The Sixth Seal Will Be On The East (Revelation 6:12)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5V31Wpa9PMM/TlVaIyeam2I/AAAAAAAASUw/t0AfnylzR0Q/s1600/article-2029335-0D8C51AE00000578-806_634x348.jpgNew Evidence Shows Power of East Coast Earthquakes

Virginia Earthquake Triggered Landslides at Great Distances

Released: 11/6/2012 8:30:00 AM

Earthquake shaking in the eastern United States can travel much farther and cause damage over larger areas than previously thought.

U.S. Geological Survey scientists found that last year’s magnitude 5.8 earthquake in Virginia triggered landslides at distances four times farther—and over an area 20 times larger—than previous research has shown.

“We used landslides as an example and direct physical evidence to see how far-reaching shaking from east coast earthquakes could be,” said Randall Jibson, USGS scientist and lead author of this study. “Not every earthquake will trigger landslides, but we can use landslide distributions to estimate characteristics of earthquake energy and how far regional ground shaking could occur.”

“Scientists are confirming with empirical data what more than 50 million people in the eastern U.S. experienced firsthand: this was one powerful earthquake,” said USGS Director Marcia McNutt. “Calibrating the distance over which landslides occur may also help us reach back into the geologic record to look for evidence of past history of major earthquakes from the Virginia seismic zone.”

This study will help inform earthquake hazard and risk assessments as well as emergency preparedness, whether for landslides or other earthquake effects.

This study also supports existing research showing that although earthquakes are less frequent in the East, their damaging effects can extend over a much larger area as compared to the western United States.

The research is being presented today at the Geological Society of America conference, and will be published in the December 2012 issue of the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

The USGS found that the farthest landslide from the 2011 Virginia earthquake was 245 km (150 miles) from the epicenter. This is by far the greatest landslide distance recorded from any other earthquake of similar magnitude. Previous studies of worldwide earthquakes indicated that landslides occurred no farther than 60 km (36 miles) from the epicenter of a magnitude 5.8 earthquake.

“What makes this new study so unique is that it provides direct observational evidence from the largest earthquake to occur in more than 100 years in the eastern U.S,” said Jibson. “Now that we know more about the power of East Coast earthquakes, equations that predict ground shaking might need to be revised.”

It is estimated that approximately one-third of the U.S. population could have felt last year’s earthquake in Virginia, more than any earthquake in U.S. history. About 148,000 people reported their ground-shaking experiences caused by the earthquake on the USGS “Did You Feel It?” website. Shaking reports came from southeastern Canada to Florida and as far west as Texas.

In addition to the great landslide distances recorded, the landslides from the 2011 Virginia earthquake occurred in an area 20 times larger than expected from studies of worldwide earthquakes. Scientists plotted the landslide locations that were farthest out and then calculated the area enclosed by those landslides. The observed landslides from last year’s Virginia earthquake enclose an area of about 33,400 km2, while previous studies indicated an expected area of about 1,500 km2 from an earthquake of similar magnitude.

“The landslide distances from last year’s Virginia earthquake are remarkable compared to historical landslides across the world and represent the largest distance limit ever recorded,” said Edwin Harp, USGS scientist and co-author of this study. “There are limitations to our research, but the bottom line is that we now have a better understanding of the power of East Coast earthquakes and potential damage scenarios.”

The difference between seismic shaking in the East versus the West is due in part to the geologic structure and rock properties that allow seismic waves to travel farther without weakening.

Learn more about the 2011 central Virginia earthquake.

The Antichrist redefines himself as nationalist patriot

Moqtada al-Sadr: In Iraq, a fiery cleric redefines himself as nationalist patriot

SHIFT IN THOUGHT The Shiite cleric is poised to consolidate his position not only as an influential political kingmaker but as someone who can mobilize potentially millions of followers.

Jane Arraf
Correspondent

MAY 3, 2017 IRAQ—The young men storming the entrance to Baghdad’s fortified Green Zone as part of an antigovernment demonstration in February were waving Iraqi flags as a sign of their commitment to country. But there was no question their loyalty was at least as strong to Moqtada al-Sadr, the powerful Shiite cleric who called for the protests against a leadership he considers illegitimate and irredeemably corrupt.

