Israel Helping the Saudi Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7)

Israel is Aiding Saudi Arabia in Developing Nuclear Weapons

June 04th, 2018

RIYADH, SAUDI ARABIA – The Israeli government has begun selling the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia information on how to develop nuclear weapons, according to a senior official at the Israeli military organization iHLS (Israel’s Homeland Security). Ami Dor-on, a senior nuclear commentator at the organization — which is partially funded by U.S. weapons-giant Raytheon – came forward because of his concern over the emerging nuclear arms race in the region. The cooperation between the two countries in helping the Saudis to develop a nuclear weapons program is just the latest sign of their warming relationship, with Israel recently calling the Saudi crown prince “a partner of Israel.”

Israel has been a nuclear power for decades, though its nuclear arsenal is undeclared and the country has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Estimates of its arsenal vary, with most suggesting that Israel possesses from 100 to 200 nuclear weapons. Israel was aided in the development of its nuclear program by Western powers, particularly France. Much of the Western “help” Israel received, however, was the result of covert thefts of nuclear material from countries such as the United States and Belgium.

While Dor-On, speaking to news outlet Arabi21, did not elaborate on the details of the information being exchanged, he stated that the sharing of this information was likely to be just the beginning of Israeli involvement in a future Saudi nuclear weapons program, which would likely see Israel “take the initiative to develop Saudi Arabia’s effort to acquire nuclear weapons” as a result of “the growing Saudi-Israeli relations.”

Both Israel and Saudi Arabia have justified their acquisition of nuclear weapons by citing concerns about Iran’s nuclear capabilities. However, Iran — unlike Israel — has never developed any nuclear weapons and its capacity to develop one is virtually nil under the conditions set by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JPCOA). Though the U.S. recently left the deal, Iran has since announced that it would continue to abide by the agreement if the other signatories also agreed to do so.

Dor-On additionally expressed his concern over the Saudis’ acquiring of nuclear weapons and a wider nuclear arms race in the region, stating that “this information should shock us as we see the world is changing for the worse, following the race for the possession of nuclear weapons that pass right over our heads in the Middle East.”

He also noted that Israel’s decision to begin sharing nuclear secrets with Saudi Arabia was motivated by a similar offer recently made by Pakistan to the Saudis — in which Islamabad had announced its ability to transfer nuclear-weapons expertise to the Gulf kingdom “within a month” — stating that the Israeli government did not want to “leave it [the development of a Saudi nuclear program] solely to Pakistan.” Pakistan’s offer was likely related to the fact that the Saudis have long been widely viewed as the chief financier behind Pakistan’s nuclear program.

Saudi nuclear weapons progress and status not clear

While the announcement that the Saudis may soon develop nuclear weapons with the help of Israel and other regional players will likely cause concern throughout the international community, it is hardly the first indication of Saudi ambition to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, Saudi interest in developing nuclear weapons dates back to the 1970s, when the kingdom learned of major steps taken by both Israel and India in the development of nuclear armaments.

Not long after financing the Pakistani program, the Saudis procured a Chinese ballistic missile system capable of carrying nuclear warheads — warheads that Pakistan had made for the Saudis in 2013 and were awaiting delivery, according to a BBC report published at the time. Three years later in 2016, former CIA Operations Officer Duane Clarridge confirmed this to FOX News — stating that, through their financing of the Pakistani nuclear program, the Saudis had access to several nuclear bombs. Clarridge declined to comment on whether those nuclear weapons that had been “sitting ready for delivery” in Pakistan a few years prior had since been delivered to Saudi Arabia.

More recently, Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman publicly announced this March, during an interview with CBS News, that the country would seek to develop nuclear weapons, were Iran to do so. In that interview, the Crown Prince stated that “Saudi Arabia does not want to acquire any nuclear bomb; but, without a doubt, if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as possible.” However, he did not make reference to the claim that the Saudis had already acquired access to such weapons years prior.

Furthermore, around the same time as the Crown Prince’s interview, reports surfaced claiming that the Saudis had asked the United States for permission to enrich uranium with the goal of producing a nuclear weapon.

