The Catalyst For Nuclear War (Revelation 15)

Vladimir-Putin-Set-To-Win-World-War-3-Says-Pravda-Russias-Nuclear-Weapons-In-Ukraine-Denied-As-Russophobia 
Syrian Crisis May End in Nuclear War

June 29, 2016 Written By: Sajjad Shaukat

If remained unresolved, Syrian crisis may end in nuclear war between Russia and the US.
Since September 30, 2015, the Russian-led coalition of Iran, Iraq, the Syrian army-the National Defense Forces (NDF) and Lebanon-based Hezbollah have broken the backbone of the US-CIA-Mossad assisted ISIS terrorists, Al-Qaeda’s Al-Nusra Front and the rebels who have been fighting to oust the Syrian President Assad’s regime and against the current Iraqi regime as part of America’s double game to secure the Israeli illegitimate interests in the Middle East.
Russian-led combatants have destroyed the strongholds, supply lines and installations of the US-led entities. These demoralized militants have fled most of the areas in Syria and Iraq, which have been recaptured by the NDF and Iraqi military. After strengthening the Assad regime, Moscow withdrew most of the Russian forces from Syria.
It is worth-mentioning that terror attacks in Paris and Brussels including shooting at the Orlando Pulse night club were attributed to the ISIS, based in Syria, as this outfit also claimed responsibility for these terror assaults. However, before these acts of terrorism, security and intelligence agencies of Europe and America were issuing warnings which were manipulated especially by the Israeli Mossad and as part of America’s double game.
After the terror attacks in Paris and Brussels, European leaders and their media created anti-Muslim phenomenon—exaggeration of Islamophobia, coupled with other developments such as expulsion of Muslims, particularly Syrian refugees from Europe, anti-Islam movement etc. Besides, in order to revive the global war on terror, the neo-conservatives, Zionists and Israel also needed the backing of the whole Europe against the Russian-led coalition.
It is notable that in the meantime, in March, this year, Syrian fighters with the support of popular volunteer combatants liberated more towns from the ISIS militants’ control like the Thayyem Oil Field, especially the ancient city of Palmyra, and may recapture the group’s self-proclaimed caliphate-capital in Raqqa.
In accordance with the US dual strategy, Syrian rebel groups on April 12, 2016 launched a major offensive the ISIS positions in Syria’s Aleppo province. So as to show to the international community and Western public that the US is fighting against the ISIS terrorists, America has accelerated air strikes on the ISIS-controlled regions.
As per CIA directions, in Aleppo city, shell and mortar attacks by the Al-Nusra Front, ISIS and the rebel groups have continued on the Kurdish neighborhood of Sheikh Maqsoud. ISIS has also continued firing rockets across the border into the Turkish town of Kilis. In the pretext, the Turkish military is retaliating with shell fire.
It shows that the US and Israel have created a very complicated situation in Syria and in the vulnerable countries of the Middle East including Turkey by making a vicious circle of terrorism; so that American-Israeli covert aims in Syria could be justified, which could also get the favour of the Western countries which are already biased against Assad’s government.
It is mentionable that the US-led West, especially Europe has already started a new Cold War with Russia. The US has decided to station permanently additional troops in Eastern Europe as part of NATO move to defend the continent against the presumed threat of Moscow. In response, Moscow also responded that it would send 30,000 Russian troops along its western and southern borders.
Although Cold War has revived between the US-led West and Russia, yet some recent developments have further disheartened the Zionist-Israeli-led America.
At the same time, Kerry changed American previous stance to keep Assad in power and warned Syria’s government on May 3, 2016 that they face an “August 1 deadline for starting a political transition to move President Assad out, or they risk the consequences of a new US approach toward ending the 5-year-old civil war.”
The US and Israel think that before Syrian forces-backed by Russia occupy more territories, especially Aleppo which is strategically important and is industrial capital of Syria, rebel groups and ISIS should be given a free hand to continue fighting.
In case, Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump becomes the US president, he will continue anti-Muslim policies to complete the unfinished agenda of Israel, as he has been directly or indirectly favouring Israeli policies, particularly against the Palestinians.
Trump manipulated the terror attacks in Paris and Brussels including shooting at the night club of Orlando to get the sympathies of a majority of the ordinary Americans and those of Europe, who do not have much time to go into depth-analysis and have been misguided by his emotional speeches, statements and false hopes.
After the shooting at the gay night club in Florida, He also criticized the US President Obama to resign, slamming him for having “disgracefully refused to even say the words “Radical Islam.” Calling on Clinton to get out of the general election race for the same reason, Trump said, “Because our leaders are weak, I said this was going to happen…we cannot afford.”
Trump again remarked that he would decrease immigration from the Middle East because “since 9/11, hundreds of migrants and their children have been implicated in terrorism in the United States.” He, once again, asked for the ban of any Muslims, entering the US. On June 19, 2016, during his interview with the CBC News, he called for racial “profiling of Muslims inside the United States to combat terrorism.”
In fact, the more Donald Trump speaks against the Muslims and the more he exaggerates Islamophobia, the more popularity he will get among the people who have been impressed by his stereotypes.
Trump promised to restore American prestige and to make America great again. Donald Trump seems to further strengthen the alliance between the US and the West, particularly Europe against Russia.
Meanwhile, on June 24, 2016, Britain has voted to leave the EU, compelling the British Prime Minister David Cameron to resign. UK itself could now break apart, with the leader of Scotland, where nearly two-thirds of voters wanted to stay in the EU, saying a new referendum on independence from the rest of Britain was highly likely.