While Iraqi forces push further into the ISIS stronghold of Mosul, a fight over the future of Iraq is brewing in Baghdad. As has been the case since Saddam Hussein was toppled, the mercurial cleric from a revered Shiite family is playing a leading role.

At least five protesters and a policeman were killed when the Feb. 11 protest turned violent. Mr. Sadr, who commands his followers to wave only the Iraqi flag as a sign of nationalism, had called for peaceful protests, though his history as a militia leader may have undermined that request. And in Iraq, where religious and political leaders command paramilitary forces, armed confrontation is always a possibility.

“Whatever he says we do – if he says ‘live’ we live, if he says ‘die’, we die,” said Haider Kamal, a laborer from Baghdad’s Shiite neighborhood of Shuala, at a protest called by Sadr last summer. “All my family and all my neighborhood follows Sayyid Moqtada. He is a resistance leader.”

Over the past two decades, Sadr transformed from a young man little known outside religious circles to a militia leader who posed a major threat to US forces. Now, he is reemerging in Iraqi political life as a nationalist political figure agitating against corruption and in favor of government reform.

He is challenging Shiite political elites and, in fact, the entire Iraqi political system. He has reached beyond Sunni-Shiite divides, testing Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, a fellow Shiite, and threatening to boycott upcoming elections in the absence of reforms to Iraq’s electoral commission, which Sadr accuses of being under the sway of rival Shiite political parties he says are corrupt. On many Fridays he brings thousands into the streets in protest.

In the process, the still relatively young cleric, the son and the son-in-law of two Shiite clerics revered for their concern for the poor, has increasingly made an effort to portray himself as an Iraqi patriot. Now, he is poised to consolidate his position not only as an influential political kingmaker but as someone who can mobilize potentially millions of followers from Baghdad to the southern coastal city of Basra.

In April, he even broke with other Iraqi Shiite leaders in calling on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who is backed by Iran, to step down to save the country from more bloodshed.

“He really is someone who has provided a social and political outlet for the impoverished, particularly for those southerners who have never had a chance to have their say in middle-class and upper-class politics, which defines much of what goes on in Baghdad,” says Ahab Bdaiwi, a specialist in Islamic history at Leiden University in the Netherlands.

Known by the honorific al-Sayyid, connoting a descendant of the prophet Muhammad, he only rarely appears in public and normally only in his home base in the holy city of Najaf. A rare appearance at an entrance to the Green Zone a year ago was the first time that many of his most devout followers had seen him in person. Some wept with emotion as he spoke.

Weeks later, in a move to reshape the country’s political system by pushing Mr. Abadi to appoint a cabinet of technocrats, he ordered supporters to storm the Iraqi parliament.

With Iraq’s Sunni leadership deeply fragmented and accused by many of selling out to wealthy Gulf Arab states, Sadr’s demand for an Iraqi government that benefits Iraqis has found fertile ground among some Sunnis. It’s a major shift from the leading role played a decade ago by his militia, whose death squads fueled the flames of Iraq’s civil war.

How it began

The fall of Saddam Hussein freed Sadr to organize millions of his family’s followers, creating an armed wing as well as a political and public service organization, and in 2004, Sadr mobilized his Mahdi Army militia to drive out US occupation forces.

Young fighters armed with rifles and rocket-propelled grenades fought American soldiers in the streets of Baghdad and cities across the south, including the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala.

In the Iraqi capital, the militia took over neighborhoods, running death squads and expelling Sunnis and Christians. In a security vacuum, some Sunnis turned to Al Qaeda to protect them, igniting Iraq’s civil war.

Sadr ultimately disbanded his militia in 2008, but still considers the United States and Britain occupying authorities and has declared that American troops deployed to fight ISIS will be legitimate targets.

Unlike Iraq’s most influential Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who rarely engages in politics, Sadr has nourished the following he inherited with political activism, nationalism, and promises of social justice that resonate particularly with the poor.

“Sayid Muqtada stands for justice … he supports us,” said a protester, Um Yas, at a demonstration last summer over Bahrain’s detention of a Shiite cleric. A pin shaped like a map of Iraq superimposed with Sadr’s face held her headscarf.

Although Iraq’s Shiite underclass form Sadr’s traditional base, he has made an effort in recent years to reach out to Iraqi Sunnis and religious minorities as well as the international community – except for the United States and Britain.