Would Saudi nukes find their way into the hands of terrorists? A very real concern

The possibility that the Saudis already have access to nuclear weapons, and hope to soon develop them domestically, has been met with concern by analysts, particularly given the kingdom’s documented history of funneling weapons to terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, Daesh (ISIS), and Jaish al-Islam, among others. Were the Saudis to domestically produce their own nuclear weapons, it is very much a possibility that the kingdom would include them in its future weapon shipments to the radical Wahhabist groups they actively support.

Another area of concern is the kingdom’s disrespect for civilian life and tendency to wage total war when embroiled in a military conflict. For instance, in Yemen, where the Saudis have been attempting to oust the Houthis from power since 2015, the Saudi-led coalition has repeatedly bombed civilian infrastructure and imposed a blockade of the country that has prevented food, medicine and fuel from reaching the majority of Yemen’s population of around 28 million. As a result, 18.5 million Yemenis are expected to face starvation by this December and a “preventable” cholera epidemic of historic proportions continues to claim innocent life.

The Saudis’ willingness to inflict such misery on a civilian population as part of a military conflict is yet another indication of the danger inherent in their acquiring the ability to manufacture nuclear weapons.

Top Photo | Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu and Saudi Arabia’s King Salman

Whitney Webb is a staff writer for MintPress News and a contributor to Ben Swann’s Truth in Media. Her work has appeared on Global Research, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has also made radio and TV appearances on RT and Sputnik. She currently lives with her family in southern Chile.

Russia’s and China’s New Nuclear “Space Force”

Pentagon Intelligence Chief: Russia And China Will Have Weapons in Space ‘In the Near Future’

Russia and China are developing new space-based weapons and they’ll be ready “in the near future,” Lt. Gen. Robert Ashley, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said Tuesday at the Defense One Technology Summit in Washington, D.C.

The countries, which Ashley called “competitors,” are developing “the ability to interdict satellites both from a ground standpoint and from a space standpoint,” he said. “The technology is being developed right now. It is coming in the near future.”

It was the most overt admission yet from an intelligence leader that Russia and China were rapidly seeking to weaponize space. But a February report from the Office of the Director of Intelligence also hinted at it.

“Russia and China continue to launch ‘experimental’ satellites that conduct sophisticated on-orbit activities, at least some of which are intended to advance counterspace capabilities,” the report said. “Some technologies with peaceful applications—such as satellite inspection, refueling, and repair—can also be used against adversary spacecraft.”

 

In September, 2014, Russia launched Olymp-K, which reached orbit and undertook a series of irregular maneuvers, coming within seven miles of a pair of Intelsat communications satellites.  “This is not normal behavior and we’re concerned,” Kay Sears, president of Intelsat General, told Space News at the time. The incident sparked classified meetings at the Pentagon.

Since then, observers have raised alarms about three other Russian high-maneuverability satellites.

Ashley’s remark comes in the context of a new fight to establish a “Space Force,” an entirely new U.S. military service dedicated specifically to space. Ashley didn’t say whether a separate force was a good idea, but did offer that the technological advancements available to peer nations would pressure U.S. dominance in that domain.

“The competition is only going to grow,” said Ashley.  “Look at the national defense strategy. There is an acknowledgement that our technological lead is vanishing… And so when you get to the warfighting doctrine you have to account for … what is the resilience you build into the domains, the redundancy? When it’s been degraded or denied, how do you fight?”

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty recognizes “the common interest of all mankind in the progress of the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes.”

However, the International Committee on the Red Cross has noted that the treaty does not expressly prohibit weapons in space “except the prohibition of weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear weapons) and the usage of the Moon and other celestial bodies for exclusively peaceful purposes.”

In March, Michael Griffin, the new defense undersecretary for research and engineering, said that the United States may dust off plans from the late 1980s to put a neutral-particle beam in space that could fire at missiles on earth or other space objects.

The History Of New York Earthquakes: Before The Sixth Seal (Rev 6:12)

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/normantranscript.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/4/08/408bdb1d-8734-5959-b892-f359fe1bf6b9/54382834d5e4b.image.jpg

Historic Earthquakes

Near New York City, New York

1884 08 10 19:07 UTC

Magnitude 5.5

Intensity VII

USGS.gov

This severe earthquake affected an area roughly extending along the Atlantic Coast from southern Maine to central Virginia and westward to Cleveland, Ohio. Chimneys were knocked down and walls were cracked in several States, including Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. Many towns from Hartford, Connecticut, to West Chester,Pennsylvania.