President Barack Obama who was insisting upon London to keep aligned with the EU is trying to limit the fallout from Britain’s separation from the EU, which “threatens to harm the U.S. economic recovery and distract U.S. allies from global security issues”, as he said on June 24. 2016. On the same day, Donald Trump stated, British voters just shattered political convention in a stunning repudiation of the ruling establishment in a referendum…in November, the American people will have the chance to re-declare their independence.
Americans will have a chance to vote for trade, immigration and foreign policies that put our citizens first…people want to see borders. They don’t necessarily want people pouring into their country that they don’t know who they are and where they come from.”
Analysts have pointed out the political and economic implications of Britain’s separation from the EU, saying that some more countries could leave the EU, as there are also differences among the member states on the question of immigrant-laws and refugees.
But, political experts did no talk about expulsion of the Muslims, Syrian refugees, ISIS, European home-grown terrorists, as in the recent past, these analysts were metioning amounting threat by these entities.
However, now UK will fortify its political and economic relations with America to compete with the EU. If, EU member countries leave supporting American war in Syria, Britain will continue assisting Washington in this respect. Similarly, in case, the EU countries which are struggling to maintain the European Union reduce their support to America against Russia. Anglo-American military alliance could be made by superseding NATO, as noted during the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
That US-British coalition would accelerate Syrian war to thwart the Russian efforts for the political solution of the Syrian crisis, as both these countries want to overthrow President Assad’s government to obtain the goals of Tel Aviv. Nevertheless, this drastic situation may culminate into nuclear war between Russia and the US-British alliance.
It is noteworthy that after the World War II, nuclear weapons were never used, and were only employed as a strategic threat. During the heightened days of the Cold War, many crises arose in Suez Canal, Korea, Cuba and Vietnam when the US and the former Soviet Union were willing to use atomic weapons, but they stopped because of the fear of nuclear war which could result into political suicide of both the super powers. Therefore, the two rivals preferred to resolve their differences through diplomacy.
Political strategists agree that principle of deterrence also known as ‘balance of terror’ is a psychological concept which aims to affect an opponent’s perceptions. In nuclear deterrence, weapons are less usable, as their threat is enough in deterring an enemy who intends to use its armed might.
A renowned scholar, Hotzendorf remarks that nuclear force best serves the interests of a state when it deters an attack.
Notably, on July 31, 2006, the US declassified documents revealed, “During the past year, the Bush White House was seriously considering a nuclear option against Iranian nuclear sites understandably…these scenarios are not without historical precedent.
From time to time during the Cold War and after, American officials tried to find ways of making nuclear weapons usable, not only for deterrence against Soviet attack but as tactical weapons in local conflicts…recently declassified documents reveal that during Richard M. Nixon’s first year as president, advisers on his White House staff were willing to revisit the question of whether to employ nuclear weapons in Vietnam.”
A complete study of the declassified documents show that President Nixon’s national security adviser Henry Kissinger who believes in power or use of force including nuclear threat for bringing the adversary to favourable bargaining, had advised Nixon to use atomic weapons or its threat to compel North Vietnam and its Soviet allies to conclude peace on America’s terms.
In this context, Huntington’s book, “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order” which points out “the clash of civilizations” as the “battle lines of the future…the next world war” also mentions (In one way or the other) that any fault-line war could involve the major powers.
Nonetheless, the theory of balance of terror cannot be applied Syria in wake of skirmishes. Besides, non state actors like the ISIS could also exploit the situation with could result into atomic war. Most probably, Israel which is determined to avoid even two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian issue could avail the vicious circle of terrorism by taking advantage of the complicated situation of Syria through Mossad or ISIS.
Especially, America’s anti-Muslim and pro-Israeli Donald Trump’s success in the forthcoming presidential election is now predictable. If, he becomes American president, his lack of pragmatism—emotional, rational and rigid policies could cause atomic war, especially between Russia and the US, because he will continue American intervention in Syria and other Islamic countries like Libya.
It is also of particular attention that military and strategic experts have also been warning about a war between the US and Russia in wake of eastward expansion of the NATO In this regard, the Pravda disclosed on June 28, 2016, “The NATO has increased its presence in Eastern Europe 13 times for the latest years.
In order to stop Russia’s revival, the US unwinds military conflicts plots at every possible way…Colonel General Leonid Ivashov, President of the International Centre of Geopolitical Analysis explained in an interview to KP [Komsomolskaya Pravda]…if data on Russia-NATO power balance at the Western direction is analyzed, as well as military activity build-up rate at our borders, scale of combat equipment deployment, one can say that preparation to a real war is taking place…the Americans do everything possible today to clash Europe and Turkey with Russia and ignite a big military conflict. The problem from the US point of view is that Russia becomes not only a self-sustained state, but a global geopolitical player.”
Returning to our earlier discussion, the unsettled Syrian crisis may end in nuclear war between Russia and the US.