The overwhelmingly Shiite protest near the Bahraini embassy last June included two young Sunni men who wore tight jeans and T-shirts, carefully gelled hair, and black sneakers with gold-colored accents.

“I decided to follow him when I saw his statements and protests,” says Saif Ali, a cleaner from Ghazaliya neighborhood who is Sunni. “There is a big difference between him and the Sunni leaders. I also follow some of them, but Sayid Muqtada is different.”

Asked how he reconciles Sadr’s call for inclusion with his militia’s attacks on Sunni Iraqis a few years ago, Ali says both Sadr and Iraq have changed.

“That was true in sectarian times, but now Muqtada Sadr teaches us how to avoid sectarianism,” he says.

Sadr City

In Baghdad, most of Sadr’s support comes from the dusty streets of Sadr City, a two million-strong neighborhood on the outskirts of Baghdad. Almost all the residents are Shiites who for generations have been the underclass.

He has strong opposition credentials: When Moqtada Sadr’s father, the Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr, was assassinated in Najaf in 1999, his followers in Sadr City rioted in a rare and dangerous show against Saddam Hussein.

The latest Sadr has taken up the family mantle of speaking for the poor and dispossessed but his support taps into a much deeper vein of religious belief that transcends politics and the trials of day-to-day life in Iraq.

“Muqtada’s popularity has much to do with his family name,” says Bdaiwi. “His father was revered because of his revival of messianic sentiment in Iraq.”

Iraq is the modern-day successor to ancient empires that included the cities of Ur and Babylon. Shiite Islam traces its roots to the south of Iraq where Imam Ali, believed by Shiites to be the rightful successor to the prophet Muhammad, and his son Hussein were killed in the 7th century.

“Since the advent of Islam, the idea of redemption and suffering Messiah-like figures are all associated with the southern regions of Iraq, but in the 20th century that messianic sentiment died down,” says Bdaiwi. He says the elder Sadr articulated and “rebranded” messianic beliefs in language that ordinary Iraqis could understand.

In Sadr City, the crowded outdoor markets are a frequent target of bombings claimed by ISIS, which like Al Qaeda, views Shiites as unbelievers.

In the Hamidiyah district, the poorest part of the generally poor Sadr City, children dart between makeshift houses illegally built on vacant property. A tangle of electricity wires run from private generators for those who can pay. Sewage runs in the streets. There are no police.

Near a corner store, a group of boys play games on the sidewalk. Ali Sadr says his parents took him out of school in the fifth grade because they could not buy uniforms.

“Nothing here works,” says his friend Saif Mahmoud, who dropped out in the third grade. “Every time it rains our houses get flooded.”

For all of Sadr’s emphasis on social justice and economic equality, there is little in Sadr City to show that residents have reaped tangible benefits from the movement’s activism.

Before he announced he was withdrawing from active politics two years ago, Sadr decreed that members of parliament in his movement live in the neighborhoods they represented – a radical thought in a country where many politicians flee to the relative safety and luxury of the green zone.

Most of his followers blame the lack of development in their neighborhoods on corrupt government officials and Sadr’s political opponents.

Misleading image

Sadr is still little understood by the West, described as a mercurial firebrand and belittled for his lack of religious credentials.

Before 2003 he was portrayed as lacking intellectual prowess – a young man more interested in playing video games than his religious studies. Patrick Cockburn, the author of “Muqtada: Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia Revival, and the struggle for Iraq,’’ suggests after the assassination of his father, the image was deliberately fostered by his followers to persuade Saddam he wasn’t a threat.

By 2009 Sadr had moved to Qum, the center of religious scholarship in Iran, to continue his religious studies.

In 2013, Mr. Cockburn met him in a rare one-on-one interview with a Western journalist.

“He was highly intelligent and I thought fairly open,” Cockburn recalls. “He was very quick to take a point and very quick to argue and quite convincing. He was friendly, and I thought very much engaged with what was going on in a realistic way.”

The Sadr movement has undergone a political evolution. UK-educated men in suits have replaced some of the starkly sectarian political operatives who were on the front lines of Sadr movement. Sadr has replaced his Mahdi Army with a paramilitary group he calls the Peace Brigades, whose role in the fight against ISIS has largely been guarding Shiite shrines.