Property damage was severe at Amityville and Jamaica, New York, where several chimneys were “overturned” and large cracks formed in walls. Two chimneys were thrown down and bricks were shaken from other chimneys at Stratford (Fairfield County), Conn.; water in the Housatonic River was agitated violently. At Bloomfield, N.J., and Chester, Pa., several chimneys were downed and crockery was broken. Chimneys also were damaged at Mount Vernon, N.Y., and Allentown, Easton, and Philadelphia, Pa. Three shocks occurred, the second of which was most violent. This earthquake also was reported felt in Vermont, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. Several slight aftershocks were reported on August 11.

Iran Hegemony Continues in Iraq (Daniel 8:3)

https://andrewtheprophetcom.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/ca215-cartooniran.jpg?w=1100Iranian Influence in Iraq to Rise Again with Proposed Coalition

Jun 26, 2018

A new Iran-backed parliamentary coalition in Iraq represents a significant shift, a major triumph for Iran in its bid to project its power in the war-torn country and a blowback to Washington’s efforts to curb Tehran’s influence in the region.

About three weeks ago, the two most successful Shia electoral coalitions in the May Iraqi elections, Saeroun (composed mainly of Moqtada al-Sadr‘s followers) and Fateh (mainly Iranian-supported militias led by Hadi al-Amiri), announced their parliamentary coalition. It would be the biggest bloc in the coming parliament, with 101 out of 329 seats, based on the results published thus far.

This alliance flagged a very important question among Iraqis and foreign observers: why would al-Sadr, who ran as an anti-foreign influence candidate, form a coalition that is decidedly pro-Iranian? Such an alliance will not only bring Iraq back to sectarian politics and policies but will also increase Iranian influence in Iraq, which had declined during the last four years of Haider al-Abadi’s government, though al-Abadi also announced a coalition with al-Sadr two weeks later.

During the last couple of years, al-Sadr has publicly challenged Iranian influence and showed more alignment with the anti-Iranian Arab axis. His Shia followers asked Iran to get out of Iraq in their weekly protests during 2017. According to a nationwide poll I conducted in April 2018, around 60 percent of al-Sadr’s ardent supporters said that Iran is not a reliable partner.

Due to al-Sadr’s critiques of sectarian governmental policies during the Nouri al-Maliki era (2006 to 2014) and his anti-Iranian statements, Sunnis, who were always against Iranian influence, showed strong support for al-Sadr’s platform. Al-Sadr became one of the Sunnis’ most popular potential leaders, with 63 percent of them saying that they had a favorable opinion of al-Sadr in the same poll as mentioned above.

In the hope of change, communists and some other secular, anti-sectarian activists decided to run on his electoral ticket. Accordingly, Saeroun (the alliance of Al-Sadr and other liberal allies) was the big winner in the election with 54 seats, followed by the pro-Iranian list (Fateh) with 47 seats.

A post-election nationwide survey that I conducted two days after the first release of the May election results, showed that 50 percent of Saeroun voters decided to vote for the list during the last week of the campaign, which means that they are not hardcore Al-Sadr followers but what might be seen as late-breaking “swing voters.”

Around 30 percent of undecided voters voted for the al Al-Sadr list versus almost 15 percent for the Fateh list and 15 percent for the Nasr list, led by current Prime Minister al-Abadi. Winning the swing voters was crucial for the al-Sadr list’s election victory. These swing voters are, for sure, not staunch Sadrists. This victory is supposed to send al-Sadr the message that his non-sectarian, anti-foreign interference electoral platform was successful in making him the biggest vote-getter since he ran in the first election in 2005.

After a number of tweets against sectarianism and foreign interference in Iraq, al-Sadr and Fateh-leader al-Amiri suddenly announced a new Iranian-supported Shia-based parliamentary coalition. So, why did al-Sadr suddenly, and surprisingly, change his stance on Iran and sectarian politics in Iraq?

