Nuclear War Is Inevitable (Revelation 16)

Unilaterally reducing or eliminating America’s nuclear arsenal will not make the world a safer place.

World War III: The Nuclear Holocaust

World War III: The Nuclear Holocaust

March 15, 2015 6:17 p.m. ET

A debate over the future of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is at a pivotal moment. Last month the Obama administration proposed a budget that calls for modernization of the “nuclear triad” of missiles, submarines and bombers. This is crucial because since the end of the Cold War the U.S. nuclear arsenal has been cut by 80% and after decades of neglect each leg of the triad is aging.

Nevertheless, the Defense Department’s $15.9 billion nuclear modernization budget for fiscal year 2016, up slightly from 2015, has met strong disapproval from analysts and others whom I call nuclear utopians. This group insists that the U.S. should delay or skip modernization, make further deep reductions in the U.S. nuclear arsenal, or even eliminate it.

By contrast, nuclear realists believe that, given the belligerence of Russia and China and their buildup of nuclear forces, prudence now demands that the U.S. modernize and make no further reductions below those already scheduled in the 2010 New Start Treaty. The congressional defense-budget hearings now under way will have far-reaching implications for U.S. national security and international order.

Nuclear utopians tend to believe that international cooperation, not nuclear deterrence, has prevented nuclear war since World War II. As Rose Gottemoeller, U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control, claimed in a speech last month: “We have been spared that fate because we created an intricate and essential system of treaties, laws and agreements.” The U.S. can lead the world toward nuclear reductions, the utopian thinking goes, by showing that Washington no longer relies on nuclear weapons and seeks no new capabilities.

This U.S. example, says George Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, will “induce parallel” behavior in others. But if the U.S. attributes continuing value to nuclear weapons by maintaining its arsenal, says Stephen Young of the Union of Concerned Scientists, “other countries will be more inclined to seek” them. In short, the U.S. cannot expect others to forgo nuclear weapons if it retains them.

Nuclear realists respond that the U.S. already has cut its tactical nuclear weapons from a few thousand in 1991 to a few hundred today, while deployed strategic nuclear weapons have been cut to roughly 1,600 accountable weapons from an estimated 9,000 in 1992, with more reductions planned under New Start. Robert Joseph, a former undersecretary of state for arms control, notes that these reductions “appear to have had no moderating effect on Russian, Chinese or North Korean nuclear programs. Neither have U.S. reductions led to any effective strengthening of international nonproliferation efforts.”

Realists point out that foreign leaders base their decisions about nuclear weaponry largely on their perceived strategic needs, not in response to U.S. disarmament. Thus a close review of India by S. Paul Kapur, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, concluded that “Indian leaders do not seek to emulate U.S. nuclear behavior; they formulate policy based primarily on their assessment of the security threats facing India.”

The same self-interested calculation is true for those nuclear and aspiring nuclear states that are of security concern to the U.S. They seek nuclear weapons to coerce their neighbors, including U.S. allies, and to counter U.S. conventional forces to gain a free hand to press their regional military ambitions.

Moreover, many U.S. allies have given up the nuclear option because America protects them with a “nuclear umbrella.” Some allies, including the Japanese and South Koreans, have said that if the U.S. nuclear umbrella loses credibility, they may consider getting their own. Further U.S. reductions may thus inspire nuclear proliferation.

Nuclear utopians and realists also perceive international relations differently. Utopians see an orderly system that functions predictably and increasingly amicably. Based on this perception they make two confident predictions.

The first is that U.S. deterrence will work reliably even with a relatively small nuclear arsenal, or even nuclear zero. In 2010 the authors of an essay in Foreign Affairs predicted confidently that a U.S. capability to retaliate “against only ten cities” would be adequate to deter Russia.

A second prediction is that differences between the U.S. and Russia or China will be resolved without regard to nuclear threats or capabilities. The 2012 report by the Global Zero Commission claimed that, “The risk of nuclear confrontation between the United States and either Russia or China belongs to the past, not the future.”

Nuclear realists have no confidence in these predictions. Before the nuclear age, great powers periodically came into intense conflict, and deterrence relying on conventional forces failed to prevent catastrophic wars. Since 1945, however, a powerful U.S. nuclear arsenal appears to have had a decisive effect in deterring the outbreak of World War III and containing regional crises and conflicts. Further deep U.S. reductions now would likely increase the risks of war, possibly including nuclear war.

