Though some nervousness has surfaced since the Ukraine crisis, it’s true that, barring an accident, the United States and Russia are unlikely to attack each other with nuclear weapons.

Southeast Asia is another matter, as Gregory Koblentz warns in a report for the Council of Foreign Relations titled Strategic Stability in the Second Nuclear Age. Interviewed about the report by Deutsche Welle, Koblentz pointed out: “The only four countries currently expanding their nuclear arsenals are China, India, Pakistan and North Korea.”

China, for example, is developing mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles to prevent its stationery ICBMs from becoming sitting ducks, as well as submarines capable of launching ballistic missiles. Meanwhile, by 2020, Pakistan could have enough nuclear material to build 200 nuclear weapons, about as many as Great Britain currently has. Koblentz told Deutsche Welle:

Altogether, Pakistan has deployed or is developing eleven different nuclear delivery systems including ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and aircraft.

As if terrorism, such as the Mumbai attacks of 2008, and territorial disputes, such as over Jammu and Kashmir, don’t make relations between Pakistan and India volatile enough, a new element has been introduced. Pakistan is now seeking to develop low-yield tactical nuclear weapons (as opposed to strategic ― the big ones) to compensate for its inferiority to India in conventional weapons and numbers of armed forces. Koblentz told Deutsche Welle:

Since the conventional military imbalance between India and Pakistan is expected to grow thanks to India’s larger economy and higher gross domestic product (GDP) growth rate, Pakistan’s reliance on nuclear weapons to compensate for its conventional inferiority will likely be an enduring feature of the nuclear balance in South Asia.

What makes tactical weapons so dangerous is that, by blurring the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons, they turn nuclear weapons from unthinkable to thinkable. Equally as dangerous, Koblentz explains:

The introduction of tactical nuclear weapons may lead Pakistan to loosen its highly centralized command and control practices. Due to their short-ranges (the Nasr/Hatf-IX has a range of about 60 kilometers), these types of weapons need to be deployed close to the front-lines and ready for use at short-notice.

Thus are lower-ranking officers granted “greater authority and capability to arm and launch nuclear weapons” which “raises the risk of unauthorized actions during a crisis.” Another risk

… is inadvertent escalation. There is the potential for a conventional conflict to escalate to the nuclear level if the commander of a forward-deployed, nuclear-armed unit finds himself in a ‘use it or lose it’ situation and launches the nuclear weapons under his control before his unit is overrun.”

It’s all too vertiginous for words. Some in the United States might think that’s not our problem. Pakistan and India are digging their own grave ― let them lie in it.” But, of course, nuclear war in Southeast Asia has the potential to turn the entire world into a grave. To wit:

Summary of Consequences of Regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan
(from studies done at Rutgers, the University of Colorado-Boulder and UCLA)

If …War is fought with 100 Hiroshima-size weapons (currently available in India-Pakistan arsenals), which have half of 1 percent (0.05%) of the total explosive power of all currently operational and deployed U.S.-Russian nuclear weapons

20 million people die from the direct effects of the weapons, which is equal to nearly half the number of people killed during World War II

Weapons detonated in the largest cities of India and Pakistan create massive firestorms which produce millions of tons of smoke

1 to 5 million tons of smoke quickly rise 50 km above cloud level into the stratosphere
The smoke spreads around the world, forming a stratospheric smoke layer that blocks sunlight from reaching the surface of Earth

Within 10 days following the explosions, temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere would become colder than those experienced during the pre-industrial Little Ice Age
… This cold weather would also cause a 10% decline in average global rainfall and a large reduction in the Asian summer monsoon.

25-40% of the protective ozone layer would be destroyed at the mid-latitudes, and 50-70% would be destroyed at northern high latitudes.Massive increases of harmful UV light would result, with significantly negative effects on human, animal and plant life.

These changes in global climate would cause significantly shortened growing seasons in the Northern Hemisphere for at least years. It would be too cold to grow wheat in most of Canada.
World grain stocks, which already are at historically low levels, would be completely depleted. Grain exporting nations would likely cease exports in order to meet their own food needs.