Though it is still early to judge whether this is a real realignment by al-Sadr or just a tactical step to gain a better negotiation position in forming the new government, it is clear that Iran is investing all its hard and soft power to try to form a very pro-Iranian government in Iraq.

Iran sent two of its top hard and soft power leaders to Baghdad to meet the main Shia politicians. These were Quds Force Commander General Qasem Suleimani and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s son Mojtaba Khamenei. Suleimani was, for the last five years, the most influential Iranian military leader not only in Iraq but Syria and Lebanon as well, where the Quds brigade has been very active. Most importantly, he is the person who exercises Iran’s military power abroad. Sending Mojtaba Khamenei, who represents his father’s religious and political authority, sent an unmistakable message to al-Sadr and others that Iran cannot tolerate a new government that does not represent its interests.

To justify this reversal in his position towards Iran, al-Sadr issued a statement saying that this new coalition came about to avoid possible civil war in Iraq. This clearly refers to the fact that Iran may go to great lengths to control the new Iraqi government, even if this means using its allied militias in Iraq to fight those who oppose its influence.

This success in bringing al-Sadr back to the Iranian camp has sent a message to all other anti-Iranian opponents in and outside Iraq. Iran can dictate politics in Iraq to a great degree because it has the means on the ground to do so. The U.S. cannot exercise this kind of power without a huge blowback.

DISCLAIMER! The views and opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of The Globe Post.

Iran Reopens the Nuclear Horn (Daniel 8:4)

AP Explains: Iran reopens uranium plant in its latest gamble

By AMIR VAHDAT and JON GAMBRELL Associated Press

TEHRAN, Iran

Iran says it has restarted production at a “major” uranium facility involved in its nuclear program, though it still pledges to follow the terms of the country’s landmark atomic deal now under threat after President Donald Trump pulled America out of the accord.

Iranian comments about the Isfahan plant, which produces material needed to make enriched uranium, appear aimed at pressuring Europeans and others to come up with a way to circumvent new American sanctions.

Already, many international organizations are pulling back from promised billion-dollar deals with Tehran and the country’s currency has entered a free-fall against the dollar.

What comes next likely will resemble Iran’s response to previous confrontation with the West over its contested atomic program.

___

A PLANT REOPENS

The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran said in a statement late Wednesday that it reopened a plant that converts yellowcake, a uranium powder, into uranium hexafluoride gas. That gas is what scientists put inside of centrifuges to make enriched uranium that can be used in nuclear power plants or in atomic bombs. Iran long has said its program is peaceful, though the West and the United Nations point to work Iran did years earlier that could be used to weaponize its program.

The “production plant at Isfahan UCF Complex has been practically inactive since 2009 because of the lack of yellowcake in the country,” the organization said in its statement. That marks an Iranian acknowledgement of something it denied back in 2009 — that it had exhausted its sole supply of yellowcake, which came under a deal that Iran’s Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi made with apartheid South Africa in the 1970s.

Since the 2015 nuclear deal, Iran has purchased yellowcake from Kazakhstan and Russia, as well as mined its own domestically. The accord allows for that, but limits Iran’s enrichment of uranium to 3.67 percent, enough to use in a nuclear power plant but far lower than the 90 percent needed for an atomic weapon.

___

TENSIONS OVER TRUMP

Since Trump’s decision to pull America from the nuclear deal, Iran has sought to pressure other nations to stick with it. Iranian officials — from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on down — have vowed to boost the country’s uranium enrichment capacity. The moves they have outlined would not violate the accord, but would allow Iran to quickly ramp up enrichment if the agreement unravels.

Officials also have appeared in state media video and pictures at Isfahan with advanced IR-2M, IR-4 and IR-6 centrifuges labeled in English in the background. Those models are all believed to produce three to five times more enriched uranium in a year than the IR-1s that Iran is allowed to use under the deal, according to Western anti-proliferation experts.

The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran also released a video showing the first drum of yellowcake being put through the reopened facility, located 410 kilometers (255 miles) south of Tehran, as dramatic music played in the background.

“It is important that the resumption of the Isfahan UCF … provides for the fulfillment and execution of the supreme leader’s order to prepare for an increase in enrichment capacity,” the organization said in its statement late Wednesday.