While Sadr’s militia was supported by Iran and he still spends time there, his relationship with Iranian leaders is said to be strained. Sadr has increasingly made an effort to portray himself as an Iraqi patriot. Most of the movement’s discourse now is about nationalism and inclusiveness.

“I think there are lots of hidden and open regrets about what happened to the Mahdi army and its involvement in the sectarian killings in the height of 2006 and 2007,” Cockburn says. “It was explained away subsequently by saying they were those who were not obeying orders … but certainly there is a very strong desire to show that things are genuinely different.”

And some of his followers have undergone a political evolution as well.

Yousef Mukthadh, who graduated from law school two years ago and is still looking for a job, has been a Sadr follower since he can remember, but says it is no longer out of blind loyalty.

“I was young when I first started following the movement – It didn’t know what it meant,” he says. “But as I became older my way of thinking changed.”

 

Mukthadh, one of the several thousand young Iraqis who made it to Europe and then returned, describes Sadr as a revolutionary and says he welcomes the new openness of the movement.

“Before they were radicals. Now they have taken off their religious clothing and they have become open-minded,” he says. “Sayid Muqtada has changed according to the situation. When the Americans were there he was focused on fighting the Americans and when the Americans left, he changed his thinking as well.”

Reminder of Indian Point and the Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

Earthquake is a reminder that Indian Point is a clear, present danger

Mike Dulong7:00 a.m. ET Feb. 10, 2018

This week’s 2.2-magnitude earthquake that shook parts of northern Westchester and Putnam Counties is another reminder that the Indian Point nuclear plant remains a danger to the region.

Indian Point sits just one mile south of the Stamford-Peekskill line, part of the Ramapo Fault Zone. Researchers at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory say that this fault zone can produce at least a magnitude 6, and perhaps a magnitude 7 earthquake. The earthquake’s epicenter, in Yorktown, is near the Stamford-Peekskill line and about 8 miles east of Indian Point

While the recent earthquake was not enough to disrupt operations at the plant, it reminds us that the plant’s proximity to known faults puts the plant at a greater risk. In fact, in 2011 the Nuclear Regulatory Commision has ranked Indian Point’s Unit 3 reactor the highest in risk of failure from earthquakes among all U.S. nuclear power plants.

At the typical U.S. nuclear reactor, there’s a 1-in-74,176 chance each year that the core could be damaged from the effects of an earthquake (the effects of a secondary event, such as a tsunami are not calculated). Designed to withstand a magnitude 6.1 earthquake, the chance of core damage from a quake at Indian Point 3 is calculated to be 1 in 10,000 each year. And according to NRC specifications, that’s dangling on the edge of what it deems “immediate concern regarding adequate protection” of the public. (The Indian Point Unit 2 reactor is rated the 25th most susceptible to the effects of a significant earthquake with a 1 in 30,303 chance each year.)

Columbia University has identified the risk of a 7 magnitude earthquake in the region. Even the NRC believes core damage is seven times more likely than at most reactors, but held off requiring higher post-Fukushima standards to be met at Indian Point. So far we got lucky that no big earthquakes have hit. We can’t get lucky forever, so it’s lucky we got smart and decided to close Indian Point.

Mike Dulong is staff attorney for the environmental group Riverkeeper.

The Seven Trumpets: the unspoken outcome of nuclear war

John R. Kotson: Armageddon: the unspoken outcome of nuclear war

By John R. Kotson

POSTED: Friday, Feb. 9, 2018 – 10:18 a.m.

While President Donald Trump mindlessly blusters over the possibility of nuclear war with North Korea, most Americans, including the media, have little concept of what a nuclear holocaust entails. It has been almost 73 years since the United States used nuclear weapons against the empire of Japan. On August 6, 1945, a 16 KT (Equivalent to 16,000 tons of TNT) atomic bomb, code named “Little Boy,” was dropped on Hiroshima. Approximately 129,000 people died from the blast, burns, and radiation. Three days later, a second, 20 KT bomb, code named “Fat Man,” was dropped on Nagasaki with similar results. Since then, many countries have developed nuclear armaments but none has used them in war.

The U.S. government and the news media have been extremely reticent in failing to educate Americans of the horrors of a nuclear holocaust. In an all-out nuclear war what percentage of the U.S. population would quickly perish? How many more people would die due to diseases caused by radiation? These estimates are known by our government; why aren’t they made available to the public?