Today as for millennia, international relations are fluid, unpredictable and dangerous. Russia’s shocking aggression in Europe is a cold reminder of this reality. In January prominent Russian journalist Alexander Golts warned, “The West has forgotten how it had used nuclear deterrence to coexist with the Soviet Union. Now it will have to open up that playbook once more.”

Further erosion of the U.S. nuclear arsenal would take decades to reverse, create fear among key allies, and inspire foes to challenge an America that appears less able to deter conflicts, nuclear or otherwise, in the hard times ahead. These are the stakes in the current debate over nuclear modernization.

Mr. Payne is the director of the Graduate School of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State University, and a former deputy assistant secretary of defense.

Iranian Nukes Now The GOPs Responsibility (Daniel 8:3)

Khamnei Tehran
by JOHN J. XENAKIS Mar 2015

A report in Debka’s subscriber-only newsletter (sent to me by a subscriber) says that its intelligence sources have learned that Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, after vacillating over the nuclear negotiations with the United States for months, has now come down firmly against any deal. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohamed Javad Zarif have been working to complete a deal by the March 31 deadline, but Khamenei has now rejected the entire framework that they were developing. The intelligence sources say that Iran may shut down nuclear negotiations completely, unless the West first removes all sanctions, a request that will not be satisfied.

A major reason given is that dissent within Iran itself has been increasing. The dissent is spilling over from government critics to broad sections of Iranian society, such as academics and op-ed writers.
From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, none of this is surprising. As I have said many times, it is a core principle of generational theory that, even in a dictatorship, major decisions are made by masses of people, by generations of people, and that politicians are irrelevant except insofar as they are implementing the wishes of the masses of people.

This is a good time to review Iran’s strategy with regard to the nuclear issue, which I have stated many times in the last few years, based on a relatively straightforward analysis of Iran’s history in the last century.

First, Iran will not be prevented from developing a nuclear weapon. Iran has already been victimized by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction in the Iran/Iraq war of the 1980s, and is now surrounded by potential enemies — Pakistan, Russia, Israel — that have nuclear weapons, with Saudi Arabia planning to obtain nuclear technology from Pakistan. The Iranian people overwhelmingly feel that they need nuclear technology for self-defense.

Secondly, however, Iran has no intention at all of using a nuclear weapon on Israel. If you look at Iran’s major wars in the last century — the Constitutional Revolution of 1908-09, the Great Islamic Revolution of 1979, and the Iran/Iraq war that climaxed in 1989 — Iran did not attack any other nation, and takes pride in not having done so.

Another reason why Iran could not use a nuclear weapon on Israel is that doing so would kill millions of Palestinians, and Iran knows that the Arab backlash would be enormous, irrespective of what happened to Israel.

Furthermore, the younger generations of Iranians, the ones that grew up after the war, do not hate Israel, and do not wish Israel harm, and they would be particularly opposed to any Iranian nuclear attack on Israel.

The collapse of the Iran nuclear negotiations would be a major blow for the Barack Obama administration. The foreign policy of Obama and his clownish Secretary of State John Kerry has been one blunder and reversal after another, and they were hoping for a nuclear deal to burnish their legacies, and possibly to get Nobel Peace Prizes as a result. Look for them to blame it on the Republicans, but preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon was never a possibility.

By the way, Debka is also predicting that Benjamin Netanyahu’s defeat in Tuesday’s election is a foregone conclusion, and that unless something spectacular happens, Israel’s next prime minister will be Yitzhak Herzog.

Antichrist’s Men Taking Tikrit (Rev 13)

Iraqi militia loyal to radical Shiite cleric al-Sadr joins fight for Islamic State-held Tikrit
Mideast Iraq Islamic State-1
Published March 15, 2015
Associated Press

BAGHDAD – A spokesman for the Iraqi Peace Brigades, the fighting force loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, says dozens of its fighters are traveling to help an offensive to retake Tikrit from the Islamic State group.

Ali al-Mosawi told The Associated Press on Sunday that the men will travel to the Shiite holy city of Samarra, the launching point for operations to recapture Saddam Hussein’s hometown. About a dozen heavily armed trucks packed with fighters left Baghdad for Samarra earlier Sunday.

An offensive to liberate Tikrit including the Iraqi military, Shiite militias, police officers and Sunni tribes has been underway since March 2.

Al-Sadr announced last month that he would withdraw the Peace Brigades from fighting following accusations that the militias were responsible for battlefield atrocities.

Christ Will Return Within 5 Years (Malachy Prophecy)

Pope Francis predicts his tenure will be ‘brief’

From selfies to kids stealing his spotlight, we take a look at some funny and controversial moments during Pope Francis’ past two years. Junius Randolph

Hearing confessions to mark his second anniversary as head of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Francis offered a confession of his own Friday: He doubts he’ll be pontiff for long.

“I have the feeling that my pontificate will be brief, four or five years; I do not know, even two or three,” the 78-year-old Francis said during an interview with Mexican broadcaster Televisa.

“Two have already passed. It’s a somewhat vague sensation,” he said, according to a Vatican translation from Spanish. “I feel that the Lord has placed me here for a short time, and nothing more.”

He compared the feeling to “a gambler who convinces himself he will lose so he won’t be disappointed. And if he wins, he’s happy.”

Does he like being pope?

“I do not mind!” he replied. But Francis said he’d like the job better if he had a little more freedom and anonymity, particularly for one purpose.

“The only thing I would like is to go out one day, without being recognized, and go to a pizzeria for a pizza,” he told the interviewer.

Francis had previously said he thought his reign would be only two to three years. He pointed to Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation in 2013.

“I share the idea of what Benedict did,” he said. “In general, I think what Benedict so courageously did was to open the door to the popes emeritus. Benedict should not be considered an exception, but an institution.”

He does not, however, think there should be an age — 80, for instance — at which popes should be forced to retire.

The Argentine-born Francis remains enormously popular worldwide. A recent poll showed that 90% of American Catholics approve of him, as well as 70% of all Americans, regardless of their religion or beliefs.

“He’s changed my faith,” Rossella Devivo, who described herself as a lapsed Catholic, told CBS News. “I had absolutely no intention of entering a church, but since he’s been pope, I have grown more religious. This is absolutely incredible for me. He has brought me closer to the church.”

At Mass Friday, Francis announced a special Jubilee Year, only the 27th such declaration in church history. Starting Dec. 8, the church will focus on forgiveness and mercy.

St. John Paul II declared the last Holy Year in 2000 to mark the start of the third millennium.

The Great Oxymoron: American Political Ethics (Ezekiel 17)

Iran’s Khamenei Says Senators’ Letter Reflects Collapse Of US Political Ethics



Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has urged the Iranian negotiators in the nuclear talks with the P5+1 group of world powers to exercise vigilance over the subterfuge of the other side.

“The team assigned by President Hassan Rouhani to attend the talks constitute good, reliable and sympathetic individuals who are trying to secure the country’s interests,” said the Leader.
Nevertheless, the Leader expressed misgivings over potential duplicity by the P5+1 in the negotiations.

“Of course, I’m concerned because the other side is into deception, trickery and backstabbing,” Ayatollah Khamenei underlined.

The Leader also noted that the letter sent by US senators to Iranian officials revealed the collapse of political ethics in the US system.

Ayatollah Khamenei then underlined that the other parties to the talks, particularly the US, adopt a harsher tone whenever the deadline for reaching a comprehensive deal approaches.

“This is part of their ploys and tricks,” said the Leader.

Ayatollah Khamenei then lashed out at the White House for accusing Tehran of terrorism, dismissing the accusation as “ludicrous, cheap and disgusting.”

Elsewhere in the remarks, the Leader took a swipe at efforts aimed at tarnishing the image of Islam, saying “Islamophobia will backfire” and, instead, put Islam at the center of attention for people around the world.

Ayatollah Khamenei then noted that pure Islam, which supports the oppressed and is against oppression and reactionary attitudes, should be introduced and promoted.

Iran Review

Iran Review is a Tehran-based site that claims to be independent, non-governmental and non-partisan and representing scientific and professional approaches towards Iran’s political, economic, social, religious, and cultural affairs, its foreign policy, and regional and international issues within the framework of analysis and articles.