___

WHAT COULD HAPPEN NEXT

Trump’s hard line, as well as the United States ordering its allies to stop buying Iranian crude oil, only increases the change of the wider nuclear deal collapsing. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Wednesday that Iran’s “ambitions for wastefully expanding its nuclear program … only add to the suffering of the people of Iran.”

A guide for what happens next likely can be seen in how Iran initially handled its nuclear confrontation with the West. In 2005, Iran acknowledged converting yellowcake into uranium tetrafluoride, a step below the uranium hexafluoride needed for centrifuges. While allowed under the terms of a then-European deal, it came as negotiations with Tehran had become deadlocked.

Iran a short time later removed U.N. seals from equipment to produce uranium hexafluoride, again stopping as negotiations with the West continued. But by February 2006, hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ordered uranium enrichment to resume in earnest.

“Iran’s decision to master nuclear technology and the production of nuclear fuel is irreversible,” Ahmadinejad would say, putting his country on a collision course with the West that saw crippling sanctions imposed.

For now, Iran remains governed by President Hassan Rouhani, a relative moderate with Iran’s theocracy whose administration brokered the deal. However, Rouhani has faced increasing criticism from hard-liners, some of whom have openly called for the country to be run by military officials.

Final say on the nuclear program, however, rests with Khamenei.

“In the face of the excessive demands of the opposite side, a courageous move must be made,” Khamenei said in May.

Canada Will Become a Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7:7)

Hmmm… what if Canada wants nuclear weapons?

Jazz ShawPosted at 1:01 pm on June 16, 2018

 

Did you happen to catch this tweet from the editors at the Ottawa Citizen, the largest daily newspaper in Ottawa, Canada?

That certainly caught the attention of a number of people. Was it satire? Some hint regarding a change in official Canadian policy toward nuclear arms? Reading the full editorial it sounds like neither, but they’re raising a provocative question. What if Canada, having become so distressed by the election of President Trump, fired up their own nuclear weapons program? They certainly have most of the required technical capability if they decided to do it.

As U.S. president Donald Trump thumps Canada with an out-of-the-blue trade war, he is simultaneously cozying up to a nuclear-armed North Korea: Saluting their generals, flattering their dictator and even making them fake movie trailers.

For Canadians watching all this is, a natural question is: What if we got some nuclear weapons, too?

“Your world would change,” said Mitchell Reiss, a former director of policy planning at the United States Department of State.

The action would be so needlessly provocative that it would likely result in Canada’s immediate ejection from NATO.

This was clearly dreamed up as a creative way to insult the American president and draw some clicks. The editors note at the top that they spoke to a number of sources in both countries and each and every one of them thought, “a Canadian nuclear bomb is an unbelievably terrible idea that is bad for everyone in almost every way.”

But since one of their leading newspapers decided to bring it up, let’s bat that idea around for a moment. They’ve got plenty of uranium to spare and nuclear engineers. (They have one of the largest nuclear power plants in the world.) They’ve made reactors in the past capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium. And it seems unlikely that they couldn’t find somebody up there who knows how to design a bomb. (Or they could import some talent.) All the really hard work is already done. They’re not that many steps away from a bomb if they really want one.

But would they? Bombastic editorials aside, if the Canadians decided to force their way into the nuclear clubhouse they would immediately become a player on that part of the stage. One of the reasons that Canada has had such an easy ride on the military front for the past seventy years or more is that they live next door to the United States. Nobody in the world would dream of attacking them so they haven’t needed to invest all that much in their military. When you live next door to and are best buddies with the heavyweight champion you don’t worry about getting into too many fights.

I’m sure Canada would like to maintain the status quo in that regard rather than taking on the cost and responsibility of maintaining a full, nuclear-capable military infrastructure. Right, Canada? I mean, you wouldn’t want anything to happen to our special relationship, would you? Instead of an exit question we’ll just have an exit tweet.

The German Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7:7)

Germany has officially asked the United States to explore certifying its Eurofighter aircraft to carry tactical nuclear weapons. The move might signal that Berlin does not want to purchase America’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Under NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangement, the United States bases tactical nuclear weapons in various countries in Europe. In the event of a conflict, Washington would release these weapons (the B61 gravity bomb) to the host nations, which would delivery them using their own nuclear-capable aircraft (flown by pilots trained in nuclear missions).