What if the escalating rhetoric of President Trump caused North Korea to launch a nuclear-equipped ICBM at Los Angeles? The U.S. missile defense system has been less than 100 percent effective in intercepting missiles in outer space, so there is a possibility that the missile would reach its intended target. A nuclear airburst over Los Angeles would create a fireball that would instantly cremate millions of people. Every large building and man-made structure would be destroyed by the accompanying shock wave. Radiation effects would condemn millions more to a slow painful death for many years. The only sign of existence for most people would be a fireball shadow left on the ground where they stood.

What options exist to curtail the threat of nuclear war? The U.S. military has the capability to totally destroy North Korea. One Trident-class nuclear missile submarine can deliver up to 80 independently targeted one megaton (1 million tons of TNT) nuclear warheads. These warheads are approximately 100 times greater in blast intensity than the Hiroshima bomb. Such a salvo would effectively destroy a small country such as North Korea in minutes.

The U.S. also could defeat North Korea through the use of conventional weapons but not without risk. North Korea has a well equipped, dedicated, million-man army. How many Americans remember the threat of a Dunkirk-like evacuation of a retreating American army at Pusan? Only a ring of steel set up by U.S. Navy warships and a high-risk landing behind North Korean forces at Inchon turned the tide.

A nuclear confrontation dwarfs all other problems facing America today and should take a strong precedence with our government. President Trump must quit enflaming the situation by insulting the Korean leader with his childish claims that “my red button is bigger than yours.” We should take the threat of a nuclear strike against North Korea off the table because it achieves nothing. The Congress and news media must educate the American and Korean peoples on the horrors of a nuclear war and why it should never be considered. The use of nuclear weapons should be outlawed as was poison gas after World War I.

There is still the use of diplomacy to convince the North Korean government that it is not in their best interest to continue on the path they have chosen. However, this requires patience from the American president that has so far been absent and some new ideas from our State Department on how to achieve a solution.

The continuing threat of a nuclear strike from North Korea must be curtailed. If diplomacy fails, we should use every option available to diffuse the situation. This includes political and economic sanctions, air- and sea-launched missile strikes, special-forces’ operations, a naval blockade and the limited use of ground forces.

Ultimately, the U.S. should take a leadership role with the United Nations to pursue a worldwide nuclear disarmament. The United States, Russia, and possibly China have enough nuclear weapons to easily destroy every living creature on earth several times over. To continue the development of new nuclear warheads is madness. Only by eliminating all nuclear stockpiles will countries be prevented from eventually destroying our planet.

John R. Kotson retired from IBM, where he was engineering manager for Missile Launch & Tracking Systems. He lives in Longmont.

Russian Horn Reacts to Babylon the Great

Russian Reactions To The New U.S. Nuclear Posture Review

MEMRI

On February 2, 2018, the U.S Department of Defense released its Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). [1] The major criticism leveled by pro-government officials and opinion leaders at the NPR is that the document is “anti-Russian.” The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs is primarily concerned by what it described as “Washington’s no-limits approach” of nuclear weapons. “[The U.S.] might use nuclear weapons in ‘extreme circumstances,’ which are not limited to military scenarios in the new U.S. doctrine. Moreover, even military scenarios are presented so ambiguously that it seems like the U.S. planners may view practically any use of military capability as a reason for delivering a nuclear strike against anyone they consider an ‘aggressor’.”[2]

Below are some reactions to the new U.S. National Posture Review:

Russia’s MFA: ‘We Will Have To Take Into Account The New U.S. Plans And To Take Measures To Enhance Our Security’

The following is the official reaction of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the new U.S. Nuclear Posture Review:

“We are deeply disappointed with the new U.S. Nuclear Posture Review, which was made public on February 2. The first impression is: the document is focused on confrontation and is anti-Russian. It is regrettable that the United States justifies its policy of massive nuclear build-up with references to Russia’s policy of nuclear modernization and the allegedly increased reliance on nuclear weapons in Russia’s doctrines. We have been accused of lowering the threshold for the first use of nuclear weapons and aggressive strategies.