Some medical experts predict that ensuing food shortages would cause hundreds of millions of already hungry people, who now depend upon food imports, to starve to death during the years following the nuclear conflict.

When it comes to nuclear weapons, we truly are all in it together. Many claim that whatever leadership the United States and the West might demonstrate in disarmament would be lost on Asian nuclear-weapon states. But they fail to take into account how disarmament is becoming a norm all over the world including in Asia.


OLD NEWS: Iranian General In Iraq (Daniel 8:3)

Possible sanctions breach as Iran Quds chief spotted in Iraq: U.N.

Soleimani with Shi'ite fighters (image:, October 14, 2014)

Soleimani with Shi’ite fighters (image:, October 14, 2014)

UNITED NATIONS Mon Dec 8, 2014 6:48pm EST

 (Reuters) – United Nations sanctions monitors have said photographs taken inside Iraq appear to confirm that the head of Iran’s elite military Quds Force, one of Iran’s most powerful people, has been in the country in violation of a U.N. travel ban.

Qassem Soleimani, chief of the force which is an overseas arm of the Revolutionary Guards, has been subject to an international travel ban and asset freeze by the U.N. Security Council since 2007.

An Iranian general said in September that Soleimani was in Iran’s western neighbor and was playing a critical role in the fight against Sunni Islamic State militants.

A seven-page report by the U.N. Panel of Experts on Iran, seen by Reuters on Monday, said Soleimani “has been photographed and videoed on a number of occasions, allegedly in Iraq.”

One photograph reportedly shows him near the city of Amerli in northern Iraq after Iraqi forces re-took the city from ISIL (an acronym often used for Islamic State),” it said. The report included a photo purporting to be of Soleimani in Iraq.

Iran is supporting Iraqi government forces and Shi’ite militia against the militants, who have seized large swaths of Iraqi and Syrian territory.

Washington designated Soleimani’s Quds Force as a supporter of terrorism in 2007. The European Union did the same in 2011. Western governments and Israel accuse it of arming various militant groups across the Middle East.

U.N. member states are required to deny entry to blacklisted individuals. Diplomats at Iraq’s U.N. mission did not respond immediately to requests for comment.

The experts’ report also said it had received no new reports of nuclear sanctions violations by Tehran since the end of March, though it added “this may reflect caution on the part of States to engage with the panel at a time when the (nuclear) negotiations are ongoing.”

Iran and major world powers agreed last month to extend negotiations on a long-term nuclear deal through the end of June 2015 after the two sides failed for the second time this year to reach an agreement that would lift sanctions in exchange for curbs on Iranian nuclear activities.

Iran denies Western allegations it wants the capability to produce atomic weapons and has vowed to skirt sanctions wherever possible.

In its report, the panel said Iran’s illicit procurement of banned nuclear technology appears to have continued.

But the International Atomic Energy Agency has said Iran has complied with the terms of an interim nuclear deal reached a year ago which formed the basis of the talks now under way to reach a comprehensive agreement.

(Additional reporting by Fredrik Dahl; Editing by David Storey and James Dalgleish)

Preparing For The Holy War (Revelation 16:16)

For first time, Iran media admit point of missile program was ‘to hit Israel’

Iran's missile range with Shahab 3 1900 km
Special to

NICOSIA — After officially insisting that its nearly 30-year-old ballistic missile program was not targeting any one country, Iran has acknowledged that it was aimed against Israel.

The state-owned Iranian media have given unprecedented details of the origin of Teheran’s ballistic missile program under the Islamic regime. The media quoted senior officials as saying that the impetus for the program was to strike Israel.

“We need a missile that we can use to hit Israel,” Hassan Moghadam, the father of Iran’s missile program killed in an explosion in 2011, was quoted as saying.