Germany’s Air Force, the Luftwaffe, is one of the NATO countries that host U.S. tactical nuclear weapons and is equipped with delivery systems. In specific, the Luftwaffe has designated its Tornado fighters as its dual-use aircraft (i.e. ones capable of both conventional and nuclear missions). Although Berlin has around 85 Tornado fighters, these are rapidly aging and scheduled to be retired in 2025.

Germany is known to be considering four different aircraft to replace the Tornados: the F-35, Boeing’s F-15 Eagle, Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and an upgraded Eurofighter. It is believed that the United States would prefer Germany to select the F-35A as its next dual-use aircraft, although Washington does not officially take a position. Besides the fact that this is an American plane, the United States and other European partners have decided to make the F-35A their next dual-capable fighter. Thus, it is already being certified. At the same time, the F-15 and F/A-18 are also American planes and have both been certified to carry the B61. What really distinguishes the F-35 is that it is a fifth-generation fighter with stealth capabilities.

On June 20, however, Reuters reported that Germany is pushing the United States to consider certifying the Eurofighter as a dual-use aircraft. “Germany’s defense ministry sent a letter to the U.S. Defense Department in April asking whether certification of the European jets was possible, how much it would cost, and how long it would take,” Reuters reported, citing “sources familiar with the matter.” The same article added that “top U.S. Air Force and Pentagon officials are working to respond to the German query.”

The Eurofighter Typhoon in flight

Timing is important here. Airbus, which makes the Eurofighter along with Britain’s BAE Systems and Italy’s Leonardo, claims the plane could be certified by 2025 when the Tornados are set to be retired. But a German military source told Reuters that the U.S. government has suggested certification could take between seven to ten years because first Washington must certify the F-35.

Although the Eurofighters can almost certainly be modified to carry the B61, the biggest question is whether the fighter jets will be able to survive on a nuclear mission to Russia given Moscow’s growing air defense capabilities. The Eurofighter is often described as a 4.5 generation fighter, meaning that it lacks stealth. Boeing, which makes the F-15 and F/A-18, as well as the Eurofighter consortium, argue that their fourth-generation jets will work as long as they make use of jamming capabilities.

Others have doubts. Gary J. Schmitt of the American Enterprise Institute has written that by selecting the Eurofighters “you are asking a Luftwaffe pilot to bring a knife, albeit a very capable knife, to a gunfight.” Similarly, Daniel Gouré, a former Pentagon official who is now a senior vice president at the Lexington Institute, has argued: “the ability of the Typhoon, like all fourth-generation fighters, to penetrate Russia’s integrated air defenses is already questionable. Because the nuclear deterrent mission must be credible from the outset of hostilities, before Russian air defenses have been attrited, the use of fourth-generation aircraft in this role is increasingly nonviable.”

The German Air Force itself is known to strongly favor purchasing the F-35. Lieutenant General Karl Muellner, the former chief of staff of the Luftwaffe, repeatedly made the case that his service needed to replace the Tornados with the F-35s. Stressing the “changing nature of warfare,” Muellner told Reuters in November of last year that the Tornados’ successor must be “low-observable, and able to identify and strike targets from a great distance.” In case there was any ambiguity of what he meant, Muellner added: “It will have to be a fifth-generation jet to meet the full spectrum of our needs.”

This was not a one-time event. Muellner repeatedly stressed publicly that his service wanted the F-35. “The Luftwaffe considers the F-35’s capability as the benchmark for the selection process for the Tornado replacement, and I think I have expressed myself clearly enough as to what the favorite of the air force is,” he told reporters last year. This pitted him against the Ministry of Defense, which is known to favor the Eurofighter. Muellner refused to stop speaking out about the F-35 and earlier this year he was fired for it.

Of course, Germany can’t fire the United States if it refuses to certify the Eurofighter or slow rolls the process. But Berlin could decide not to provide dual-use aircraft to carry U.S. tactical nuclear weapons. This was a concern of the U.S. Air Force not too long ago.

The Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

NEW YORK IS 40 YEARS OVERDUE A MAJOR EARTHQUAKE AND AMERICA ISN’T PROPERLY PREPARED, ‘QUAKELAND’ AUTHOR KATHRYN MILES TELLS TREVOR NOAH

BY TUFAYEL AHMED ON 9/27/17 AT 9:28 AM

Updated | An earthquake is long overdue to hit New York and America isn’t prepared, author and environmental theorist Kathryn Miles told Trevor Noah on Tuesday’s Daily Show.

Miles is the author of a new book, Quakeland, which investigates how imminently an earthquake is expected in the U.S. and how well-prepared the country is to handle it. The answer to those questions: Very soon and not very well.

“We know it will, that’s inevitable, but we don’t know when,” said Miles when asked when to expect another earthquake in the U.S.

She warned that New York is in serious danger of being the site of the next one, surprising considering that the West Coast sits along the San Andreas fault line.

“New York is 40 years overdue for a significant earthquake…Memphis, Seattle, Washington D.C.—it’s a national problem,” said Miles.

Miles told Noah that though the U.S. is “really good at responding to natural disasters,” like the rapid response to the hurricanes in Texas and Florida, the country and its government is, in fact, lagging behind in its ability to safeguard citizens before an earthquake hits.

“We’re really bad at the preparedness side,” Miles responded when Noah asked how the infrastructure in the U.S. compares to Mexico’s national warning system, for example.

“Whether it’s the literal infrastructure, like our roads and bridges, or the metaphoric infrastructure, like forecasting, prediction, early warning systems. Historically, we’ve underfunded those and as a result we’re way behind even developing nations on those fronts.”

Part of the problem, Miles says, is that President Donald Trump and his White House are not concerned with warning systems that could prevent the devastation of natural disasters.

“We can invest in an early warning system. That’s one thing we can definitely do. We can invest in better infrastructures, so that when the quake happens, the damage is less,” said the author.

“The scientists, the emergency managers, they have great plans in place. We have the technology for an early warning system, we have the technology for tsunami monitoring. But we don’t have a president that is currently interested in funding that, and that’s a problem.”

This article has been updated to reflect that Miles said New York is the possible site of an upcoming earthquake, and not the likeliest place to be next hit by one.

Trump’s Gets US Ready to Fight a Nuclear War

Trump’s Getting Us Ready to Fight a Nuclear War

Although many people have criticized the bizarre nature of Donald Trump’s diplomacy with North Korea, his recent love fest with Kim Jong Un does have the potential to reduce the dangers posed by nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula.

Even so, buried far below the mass media coverage of the summit spectacle, the reality is that Trump―assisted by his military and civilian advisors―is busy getting the United States ready for nuclear war.

This deeper and more ominous situation is reflected in the extensive nuclear “modernization” program currently underway in the United States. Begun during the Obama administration, the nuclear weapons buildup was initially offered as an inducement to Senate Republicans to vote for the president’s New START Treaty. It provided for a $1 trillion refurbishment of the entire U.S. nuclear weapons complex―as well as for new weapons for nuclear warfare on land, in the sea, and in the air―over the following three decades.

Characteristically, this program, though unnecessary and outlandishly expensive, was not nearly grand enough for Trump, who, during his election campaign, repeatedly assailed what he claimed was the pitiful state of America’s nuclear preparedness. In fact, in his first campaign announcement, he went so far as to proclaim: “Our nuclear arsenal doesn’t work.”  In December 2016, shortly after his election victory, he tweeted: “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability.” The next day, speaking with his usual brashness, he told Mika Brzezinski, the host of an MSNBC program: “Let it be an arms race.” He added: “We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.”

Trump unveiled his official “America First” National Security Strategy in December 2017. Criticizing the downgraded role of nuclear weapons in U.S. national security policy since the end of the Cold War, it broadened the role of nuclear weapons in future policy. Announcing the measure, Trump took the opportunity to denigrate his predecessors. “They lost sight of America’s destiny,” he remarked. “And they lost their belief in American greatness.”