“None of this has any connection with reality. Russia’s Military Doctrine clearly limits the possibility of using nuclear weapons to two hypothetical defensive scenarios: first, in response to an aggression against Russia and/or its allies involving the use of nuclear or any other weapons of mass destruction, and second, in response to a non-nuclear aggression, but only if Russia’s survival is endangered. The 2014 Military Doctrine introduced a new term, the ‘system of non-nuclear deterrence,’ which implies preventing aggression primarily through reliance on conventional (non-nuclear) forces.

“Therefore, readiness to use nuclear weapons to prevent Russia from using its nuclear arsenal, expressed in the new Nuclear Posture Review, amounts to putting in question our right to defend ourselves against an aggression that threatens the country’s survival. We would like to hope that Washington is aware of the high level of danger when such doctrinal provisions move to the level of practical military planning.

“We are deeply concerned about Washington’s no-limits approach, under which it might use nuclear weapons in ‘extreme circumstances,’ which are not limited to military scenarios in the new U.S. doctrine. Moreover, even military scenarios are presented so ambiguously that it seems like the U.S. planners may view practically any use of military capability as a reason for delivering a nuclear strike against anyone they consider an ‘aggressor.’ If this is not the doctrinal enhancement of the role of nuclear weapons, what then does Washington imply when it uses the term with regard to Russia?

“In addition to this, the new Nuclear Posture Review sets out sweeping nuclear modernization plans. Of special concern are the U.S. plans to modify existing SLCMs [submarine-launched cruise missiles] to ‘provide a low-yield option’ and also to create a low-yield warhead for the Trident II SLBMs [submarine-launched ballistic missiles]. Nuclear weapons with such options are clearly designed as battlefield weapons. This will greatly increase the temptation of using them, especially considering the right to a disarming first strike as set out in the new U.S. doctrine. Assurances that the implementation of these plans will not lower the nuclear threshold can at least be interpreted as a desire to delude the international community. It is even more frightening that the U.S. military and other national security professionals firmly believe in their ability to model conflict scenarios that involve low-yield nuclear opinions. Quite to the contrary, we believe that this dramatic lowering of the threshold conditions can provoke a nuclear missile war even in a low-intensity conflict.

“Of course, we will have to take into account the new U.S. plans and to take measures to enhance our security.

The U.S. nuclear doctrine abounds in anti-Russian clichés, from allegations of ‘aggressive behavior’ and interference to ungrounded accusations of alleged violations of a long list of arms control treaties. Washington has been lately producing an uninterrupted stream of such hackneyed allegations. We see this as a malevolent attempt to blame others for the deteriorating international and regional security situation and the unbalancing of arms control mechanisms due to a series of irresponsible U.S. actions.

“Russia honors its obligations under all international treaties. We strictly comply with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) and the Open Skies Treaty. We have never violated the 2011 Vienna Document on confidence and security-building measures or the Budapest Memorandum. We have laid bare the slanderous allegations regarding this more than once. As for the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE), Russia cannot be accused of violating it because it suspended its participation in the treaty back in 2007. We did this because the treaty, which was drafted in the era of confrontation of two military-political blocs – the Warsaw Treaty Organization and NATO, no longer served the new realities. One of these two blocs has long been dissolved, while the other continues to build up its capability as well as expanding its deployment area. These new realities were formalized in the Adapted Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty, which the U.S.-led NATO countries refused to ratify, unlike Russia.

“Likewise, it is untrue what the new U.S. Nuclear Posture Review says about Russia’s alleged refusal to implement the Presidential Nuclear Initiatives (PNIs) of 1991-1992, which concern the two countries’ political commitments to withdraw and reduce non-strategic nuclear weapons (tactical nuclear weapons, or TNWs). Acting in keeping with the PNIs, Russia has reduced the greater part (75 per cent) of its TNWs and has removed the rest from their delivery vehicles for storage at the central storage facilities in the national territory. It was an unprecedented reduction of the operational status of nuclear weapons and a major review of their place and role in the national military doctrine. Although the PNIs are not a legally binding international agreement, they continue to be relevant to us up to this day.