The Iranian Horn After The Nuclear Deal


How the Middle East looks to Iran one year after the deal

J. Matthew McInnis @matthew_mcinnis
June 28, 2016 1:56 pm | AEIdeas

Nearly twelve months after Iran’s diplomatic victory with the JCPOA, Tehran is still embroiled in four different major regional conflicts, and a fifth may soon break out. Two of the current fights, led by its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), are “hot” ones: against opposition and Islamist groups in Syria and against ISIS in Iraq. The other two are “colder” ones: a regional feud with Saudi Arabia and efforts against Israel in southern Lebanon and the Golan Heights, which are increasingly shaped by the Syrian civil war. Also emerging is the concern about the new ISIS threat in Afghanistan.

How is Iran doing on each front? The short answer: it is looking rough in the near term, but there may be light on the horizon.

In Syria, Iran has expended much but has relatively little to show in return. Growing numbers of the embedded IRGC officers guiding the Syrian and regional militia forces (and now even special forces from the Iranian regular army) are dying, most notoriously in the unrelenting fighting south of Aleppo around the town of Khan Touman, where 16 IRGC soldiers were killed on May 6 and another 22 have been killed since. Each new push by the IRGC and its partners brings temporary success for Assad’s forces, only to be met by renewed resistance from the opposition and a return to grinding stalemate.

Given setbacks for pro-regime forces, Iran and its allies are likely looking at an increasingly powerful and consolidated al-Qaeda and Jabhat al Nusra led-Islamist grouping dominating eastern Syria as ISIS’ hold fades. Russia will likely re-up its direct military intervention, but even with that help, Tehran will be forced to look at ever more costly investment to preserve Assad.
The one benefit Iran has reaped from its sacrifices in Syria is a region-wide army of Shia and local militias stretching from Lebanon to Iraq and into South Asia, as well as increasing hybrid warfare capabilities that can integrate drones and other conventional capacities into IRGC-led unconventional units.

This force born out of adversity in Syria –- with Lebanese Hezbollah as its most prominent component — will be a potent tool in asserting Iran’s influence throughout in the Middle East. Following the devastating 2006 conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, all sides have spent the last decade deterred from repeat escalation. Lebanese Hezbollah continues to be under unprecedented pressure fighting for President Assad in Syria, but it will emerge from this conflict with capabilities and experiences that will only make it stronger.

In Iraq, Iran’s proxies and Shia militias are making progress against ISIS but they cannot defeat the extremist group alone. In Syria, Iran’s army relies on Russian airpower. In Iraq, the militias must depend on more elite Iraqi Army units backed up by US airpower to lead the anti-ISIS campaigns. This reality is embarrassing and frustrating for the groups’ leadership. Iran’s heavy hand in the current fight is stoking not only deeper fear and resentment among Iraqi Sunnis along the front lines in Fallujah and elsewhere. It is also exacerbating intra-Shia rivalries among those militias that are ideologically aligned with Iran, like Asa’ib Ahl al Haq, and those that are more nationalistic, such as the Popular Mobilization Forces and the Peace Companies guided by Iraqi Shia cleric Moqtada al Sadr.
In Iraq, Iran’s proxies and Shia militias are making progress against ISIS but they cannot defeat the extremist group alone.
Tehran’s most frequent foreign policy blind spot remains underestimating the degree to which its aggressive regional activities spur sectarian and ethnic backlash. If it can avoid triggering further Sunni radicalization, an internal Shia civil war, and the potential breakup of the country, however, the Islamic Republic is likely in good shape to continue its “Iranianization” of Iraqi security and political structures.
Another huge question mark for the Iranian leadership is how far the tensions with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arab states will escalate. Even as both Riyadh and Tehran are looking to deescalate the conflict in Yemen, Bahrain’s revocation of citizenship for its most prominent Shia cleric has resulted in implied threats by the IRGC and other leaders to stir up insurrection among the island’s Shia majority. If that happens on a large enough scale, Saudi Arabia could intervene in Bahrain as it did in 2011 — though how Iran would respond is uncertain.

This latest flashpoint follows a series of provocations in the past six months: Saudi’s execution of its leading Shia cleric, trade restrictions on Iranian shipping, barring Iranians from the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca, the attack on the Saudi embassy in Tehran, Iranian weapons shipments uncovered heading into Bahrain and Kuwait, mutual cyber-attacks and their ongoing proxy war in Syria. So far, both sides appear deterred from escalating into open warfare. The biggest uncertainty for Iran is predicting the new Saudi leadership’s behavior, as the young and ambitious Deputy Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman attempts to solidify his position to succeed his father as the future king. The recent replacement of the Iranian Foreign Ministry’s combative Arab “handlers” with supposedly a more friendly set of diplomats is a signal that Tehran wants to keep its confrontation with Riyadh to a low boil.