The Fars News Agency published a long account by Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Air Force, on the aims of the missile program. Hajizadeh said Teheran, as early as 1986, wanted to rapidly produce a missile with a range of more than 1,000 kilometers to attack Israel.

“We worked simultaneously on liquid- and solid-fuel missiles,” Hajizadeh recalled. “We copied the Shihab-1 missile from the Scud-B, which was productive, and in less two years, we created the 500-kilometer range Shihab-2.”

The account departed from Iran’s long-held claim that the missile program was not meant against any country. Over the last year, Teheran has refused demands by P5+1 to limit its missile program along with nuclear capabilities.

Hajizadeh said Iran, through such agencies as the Defense Ministry and so-called Jihad Ministry, produced a prototype missile with a range of 1,100 kilometers. He said the missiles were deployed in Gilan e-Gharb near the Iraqi border to ensure that they could reach Israel.

“Hassan [Moghadam] believed that we had to attain a range for our missiles that would allow us to threaten the Zionist regime,” Hajizadeh recalled in an interview with Fars on Nov. 12. “If it was not sufficient to reach the occupied territories [Israel], then we’d have a problem.”

Hajizadeh said the first missiles produced by Iran were liquid-fuel, which contained severe limitations. He said Iran proceeded with several stages of development until solid-fuel missiles were produced with ranges of up to 2,000 kilometers.

“At first we would reverse-engineer them, the way we produced the Shihab-1 from the Scud-B or the Shihab-3 from the Scud-C,” Hajizadeh said. “However, thanks to round-the-clock work by our dear scientists, we developed missile-design capabilities — that is, from idea to [final] product, everything is completely Iranian.”

Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei was said to have been the leading lobbyist to improve the accuracy of Teheran’s missile arsenal. Khamenei was quoted as saying that Iran needed to reach a circle error of probability of less than 10 meters. At one point, Iran improved accuracy from a CEP of 2,000 meters to 35 meters.

“‘Your work is excellent and top-notch, but if you can attain a 35-meter [CEP], then you can also attain 10-15 meter,” Hajizadeh quoted Khamenei as saying. “We were in shock. The guys once again went to work, and within five or six months, we had reached accuracy of better than 10 meters.”

India Escalates The Nuclear Arms Race With Pakistan And China

India’s weapons plans raise specter of nuclear arms race in Asia

By Tom Hussain

Key dates in South Asia’s arms race

Dec. 2, 2014: Indian military tests 2,500-mile-range Agni-IV ballistic missile, its first capable of striking deep into China.
December 2014: India is expected to test a mobile-delivery platform for the Agni-V, its first intercontinental ballistic missile.
Early 2015: Sea trials of India’s first nuclear submarine to begin.
2015: Further Indian missile tests lead to military’s deployment of Agni-IV missile by year-end; final development testing of Agni-V ICBM.
2016: Indian deployment of the Agni-V.
2016: India adds nuclear submarines to its navy, achieving strategic parity with China.
2015-16: China to respond to Pakistan’s request for nuclear submarine technology, sought to attain parity with India.

ISLAMABAD — India has embarked on a series of crucial weapons-systems tests that will result in the first deployment by air, sea and land of nuclear weapons by rival powers in Asia, in 2016.
The creation of what military planners call a nuclear theater in South Asia would pit India against neighboring foes China and Pakistan, nations with which India has fought a total of seven wars since 1947. The region comprises a population of 2.8 billion, nearly 39 percent of the world’s people, according to 2014 estimates by the U.S. Census Bureau.

India fought a 1962 war with China and has had six conflicts with Pakistan since attaining independence in 1947, mostly territorial disputes left unresolved by departing British colonial rulers.
The strategic game change in South Asia comes as India perfects its ability to hit targets anywhere in China with nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles and establishes an ability to launch nuclear missiles from submarines.

The completion of India’s air-, land- and sea-based nuclear weapon triumvirate would place it on rough strategic par with China, its major rival for power in South Asia and Pakistan’s key ally.