“It is notable that the United States still has TNWs in Europe and is even modernizing and deploying them in direct proximity to Russian borders. Moreover, NATO maintains the practice of nuclear sharing, or joint nuclear missions, when non-nuclear European bloc members are involved in planning for the use of U.S. nuclear weapons and in training in their use, which is a gross violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

“Another example of fact-juggling is the claim that Russia has refused to continue to reduce its nuclear weapons. We repeatedly confirmed our commitment to our obligations under Article VI of the NPT. We expressed our readiness more than once to discuss any questions related to the strengthening of international security. We pointed out, including to our American partners, that the conditions for the continuation of nuclear disarmament can be created through the settlement of key strategic security problems, such as the unilateral and unlimited deployment of U.S. BMD systems, the Prompt Global Strike (PGS) concept, as well as the US refusal to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) or to pledge not to deploy weapons in space.

“It is also obvious that disarmament efforts should involve all nuclear-capable states, primarily the UK and France as Washington’s nuclear weapons allies. The latter is especially important considering the intention, which has been proclaimed in the Nuclear Posture Review, to use NATO’s overall deterrence and defense posture, including its nuclear forces, against Russia. We point out that our American partners have not mentioned their obligations under Article VI of the NPT in this review.

“In light of the above, the claim that the United States ‘seeks stable relations’ and looks forward to resuming ‘constructive engagement’ in order to manage nuclear risks sounds utterly hypocritical.

“Russia is indeed ready for such engagement. We urge the United States to join forces with Russia in order to find solutions to the growing number of problems in the area of strategic stability.”

(Mid.ru, February 3, 2018)

MP Slutsky: The New Doctrine Is Very Dangerous From The Point Of View Of Violating Nuclear Deterrence Principles

The chairman of the Russian State Duma’s Foreign Affairs Committee Leonid Slutsky said:

“In actual fact, the new doctrine is very dangerous from the point of view of violating nuclear deterrence principles. According to experts, the promulgated provisions that allow the use of nuclear weapons as a means of fighting the enemy rather than a means of mass destruction can provoke a spiral in the arms race in the world… The U.S. strategy to develop compact nuclear warheads, which are easy to use, reduces the obstacles for their use and, thereby, increases the threat of a nuclear war, including in the presence of such a factor as North Korea… The statements that the doctrine currently gives an opportunity to American diplomats to speak from a position of strength are also very provocative leading only to the exacerbation of confrontation. On the contrary, we need to continue the dialogue, constructive and equitable dialogue to raise relations between the two biggest nuclear powers from the historical low.”

(Tass.com, February 4, 2018)

Leonid Slutsky (Source: Vm.ru)

Senator Klintsevich: ‘The World Remembers Hiroshima And Nagasaki. The U.S. Nuclear Doctrine Does Not Render Taboo A Repetition Of Anything Similar’

Russian Senator Frantz Klintsevich, first deputy chairman of the Federation Council’s Committee for Defense and Security, stated:

The U.S. new nuclear doctrine builds up greatly the confrontational component of the U.S. foreign policies, focusing not on cooperation with Russia in this sphere of weapons, but on competition with it. It is not for the first time in history, that the U.S. makes a very dangerous bet on breaking up the world strategic balance of forces in its favor… Clearly, the U.S. new nuclear strategy is a reaction to the changing global situation, which undermines the very domination of one country… The world remembers Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The U.S. nuclear doctrine does not render taboo a repetition of anything similar, and this causes most concerns. Clearly, it is senseless to speak now about any details of Russia’s response to the American doctrine. However, we see nothing new.”

(Tass.com, February 3, 2018)

Russian Ambassador To The U.S. Antonov: ‘It Is Not Worth Talking Down To Us’

Russian ambassador to Washington Anatoly Antonov stated:

“This document, published today [February 2, 2018] in Washington, requires careful study and analysis, and I expect that in the very near future there will be meetings between Russian and American experts, where our colleagues from Washington will give explanations on many lines in this document which remain unclear…

“First, the Russian Federation is shown in a negative light again. Russia, China, the DPRK and Iran are among the threats to the United States. I am only focusing on Russia – what is said about Russia? It is said that Russia can launch a nuclear strike, that Russia does not comply with international treaties – they mention among others the Treaty on short-and intermediate-range missiles, […] of course, they mention issues of tactical nuclear weapons.”

(Tass.com, February 3, 2018)

Antonov also remarked: “A conclusion is made that thanks to this ‘brilliant’ doctrine the U.S. diplomats can today speak to their colleagues in the world from a position of strength. Of course, as a Russian diplomat I want to say that it’s hardly worth talking to us from a position of strength. It is not worth talking down to us either. And definitely they should not specify to us what to do and how to do it”.

(Ria.ru, February 3, 2018)

Anatoly Antonov (Eurasian-defence.ru)

Lieut. General (Ret.) Buzhinsky: ‘This Is An Internal U.S. Political Document’

Lieut. General (ret.) Evgeny Buzhinsky, former head of international negotiations department of Russia’s MOD took a less alarmist view. He doubts that the U.S. doctrine implies that Washington is initiating a new arms race. “This is strictly an internal U.S. political document. It’s about a vast amount of money. They need to modernize [their arsenal]. The cost of this modernization [is estimated at] 1.3 trillion dollars in the next 30 years”, said Buzhinsky. He added that the doctrine should not be interpreted as if “they declare war on Russia or an arms race”. Buzhinsky clarified: “An arms race is a two sided process.. We have our own nuclear modernization program and they have their own. In any case the [nuclear] parity will be preserved”.

(Ria.ru, February 3, 2018)

Russian Expert Garbuzov: The New Doctrine Implies The Use Of Nuclear Weapons For Surgical Usage Against An Enemy

Director of the Institute for the U.S. and Canadian Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences, Valery Garbuzov, said that the doctrine is dangerous mainly because it expresses the intention to develop low scale nuclear warheads. Garbuzov said: “Why is this doctrine so dangerous? Because it permits the use of the nuclear weapons not as a means of mass destruction, but rather as a targeted means of struggle against an enemy. This is dangerous because here lurks the trapdoor for various [militant] groups to use low-yield mini-nukes. Every weapon has its ‘spill-over’ property, and this is particularly dangerous in the case of chemical and nuclear weapons. That’s why the mere [publication] of the doctrine is a provocative factor. Russia and other countries will also have to introduce modifications in their own doctrines.”

(Ria.ru, February 3, 2018)

Senator Kosachev: It Is An Attempt To Justify The Growing U.S. Aggression

Senator Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the Federation Council Committee for Foreign Affairs, condemned the new doctrine as an American attempt to justify its growing aggression:

“I see it as an attempt to justify the growing U.S. aggression through non-identified threats coming from different directions and its intention to invest seriously in [nuclear arsenal] modernization. Now, the options for the use of nuclear weapons have become greater (this includes non-identified ‘special circumstances’, not necessarily of a military nature). The clearly rising role of tactical weapons makes the non-peaceful use of the atom more likely. Despite the copious rhetoric regarding defense and containment – there is no doubt that this doctrine is actively aggressive, belligerent and not designed for a dialogue on the nuclear issue. This is definitely not encouraging”.

(Ria.ru, February 3, 2018)

Konstantin Kosachev (Source: Regnum.ru)

Senator Morozov: The Nuclear Doctrine Promotes The Start Of A New Arms Race

Senator Oleg Morozov, a member of the Federation Council Committee for Foreign Affairs, said: “This is a declaration of a new spiral of the arms race, less quantitative but more qualitative, using the most modern technologies. It’s not necessary to have more [nuclear] carriers or warheads for ‘muscle building’. According to the senator, The U.S. is trying to restore to itself world domination when in fact the U.S. is losing its former global status and “this is the source of such nervousness.”

(Ria.ru, February 3, 2018)

Senator Bondarev: US Nuclear Doctrine Demonstrates The True Identity Of The Global Aggressor

Senator Viktor Bondarev, former RUAF commander in chief and chairman of the Federation Council Defense and Security Committee, stated:

“Of course, the U.S. won’t go anywhere near an open conflict with two leading world powers [Russia and China]. But it can’t be ruled out that the U.S. will continue its expansion to the territories of small ‘raw materials’ nations [countries that produce mainly oil and gas] in order to make a profit in the weapons market, to control oil prices and utilize the human capital for its own interest. The U.S. nuclear doctrine demonstrates full well the identity of the true aggressor on a global scale “.

(Ria.ru, February 2, 2018)

[1] See MEMRI Special Dispatch N. 7325, Russian Expert Suslov: The New U.S Nuclear Doctrine Could Lead To A Military Crisis Fraught With A Direct Military Clash Between The U.S. And Russia, February 11, 2018.

[2] Mid.ru, February 3, 2018