In Afghanistan, the emergence of ISIS cells near Iran’s eastern border in the past year has alarmed Tehran. With the Taliban now fighting ISIS in those areas, the IRGC appears to be reviving its complicated ties to the Taliban as a hedge. Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansour, notably, was killed last month by a US drone strike in Pakistan shortly after leaving Iran. How far Tehran will intervene in Afghanistan’s worsening security situation will ultimately be driven by threat perceptions, but anything on the scale of its role Iraq or Syria is very unlikely. Victory on one or more fronts may be in reach, but this will be a tall order.

The nuclear deal may have minimized the threat of a US or Israeli attack on Iran, but Khamenei knows the coming year will stretch the IRGC’s regional military and security apparatus to new limits. The supreme leader will hope Iran can achieve a relatively stable position in Syria, help rollback ISIS in Iraq, contain intra-Shia conflict, keep pressure up on Israel, prevent the cold war with Saudi Arabia from significantly escalating, and contain the growing extremist threat in Afghanistan. This would help fulfill his goal to place Iran in a very strong, even dominant, position in the region.

Victory on one or more fronts may be in reach, but this will be a tall order. A sustained victory on all fronts will be all but impossible.

Trump’s Attorney Is Correct About The Scarlet Woman (Revelation 17)


Trump’s lawyer hysterically accuses Clinton of selling uranium to Russians and murder

BETHANIA PALMA MARKUS
28 JUN 2016 AT 11:01 ET

An attorney representing GOP candidate Donald Trump accused his presumptive Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, of murder in a Tuesday morning tweet, Politico reports.

Michael Cohen, executive Vice President of the Trump Organization and special counsel to the real estate mogul accused Clinton of some serious crimes in his tweet, which is a meme featuring an image of her smiling with her arms outstretched.

I presided over $6 billion lost at the State Department, sold uranium to the Russians through my faux charity, illegally deleted public records and murdered an ambassador,” the text reads. “Elect me!”
Twitter users blasted him, one sending a meme of their own showing Trump’s head Photoshopped onto a baby’s body, playing with toy soldiers. The text reads, “Donald Trump’s military record.”

@MichaelCohen212@realDonaldTrump
This veteran says #NeverTrumppic.twitter.com/Akyqw6I2Er
— joe villa (@mikeejoe) June 28, 2016

Users also attacked other accusations made in the tweet.

@MichaelCohen212 @realDonaldTrump The SOS doesn’t sell Uranium, that is the Pentagon, if it happened. Dumber than Trump, you are. LOL
— (((+Molly))) (@Plantflowes) June 28, 2016

Politico points out that while Cohen’s tweet doesn’t specify which ambassador he’s talking about, it came the same day Republicans from the House Select Committee on Benghazi released a report detailing what they consider the failings of the Obama administration and Clinton as Secretary of State in relation to the 2012 attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed in the attack. The attack has fueled politically-driven conspiracy theories that insinuate Clinton allowed the ambassador to be killed. Trump has also promoted the idea that Clinton murdered White House counsel Vince Foster in 1993. The death has been ruled a suicide.

Why We Should Fear China’s Nuclear Navy


Why the US Navy Should Fear China’s New 093B Nuclear Attack Submarine

Dave Majumdar
June 27, 2016

Is China’s new Type 093B nuclear-powered attack submarine on par with the U.S. Navy’s Improved Los Angeles-class boats?

At least some U.S. naval analysts believe so and contend that the introduction of the new People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) submarines is an indication of just how quickly Beijing is catching up to the West.

“The 93B is not to be confused with the 93. It is a transition platform between the 93 and the forthcoming 95,” said Jerry Hendrix, director of the Defense Strategies and Assessments Program at the Center for a New American Security—who is also a former U.S. Navy Captain. “It is quieter and it has a new assortment of weapons to include cruise missiles and a vertical launch capability. The 93B is analogous to our LA improved in quietness and their appearance demonstrates that China is learning quickly about how to build a modern fast attack boat.”

Other sources were not convinced that Beijing could have made such enormous technological strides so quickly—but they noted that the topic of Chinese undersea warfare capability is very classified. Open source analysis is often extremely difficult, if not impossible. “Regarding the question on the Type 093B, I really don’t know, anything is possible I suppose, but I doubt it,” said retired Rear Adm. Mike McDevitt, now an analyst at CNA’s Center for Naval Analyses. “I have no doubt that the PLAN has ambitions to at least achieve that level of capability and quietness.”

Though the Seawolf and Virginia-classes have surpassed the Improved Los Angeles-class as the premier U.S. Navy attack submarines, such older vessels will remain the mainstay of the service’s undersea fleet for many years to come. If the People’s Liberation Army Navy’s newest boats are able to match the capabilities of the U.S. Navy’s shrinking undersea fleet, Washington could be in serious trouble. Indeed, the U.S. Navy already anticipated that it could be facing-off against a Chinese submarine fleet that is nearly twice its size, but not as technically capable.

The U.S. Navy—which has roughly 52 attack submarines—is on track to have 41 attack boats by 2029. The Chinese, meanwhile would have “at least 70, and they’re building,” Vice Adm. Joseph Mulloy, the service’s deputy chief of naval operations for integration of capabilities and resources told the House Armed Services Committee’s seapower and projection forces subcommittee on February 25. “You get back into the whole quality versus quantity issue, but at the same time the Russians are also building…and they build much higher-end submarines.”

In a 2016 report to Congress, the Pentagon noted that Beijing continues to upgrade and expand its submarine fleet: “China continues to improve its SSN force, and four additional SHANG-class SSN (Type 093) will eventually join the two already in service. The SHANG SSN will replace the aging HAN class SSN (Type 091). These improved SHANG SSNs feature a vertical launch system (VLS) and may be able to fire the YJ-18 advanced anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM). Over the next decade, China may construct a new Type 095 nuclear-powered, guided missile attack submarine (SSGN), which not only would improve the PLAN’s anti-surface warfare capability but might also provide it with a more clandestine land-attack option.”

The problem, however, is if Hendrix’s assessment is correct and future Chinese submarines are only slightly less capable than the Virginia or Seawolf-class vessels, the Navy could be in trouble. The technological edge the U.S. Navy—which is already woefully short on attack boats—is counting on might not be sufficient to counter Chinese numerical superiority. However, the service is continuing to improve the performance capabilities of its submarines on a continual basis. Nonetheless, one former U.S. Navy undersea warfare officer suggested that the service would come to regret having truncated the high-performance submarine-hunting Seawolf-class at three boats and focusing instead on the more multi-role Virginia-class.

Aware of the coming attack boat shortfall, the U.S. Navy is hoping to boost its attack submarine fleet by continuing to build two Virginia-class vessels per year even while it builds the next-generation Ohio Replacement Program ballistic missile submarine. However, if the Chinese are truly catching up technologically, Congress might consider accelerating the attack submarine build rate to the maximum capacity of America’s two nuclear-capable shipyards. At the same time, the U.S. Navy might have to accelerate the development of the next-generation successor to the Virginia-class, which has been tentatively designated the SSN(X) program and is scheduled to enter service in 2044.

Yes It Is Too Late For Missile Nonproliferation

IMG_5754.JPG 
Too late for missile nonproliferation?

It is a supreme irony that even if the spread of missile technology can be constrained, proliferation of missiles will likely remain unconstrained. Today, more than 30 countries possess missiles with ranges of 150 kilometers or greater. In 2016 alone, nations including China, India, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, and the United States have conducted a spate of missiles tests meant either to develop new missiles or improve existing ones. Most if not all of these tests have showcased missiles based primarily on indigenous technology—underlining the reality that technology denial alone will not prevent missile development.

A few factors help explain these proliferation trends. First, in the words of a UN panel of government experts, “there is still no universal norm, treaty, or agreement governing the development, testing, production, acquisition, possession, transfer, deployment, or use of missiles.” To be sure, concern over missiles is a matter of broad consensus, particularly for missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. But little agreement exists about how to address the WMD missile challenge. At best, the UN Security Council has produced country-specific resolutions regarding instances of missile proliferation that threaten international peace and security, for example where Iran and North Korea are concerned.

Second, a general diffusion of information and technology from the original suppliers means that almost any country that decides to acquire WMD-capable missiles will, regardless of its economic strength and technological capability, manage to do so—despite the best efforts of the international community. Sanctions, or constraints on technology transfers, might slow a missile program. But they are unlikely to stop it if the country is determined.

Third, even if the majority of proliferating countries must beg, borrow, or steal technology and materials in the initial stages of their WMD-capable missile programs, they will eventually establish indigenous capabilities—thus insulating themselves against sanction regimes that seek to block the export of weapon-related dual-use technology.

Two paths. Missile proliferation is difficult to address partly because proliferators, motivations and capabilities for proliferation, and missiles themselves are all quite diverse. Today’s missiles vary from man-portable, shoulder-fired, anti-armor missiles with ranges in the hundreds of meters—to missiles weighing some 100,000 kilograms at launch, capable of carrying multiple nuclear warheads, and with ranges exceeding 10,000 kilometers. Almost all nations possess missiles, though their holdings vary considerably in quantitative and qualitative terms. In recent years, even terrorist groups and armed non-state actors have acquired and used man-portable missiles with ranges under 150 kilometers, allowing them to threaten targets such as civilian aircraft.

Against this backdrop, two general approaches to missile proliferation have emerged. The approaches are not mutually exclusive and indeed often overlap. The first is a series of political and diplomatic initiatives at the bilateral, regional, and global levels, including the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, the Missile Technology Control Regime, the Hague Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation, and three successive UN panels of government experts.

The INF Treaty, signed by the United States and the Soviet Union in 1987, successfully eliminated ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. But the treaty is now in danger of unraveling as Moscow threatens to withdraw from it, partly because of Washington’s withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The Missile Technology Control Regime has had its own limitations. The regime, established in 1987 primarily to curtail the spread of missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, has failed to garner universal appeal because of two key shortcomings. First, its scope was initially restricted to ballistic missiles (and, later, other unmanned delivery systems) capable of delivering WMD or carrying a 500-kilogram payload a distance of 300 kilometers. Conventionally armed cruise missiles were ignored. Second, the regime focuses on horizontal proliferation (the spread of missiles to newer states) rather than on vertical proliferation (qualitative and quantitative improvements in missiles by existing missile-possessing states).

Regime members, partly in response to the regime’s shortcomings, initiated the Hague Code of Conduct, which came into effect in 2002. Unlike the regime, the code does not seek to prevent states from acquiring or possessing WMD-capable ballistic missiles. It merely seeks to promote responsible behavior, through confidence-building and transparency measures, regarding ballistic missiles (though not cruise missiles). While 138 nations have signed on to the code, several key states that possess WMD-capable missiles have not done so—among them China, North Korea, Iran, Israel, and Pakistan.

The second primary approach to missile proliferation involves military and technological initiatives—such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq (intended in part to destroy Iraq’s nuclear and missile programs) and the development of missile defenses.

The Iraq invasion, of course, was meant not just to disarm Iraq but to dissuade other nations, particularly Iran and North Korea, from pursuing missile and nuclear capabilities. But Iran, far from abandoning its contentious programs, embarked on an effort to build missiles capable of delivering a one–metric ton warhead more than 2,000 kilometers away. North Korea, meanwhile, began a series of WMD-capable missile tests that has continued despite increasingly severe international sanctions. The unintended consequences of the 2003 Iraq War, still reverberating more than a decade later, make it highly unlikely that such an approach will be repeated in the near future.

Missile defense programs, meanwhile—which seek to develop the capacity to detect, intercept, and destroy ballistic missiles before they strike their targets—are maturing at a rapid pace and now threaten to undermine strategic stability among the United States, Russia, and China. The latter two countries have embarked on their own missile defense projects, even as they object to the US program. Additional nations, including India, Israel, Japan, and South Korea, will likely deploy or improve missile defense systems in the foreseeable future as a response to missile proliferation. While the effectiveness of these systems remains unproven in many cases, they are sometimes perceived as a partial panacea for the missile threat.

Political and diplomatic initiatives against missile proliferation have been somewhat limited in their effectiveness; the same can be said of military action and missile defense. Yet both approaches are likely to persist. Political and diplomatic initiatives remain crucial to building the norms and instruments that might constrain proliferation, and are also key to encouraging responsible behavior among states that already possess strategic missiles. And the chance remains that these initiatives might one day gain universal adherence.

Military action and missile defense will likely have limited appeal going forward—especially the latter, which is available only to nations that can develop missile defense capabilities on their own or gain protection from another country that possesses such capabilities. But even if missile defense represents a way to respond to missile proliferation, it isn’t likely to curb proliferation. To the contrary, all indications are that missile defense will produce yet more vertical missile proliferation—as nations try to defeat missile defense systems with overwhelming numbers of missiles or other countermeasures.

Another Scarlet Lie (Revelation 17:4)


Hillary Clinton’s Post-Brexit Donald Trump Slam Reminder of Her Own Scandals

Aaron P. Bernstein/Getty Images

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tried on Sunday to project herself as a stable presidential candidate to the bipartisan U.S. Conference of Mayors in her first verbal response to the U.K. voters’ decision to leave the European Union.

Clinton attempted to paint herself as a “steady, experienced” leader over GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, being careful not to specifically name the populist Republican to the group gathered in Indianapolis, according to CNN. Suggesting she is the woman for the job, Clinton proposed that America needs leaders “who understand how to work with other leaders to manage risks, who understand that bombastic comments in turbulent times can actually cause more turbulence and who put the interests of the American people ahead of their personal business interests.”

Political scandals asserting underhanded financial dealings continue to plague candidate Clinton herself. In addition to the FBI investigation into her use of an unsecured email server to transmit highly sensitive national security information, Clinton has been marked for her own financial benefits enjoyed during her time in public office.

Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash exposed many of the fissures in the integrity of Clinton’s dealings.
The International Business Times reported that “under Clinton’s leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data.”

The former secretary of state’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, was given $500,000 for a speech in Moscow that a Kremlin-backed bank paid for while Mrs. Clinton served as secretary.

The New York Times ran an in depth report of uranium executives who donated $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. Those donors were involved in the Russian Government’s purchase of Uranium One, which transferred 20 percent of America’s uranium to Russian control. Clinton’s State Department was among nine agencies that approved the sale.

L.A. Times reporter Mike Memoli tweeted about Clinton’s Sunday post-Brexit remarks:

Clinton attempted to gain political advantage over Trump for his statements from the Trump Turnberry golf resort in Scotland the day following the U.K. vote to leave the EU. He stated that when the British pound goes down, more people would travel to Turnberry, suggesting that more Americans would come to Scotland to spend money. An argument could be made that his statement suggests that American tourism dollars will be brought to Scotland with the currency fluctuation.

On Sunday, Trump fired back at Clinton on Twitter for a campaign ad slamming the Brexit statements he made in Scotland after the vote results:

Hillary Clinton joined President Barack Obama in pushing the U.K. to remain in the EU. Trump had expressed support ahead of the vote for the country leaving the behemoth regulatory body.

Follow Michelle Moons on Twitter @MichelleDiana.

North Korean And Pakistan Nuclear Horns

hqdefault
NK-Pakistan links

Koreatimes

Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se shouldn’t have been meek about dirty connections between North Korea and Pakistan for mutually reinforcing their nuclear weapons programs.

“The states involved should have to explain what they’re doing and why,” Yun told the National Assembly last week. “But I believe they will deny any and all allegations.” As predicted by Yun, Pakistan denied them.

Considering Pakistan’s historic ties for proliferation, Seoul should demand Karachi fully explain its deadly trade with the North by calling in its ambassador here as a first step. Also, it should get the United Nations to conduct an investigation, since what they are doing could be a direct and flagrant violation of the current toughest-ever U.N. sanctions against the North for its nuclear and missile tests.

For a situation of this gravity, Yun sounded as if he was a bystander in the matter that is directly involved in the nation’s top diplomatic priority ― winding down Pyongyang’s nuclear program. If he is overwhelmed by his recent busy schedule, he should think about passing the baton to somebody else, considering the gravity of the affair, or if there are other circumstances that prevent a more forceful reaction, he owes the nation an explanation.

According to media outlets in India, Pakistan supplied the North with materials that are connected to the development of nuclear and missile technologies. They included Monel and Inconel, alloys that are critical in the making of nuclear bombs. China’s Beijing Suntech Technology had supplied these materials to Pakistan, which sent them to the North by ship. The United States had reportedly tracked the shipments.

A forceful reaction by Seoul is called for more urgently than at any other time for a couple of reasons. First, the North is passing the critical stage of “perfecting” its mid- and long-range ballistic missiles with the acquisition of the Pakistani supplies making or breaking its end run to becoming a nuclear state.

The North achieved its first successful test of the Musudan missile, renamed “Hwasong 10,” after five previous failed attempts. This missile could be developed for mobile and submarine launches to strike not just the South but also U.S. bases in Guam. This comes after the North’s attempts to miniaturize nuclear payloads. In other words, the Pakistan-North Korea trade is not just strengthening the North’s immediate threat against Seoul but increasing the possibility of turning the Korean Peninsula into an international nuclear battlefield by provoking Washington and provoking Japan into a nuclear arms race.

Secondly, allowing this deal to go unpunished means a major setback to the elaborate efforts to isolate the North from the rest of the world, peaking with the U.N. sanctions. Already, there is growing skepticism about the effectiveness of the pressure tactic against Pyongyang, with China and Russia getting on board, if only reluctantly. The Pakistani deal could prove to be the first crack that leads to the debacle of the international effort to stem further progress in the North’s nuclear programs.

Thirdly, China should be held accountable for its deals with Pakistan, especially whether it used Pakistan as a midpoint for the goods destined for Pyongyang. If so, it would mean Beijing violated the sanctions it signed, risking its reputation as a global power.

Now, parties involved ― Pyongyang, Beijing, Tokyo and Moscow ― are no doubt looking to Seoul on how it is reacting. Yun’s meek reaction can only give them the wrong signal that Seoul couldn’t care less.

Authorities Expecting The Sixth Seal? (Rev 6:12)

US Raises Threat of Quake but Lowers Risk for Towers

New York Times

Earthquake!

Earthquake!

By SAM ROBERTS JULY 17, 2014

Here is another reason to buy a mega-million-dollar apartment in a Manhattan high-rise: Earthquake forecast maps for New York City that a federal agency issued on Thursday indicate “a slightly lower hazard for tall buildings than previously thought.”

The agency, the United States Geodetic Survey, tempered its latest quake prediction with a big caveat.
“The eastern U.S. has the potential for larger and more damaging earthquakes than considered in previous maps and assessments,” the agency said, citing the magnitude 5.8 quake that struck Virginia in 2011.

Federal seismologists based their projections of a lower hazard for tall buildings — “but still a hazard nonetheless,” they cautioned — on a lower likelihood of slow shaking from an earthquake occurring near the city, the type of shaking that typically causes more damage to taller structures.

“The tall buildings in Manhattan are not where you should be focusing,” said John Armbruster, a seismologist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University. “They resonate with long period waves. They are designed and engineered to ride out an earthquake. Where you should really be worried in New York City is the common brownstone and apartment building and buildings that are poorly maintained.”

Mr. Armbruster was not involved in the federal forecast, but was an author of an earlier study that suggested that “a pattern of subtle but active faults makes the risk of earthquakes to the New York City area substantially greater than formerly believed.”

He noted that barely a day goes by without a New York City building’s being declared unsafe, without an earthquake. “If you had 30, 40, 50 at one time, responders would be overloaded,” he said.
The city does have an earthquake building code that went into effect in 1996, and that applies primarily to new construction.

A well-maintained building would probably survive a magnitude 5 earthquake fairly well, he said. The last magnitude 5 earthquake in the city struck in 1884. Another is not necessarily inevitable; faults are more random and move more slowly than they do in, say, California. But he said the latest federal estimate was probably raised because of the magnitude of the Virginia quake.

“Could there be a magnitude 6 in New York?” Mr. Armbruster said. “In Virginia, in a 300 year history, 4.8 was the biggest, and then you have a 5.8. So in New York, I wouldn’t say a 6 is impossible.”

Mr. Armbruster said the Geodetic Survey forecast would not affect his daily lifestyle. “I live in a wood-frame building with a brick chimney and I’m not alarmed sitting up at night worried about it,” he said. “But society’s leaders need to take some responsibility.”

US And Russia’s Contribution To The London Dirty Bomb


Poor U.S.-Russia relations increase risk of dirty bomb in Europe – experts

(Corrects this June 7 story to remove reference in paragraph 6 to Swedish diplomat Hans Blix and IAEA chief Yukiya Amano, who did not attend the conference.)

By Toby Sterling

(Reuters) – Tension between Russia and the West may be distracting them from cooperating to prevent an accidental nuclear confrontation or a dirty bomb attack by militants, nuclear policy experts said on Tuesday.

Former U.S. Secretary of Defence William Perry said he regretted the current lack of communication between the United States and Russia, which went into a deep freeze after Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea.

“We are about to recreate the conditions that nearly brought us to the brink of nuclear war” during the Cold War, Perry said.

Anatoly Adamishin, a former Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, argued that the U.S. has focused on a policy of “strangling Russia” and hoping for the departure of Russian President Vladimir Putin, which has the effect of putting Russia at the forefront of a list of U.S. enemies.

“The U.S. simply has to rethink its own policy: what should be in focus is nuclear reductions,” he said. “Russia and the U.S. are not inherent enemies.”

They made their comments at a conference organised by the the Luxembourg Forum on Preventing Nuclear Catastrophe.

The forum’s head, Moshe Kantor, said the threat of a ‘dirty bomb’ attack on a European city was at its highest level since the end of the Cold War.

Security experts have raised concerns since the attacks in Paris and Brussels by Islamist militants that poorly guarded European nuclear facilities pose a risk.

Kantor cited chemical weapons attacks carried out by Islamic State in Iraq, their stated desire to carry out more attacks in Europe, and evidence militants linked to the attacks in Paris had also been studying a Belgian nuclear power plant.

“This, combined with poor levels of security at a host of nuclear research centres in the former Soviet Union mean the threat of a possible ‘dirty-bomb’ attack on a Western capital is high,” Kantor said.

He urged the United States and Russia, both nuclear powers, to cooperate on using their technological resources to monitor the illegal transportation of radioactive materials.

Gorbachev, appearing by satellite link, said he was alarmed by the increasing readiness of many nations to use military force to resolve conflict rather than negotiation.

“I note that these have not solved the problems, but they have served to undermine international law and weaken international relations,” he said.

Antichrist Calls For Iraqi Shutdown (Revelation 13)

 
Shia cleric Sadr renews calls for Iraqi government to step down


Published June 26th, 2016 – 14:27 GMT via SyndiGate.info

Sadrist protesters outside of Baghdad’s Green Zone react to canisters of tear gas. (AFP/Ahmad Al-Rubaye)

Iraqi Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has renewed calls for Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi’s government to resign.

“I call on the current Iraqi government to tender its resignation,” al-Sadr said in a statement on Saturday.

He went on to threaten that unless the government resigns, he “will join calls demanding the resignation of Iraq’s three presidencies (parliament, government and presidency).”

In April, al-Sadr decided to freeze the activities of his Ahrar bloc, which has 34 seats on the 328-member parliament, stumbling efforts by opposition lawmakers to reach quorum to vote on the ouster of the three presidencies in Iraq.

Iraq has suffered a deepening political crisis since March, when al-Abadi — under mounting pressure to reign in rampant state corruption — attempted to form a government of “technocrats” untainted by corruption or sectarian affiliations.

Iraq’s various political parties, however, including a number of Shia ones, have until now blocked the new “technocrat” government from being drawn up.

Supporters of the Shia cleric have been staging protests over the past four months to demand al-Abadi to replace his politically affiliated ministers with independent technocrats with a view to fighting rampant corruption in the country.

Iraq ranks 161st out of 168 countries on Transparency International’s “corruption perceptions index”.