“The reality of an arms race in South Asia is quite evident. For most Indian decision-makers, it is the China factor that remains the most important issue. (New) Delhi also fears a China-Pakistan axis, and so it feels the needs to be prepared for a ‘two-front’ war,” said Harsh V. Pant, an Asia security expert and professor of international relations at King’s College London, a British university.

China possesses about 250 nuclear weapons and Pakistan has up to 120, compared with India’s 110, according to a report published Nov. 23 by the Council on Foreign Relations, a U.S. research organization. Only the United States and Russia possess more.

The series of strategic events in South Asia started last Tuesday with the Indian military’s first successful test of the 2,500-mile-range Agni-IV, the first Indian ballistic missile capable of delivering nuclear or conventional warheads deep into Chinese territory. It’s scheduled to be deployed by India’s strategic forces command in late 2015.

Later in December, India’s strategic weapons trailblazer, the Defense Research and Development Organization, is scheduled to test the road-mobile delivery platform of its first true intercontinental ballistic missile, the Agni-V. With a range of up to 3,400 miles, it would extend India’s strategic reach to the rest of China when pressed into service in 2016.

The achievement of that key objective of India’s land-based strategic weapons program would be accompanied in 2016 by the Indian navy’s deployment of its first nuclear weapons-carrying submarine.

Soon to begin sea trials, the Arihant is the first of three home-built Indian subs that would each carry either four or 12 missiles with a 2,200-mile or 440-mile range, respectively, strongly suggesting a choice of mission between targets in China or Pakistan.

The likely deployment of India’s first nuclear-armed submarine prompted China to dispatch its submarines on a tour of the Indian Ocean for the first time this year. Provocatively, the two conventionally armed submarines called at a Chinese-operated port in Sri Lanka, off the southern tip of India.

“With China spreading its wings in the Indian Ocean . . . nuclear submarines are considered critical by India to attain a credible second-strike posture vis-à-vis China. The real story here is the growing China-India distrust and how that has impacted the defense acquisitions in South Asia,” Pant said.

The strategic stakes in the Indian Ocean would be raised further if China were to agree to sell Pakistan the technology to build Chinese-designed nuclear-armed submarines.

China has added three of five Jin-class nuclear-armed submarines to its arsenal since 2010, each carrying a dozen ballistic missiles with a range of 2,900 miles, according to the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence. It hasn’t yet conducted any operational patrols with the subs, according to the Council on Foreign Relations report.

Pakistani defense analysts said Pakistan was pursuing a deal for three nuclear submarines. The first would be built in China, and the other two at a Pakistani naval dockyard in Karachi.

However, there’s been no official comment from Pakistan or China since news of the proposed deal first surfaced in the Pakistani media in 2013.

Since 2011, India and Pakistan have proved their ability to strike targets up to 1,300 miles away, the equivalent of anywhere on each other’s territory. China’s Cold War-origin program has included missiles with a range equivalent to India’s Agni-V since 1980.

Pakistan’s strategic weapons program is exclusively India-focused, and that goal has restrained it from testing ballistic missiles of a range equal to India’s advanced Agni models.

Instead, it’s focused on developing the variety of its nuclear forces, which notably include short-range missiles capable of delivering so-called tactical nuclear warheads to deter an Indian military occupation of Pakistani territory.

In terms of fissile-material production, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program is the world’s fastest growing and could number 200 devices by 2020, the Council on Foreign Relations report said.

One concern analysts raise is that the expansion of strategic forces in South Asia – specifically India’s development of a submarine-based platform and Pakistan’s deployment of tactical nuclear warheads on short-range missiles – will lead both nations to end their practice of storing nuclear weapons away from their launchers. Such “decoupling” increases the time required to activate and launch nuclear-tipped weapons, providing a significant barrier to escalation.

“The short flight times of ballistic missiles between India and Pakistan exacerbate these tensions by sharply reducing decision-making timelines for government officials during a crisis,” the Council on Foreign Relations report said.

Hussain is a McClatchy special correspondent. Twitter: @tomthehack.
Read more here: