Nuclear Provocation From The Third Horn (Daniel 8:8)

Dangerous provocations
Rizwan Asghar
Friday, January 16, 2015
 The concept of ‘limited nuclear war’ was first alluded to in the cold-war bipolar security environment as a potential alternative to a ‘full-scale nuclear conflict’ between two world superpowers, the United States and the USSR. In 1974, then Secretary of Defence James R Schlesinger, while briefing a Senate committee, pushed for a nuclear weapons doctrine, exploring the option of a limited nuclear war against the USSR in case of an armed confrontation.His argument was that instead of only two military options, being either no war or total global annihilation, US forces must be able to launch a ‘limited strike’ on selected Soviet military troops and their bases. The basic idea was to limit damage to such an extent that nuclear skirmishes could not turn into a full-scale nuclear war. Both President Richard Nixon and his secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, supported the idea, characterising it as being conducted for the purpose of achieving swift political resolution of the conflicts.
 Military strategists define limited nuclear war as a “war in which each side exercises restraint in the use of nuclear weapons, employing only a limited number of (low-yield) nuclear weapons on selected targets.” The goals in such conflicts could include disrupting enemy command and control centres or particular sites of strategic importance.

During the 1980s, the idea of limited nuclear assault was confronted with a great deal of opposition particularly from American academia. In actuality, the idea of limited use of nuclear weapons in a war was based on unrealistic notions that such a war could be winnable and controllable. Any limited use of a nuclear weapon, anywhere in the world, would have significant strategic implications for the changing international security landscape. It seems almost inevitable that, with limited nuclear war, there will be large uncertainties about the scope of conflict.

Any such conflict would quickly spiral out of control, escalating into a full-scale nuclear war. With the cold war now in the past, appalling notions like limited nuclear assault are still very much a part of our public discourse. Though the likelihood of use of one or more nuclear weapons during a crisis or conflict is not very high, it remains a possible scenario.

Many nuclear experts are of the view that the nuclear-armed countries could become engaged in a limited war, entailing the use of nuclear weapons. It is important to remember that the concept of limited nuclear war originated during the cold -war period when there were only a small number of countries with nuclear arsenals. At that point, the nuclear conflict scenarios involved only threats of confrontation between the US and the Soviet Union.

Today’s global security environment includes the nine declared nuclear-weapons states and there are deep concerns about South Asia and the Middle East as two flashpoints for nuclear wars. The increasing number of nuclear players is also leading to the greater probability that nuclear weapons can be used in the future.

It is generally impossible to forecast the initiation and conditions that could prevail in any such kind of limited war. It could involve varying attack intensities and timing, and with different objectives, all of which would increase the danger of the outbreak of a large-scale nuclear conflagration. Nuclear tipped missiles may suffer mechanical failure or deflection in flight, allowing for the possibility of missiles falling within one’s own territory.

A number of ‘outside’ factors could serve as catalysts for future nuclear use. After the 2008 Mumbai attacks, it is pretty obvious that another large-scale terrorist attack in India would bring South Asia to the brink of nuclear confrontation. In case Pakistan is overwhelmed by India in a conventional war, it will surely employ its nuclear weapons to avert defeat.

Similar fears have been expressed from time to time about the Middle East where Israel, if on the verge losing a conventional war, might use nuclear weapons. North Korea could get into a nuclear conflict with the US.

The advocates of nuclear war forget that even a limited, regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan, involving the use of five to ten weapons from both sides, would kill millions of people on both sides. The release of radiation due to nuclear explosions would set off a global famine in many parts of the world, effectively bringing human civilisation close to destruction.

In April 2012, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and Physicians for Social Responsibility released a study that predicted that a nuclear famine could kill more than a billion people. A billion people dead in the developing world is obviously a catastrophe unparalleled in human history. The planet would face similar apocalyptic impact from a limited nuclear war in the Middle East or anywhere in the world. In the aftermath of a nuclear war, few countries may survive somewhere on the planet but the chaos that would result from this apocalypse will turn this planet into a frozen nuclear wasteland.

We are no longer living in the early years of the post-World War II era when only the US was in possession of nuclear weapons. Due to the unprecedented nature of nuclear conflict, there are well-placed fears that any use of nuclear weapons could escalate into global nuclear warfare.

In 1983, Soviet Chief of the General Staff, Sergei F Akhromeev, said that a limited nuclear war between any of two countries was impossible. If nuclear war is touched off, it will inevitably become general, with all the resulting consequences. Countries like Pakistan and India need to learn lessons from the mistaken notions developed during the cold war.

Indian officials have made it clear that nuclear war cannot be limited and India would use at least a substantial proportion of its nuclear arsenal to inflict ‘massive punitive damage’ in case of a nuclear attack. Nuclear weapons must be eliminated before they eliminate us.


NYC, Not CT Should Prepare For The Sixth Seal (Rev 6:12)

Connecticut Officials Address Community Worries In Wake Of Recent Earthquakes
CT earthquake

HARTFORD, Conn. (CBSNewYork) – After a series of earthquakes, rattled residents gathered in an auditorium in Plainfield, Connecticut to find out how to prepare if a bigger one hits.

Plainfield First Selectman Paul E. Sweet and Dr. Alan Kafka, director of the Weston Observatory at Boston College, addressed residents’ concerns while warning that a bigger earthquake is indeed a possibility.

“Is it possible that we would have a larger quake? The answer is yes,” Sweet said.

As CBS2’s Tracee Carrasco reported, state officials spent most of the earlier day Friday in a meeting to come up with a game plan to keep residents safe – treating earthquakes like any natural disaster.

“Whether you’re talking about hurricanes or snowstorms and now earthquakes, it’s all the same kind of common sense policies and practices,” said Commissioner Dora B. Schriro, of the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection.

But that was little comfort to rattled residents who fear another bigger earthquake could strike at any moment.

About a dozen earthquakes have occurred between Plainfield and Danielson in the span of four days — and First Selectman Paul Sweet said people want information.

“We’ve been through floods, we’ve been through hurricanes, we’ve been through tornadoes, but we never had an earthquake,” Sweet told WCBS 880’s Paul Murnane. “Sixty years I’ve been on the planet, I haven’t ever experienced an earthquake and just about everybody who lives in this town has not experienced it. It’s new and there’s a lot of unknown and a lot of anxieties.”

Residents have called 911 more than 300 times following the recent earthquakes in eastern Connecticut.

Seismologists at Boston College’s Weston Observatory said most of the earthquakes have been under 2.0-magnitutde, but residents can still feel them.

“I was sitting in bed drinking my early morning cup of coffee before everybody got up and all of a sudden I heard this loud boom,” said resident Marian Diggs.

As CBS2’s Lou Young reported, scientists said they were surprised by the recent earthquake activity.
Won-Young Kim, a research professor at Lamont-Doherty Observatory in Palisade, New York said the small quakes were not necessarily cause for alarm.

“Not really, because they’re small. One problem is a bunch of earthquakes came within a week,” Kim said.

The observatory sits high on the Palisades. It monitors 40 sensor stations in the Northeast U.S. and scientists said they have never seen earthquake activity in that part of Connecticut before.

The Lake Charles Fault has no history of activity in the decades scientists have been listening. The epicenter for the quakes is half a mile down, making it fairly shallow.

Many said they have never experienced an earthquake in the area, and they want to know why it is happening now.

“There’s something that’s making this thing happen,” said William Tetreault of Plainfield, Connecticut.

At this point, scientists are ruling out manmade causes such as hydraulic fracturing – commonly known as fracking – since none is taking place in the area.

Scriro advised residents fasten bookcases to the wall and water heaters and furnaces to the floor.

A 3.3-magnitude earthquake near the Connecticut-Rhode Island state line on Monday was the strongest New England earthquake since a 4.0-magnitude quake in Maine in 2012. The Monday quake surrendered its title on Thursday, when a 3.4 quake hit and left behind small cracks.

While the greatest earthquake activity in the country is in the west, scientists said earthquakes are “quite common” in many areas in the east.

“Even though Connecticut does not have a history of earthquake swarms, they do happen,” Dr. Michio Kaku, Professor of Theoretical Physics at City University of New York, said on “CBS This Morning.” “The northeast is different from California, there’s no single gash like the San Andreas fault in the northeast, but we have small earthquake faults — deeper, smaller and largely uncharted.”

State geologist Margaret Thomas said the youngest rock formations around the Plainfield faults are nearly 300 million years old and there’s nothing to indicate the area is waking up with a vengeance, WCBS 880’s Paul Murnane reported.

“These quakes have not changed our risk estimates for Connecticut,” Thomas said.

Connecticut’s Insurance Department said quake policies often have deductibles that are based on the percentage of a home’s value and not on a flat dollar amount.

Now may not be the best time to shop — quake policies can be hard to come by during peak periods of seismic activity, Murnane reported.

The West Is Ready To Drink The Kool-Aid (Revelation 15:2)

Iran nuclear talks ‘in decisive phase,’ says German FM
By AFP January 16, 2015, 4:34 am 2

BERLIN, Germany — Germany’s foreign minister said Thursday no more deadlines must be missed in the Iran nuclear negotiations which had entered “a decisive phase.”

“We must now use the newly opened time window, we must leave nothing undone to reach the solution that has eluded us in recent years,” Frank-Walter Steinmeier said before the talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.

In a brief joint press appearance with Zarif, Steinmeier said “we probably share the understanding that this is now the decisive phase of the negotiations”.

Iran and major world powers have given themselves until late June to reach a comprehensive agreement that would prevent Tehran from developing a nuclear bomb, a goal it denies having, in return for an easing of punishing economic sanctions.

Sunday will see talks in Geneva between Iran and the so-called P5+1 group — the United States, Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia — seeking to break a stalemate that has seen two earlier deadlines pass without an accord.

Steinmeier said that “we have extended this transition agreement twice but we also agreed at the last meeting that we share the common understanding that one cannot indefinitely continue the extensions.”

“Iran’s path to nuclear weapons must end unambiguously, verifiably and permanently, and in return sanctions must be lifted credibly and step-by-step,” Steinmeier said.

He added that this would restore trust between all sides as they faced a host of crises and conflicts such as the threat posed by the Islamic State jihadist group in Iraq and Syria.

“We have lost 11 years, and the conditions have not become better. And that’s why we need to seize the opportunity to achieve justice, peace and security, and I’m certain that with the participation of Germany… we can reach this goal,” Zarif said.

Later Thursday, Zarif met European Union foreign affairs head Federica Mogherini who insisted that the “negotiations have to be brought to a conclusion in line with the agreed time.”

Mogherini also discussed a “wide range” of topics including the crisis in Syria and Iraq.

Mogherini “encouraged Iran to use its considerable influence to help create a more inclusive and stable Iraq, which is in both the EU’s and Iran’s interests,” a statement said.

Zarif met US Secretary of State John Kerry in Geneva on Wednesday and is due to meet French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius in Paris on Friday.

Read more:

Babylon The Great Begins Nuclear Upgrades (Daniel 7:7)

Nuclear satellite terminal upgrade to begin operational testing

HANSCOM AIR FORCE BASE, Mass. (AFNS) — The nuclear satellite communication terminals that connect U.S. leaders to Minuteman combat crews in the event of a nuclear attack are currently undergoing an upgrade and scheduled to begin operational testing this month.

The Air Force will be updating its intercontinental ballistic missile communication systems located in the ICBM Launch Control Centers (LCC). This is an effort led by the Minuteman Minimum Essential Emergency Communications Network Program Upgrade team (MMPU), at Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts. MMPU will be the first Air Force Advanced Extremely High Frequency terminal fielded in support of the new Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) satellite architecture.
Using extremely high frequency signals from a Milstar satellite, current terminals receive emergency action messages and serve as the primary satellite communications system for ICBM LCCs. The development of the AEHF satellite constellation to replace Milstar requires the Air Force to upgrade its hardware to support AEHF operations.

According to program officials, the month-long operational testing period will determine how well the new equipment operates in the field while running on active networks.

“The end result is an upgrade that will bring numerous benefits, including an expansion in capability, enhanced operator control and a state-of-the-art security architecture,” said Brett Fagan, the MMPU program manager. “For example, backwards compatibility is crucial. After we modify the existing (extremely high frequency) terminals, we will be able to communicate with both AEHF satellite and Milstar EHF constellations.”

One of the most notable capability improvements comes in the form of data rate transfers. Under the AEHF satellite constellation, messages are transmitted many times faster than the current Milstar system.

In addition to increased data rates, MMPU will provide a state-of-the-art nuclear security architecture.
“When dealing with nuclear assets, it goes without saying that having the most up-to-date security technology is critical.” Fagan said. “The upgraded terminals will be equipped with the latest crypto modifications and modern crypto key designs.”

Another key difference between the legacy system and MMPU’s version pertains specifically to Minuteman combat crew operators — MMPU gives them more control. LCC operators will now have the ability to switch satellites through the terminal, eliminating the need for maintenance crew dispatch to change the terminal communication plans.

“Many LCCs are not easy to get to, so the ability to avoid the dispatch of maintenance teams for routine tasks ensures a more seamless mission capability,” Fagan said.

MMPU program officials remain optimistic that the upgrade will reach initial operational capability in early 2016. Ultimately, the team intends to modify all the terminals within the LCCs managed by three bases: Malmstrom AFB, Montana; F.E. Warren AFB, Wyoming; and Minot AFB, North Dakota.

“MMPU provides our national leadership with an advanced, secure and agile C3 capability for our ICBM forces, and will greatly enhance crew communications,” said Col. Todd Krueger, the Space, Aerial and Nuclear Networks Division senior materiel leader. “A successful operational test is the last major step before fielding this critical system. We are ready to go, and I’m confident we will succeed.”