Further details about that “greatness” appeared in February 2018, when the Trump administration released its official Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). Rather than continue the efforts of past administrations to reduce the size and scope of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, the NPR sidelined any consideration of arms control and disarmament agreements. Instead, it called for upgrading all three legs of the U.S. nuclear triad and outlined plans to build two new types of nuclear weapons: a submarine-based nuclear cruise missile and a submarine-launched ballistic missile. The latter, although reportedly “low-yield,” could do as much damage as the atomic bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. According to Lawrence Korb, a nuclear weapons specialist who had served as Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan administration, the Trump administration plan could catapult the cost of the U.S. nuclear “modernization” program to $2 trillion.

Like Korb, many nuclear weapons specialists were appalled not only by the astronomical cost of this nuclear buildup, but by its potential to facilitate nuclear war. “Low-yield” nuclear weapons, after all, are being built because they will provide the U.S. government with a more “usable” response than would either conventional or strategic nuclear weapons to problems with “enemy” nations. Nuclear enthusiasts like to think that, faced with the possibility of a low-yield attack, “the enemy” will back down; or that, if the U.S. government actually initiates an attack with such weapons, “the enemy” will not escalate to a full-scale nuclear counterattack. But is that a certainty? As Korb notes, “many U.S. military officials” believe that low-yield nuclear weapons will end up “providing Trump with a kind of gateway drug for nuclear war.”

In other ways, too, the Trump nuclear buildup laid out in the NPR presents new opportunities for slipping into a nuclear catastrophe. For example, as the U.S. government already possesses a submarine-launched conventional cruise missile, adding a nuclear cruise missile will lead the Russian government to assume that any cruise missile on board a U.S. submarine could be a nuclear one. Another opportunity for disaster will widen with the promised integration of nuclear and conventional weapons in U.S. military planning. Moreover, building more nuclear weapons will encourage other nations to develop their own, with many of them targeting the United States. Perhaps most dangerous, the Trump NPR lowers the official threshold for use of U.S. nuclear weapons, contending that the U.S. government would employ them in response to non-nuclear attacks upon civilians and infrastructure, including cyberattacks.

Trump himself, of course, has not only displayed an alarmingly high level of mental instability, impulsiveness, and vindictiveness, but a rather cavalier attitude toward using nuclear weapons. During his 2016 presidential campaign, according to MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, Trump consulted with a top foreign policy specialist “and three times asked about the use of nuclear weapons. . . . He asked at one point, if we had them, why can’t we use them?” Twice, during early 2016, Trump said that, when it came to the use of nuclear weapons, he wanted to be “unpredictable.” In 2017, caught up in an interchange of personal insults with Kim Jong Un, he threatened to “totally destroy” North Korea―presumably through a nuclear attack.

Trump apparently considers his nuclear weapons policy a component of “Making America Great Again.” But we might more justifiably view it as a giant step toward catastrophe.

RUSSIA LOWERS THE THRESHOLD FOR NUCLEAR WAR

A soldier fires a portable air defense rocket during the International military games ‘Masters of Antiaircraft Battle – 2015’ outside the Russian southern town of Yeisk on August 6, 2015.

PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES

NATO CHIEF WARNS RUSSIA HAS DEVELOPED WEAPONS THAT ‘LOWER THRESHOLD’ FOR NUCLEAR WAR

By Tom Porter On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 – 12:20

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has warned that Russia has developed new “military capabilities” which “lowers the threshold” for the country to use nuclear weapons.

In an interview with German state broadcaster Deutsche Welle, published on Wednesday, Stoltenberg addressed the military threat posed by Russia to members of the transatlantic defense alliance.

“I won’t go into specifics describing what kind of intelligence about Russian weapons we have. But Moscow is developing new military capabilities, both conventional and nuclear, which lowers the threshold for Russia’s use of nuclear weapons in a potential conflict,” he remarked.

He said that NATO was responding to Russia’s increased military capabilities by implementing the “biggest reinforcement to our collective defense” and deploying troops to NATO allies in Poland, the Baltic and Black Sea regions.

“We want to send a clear message to any potential adversaries that NATO is there to protect all allies against any threat. The main reason why we do this is not to provoke any conflict, but to preserve the peace,” he said.

Stoltenberg’s comments come as NATO leaders prepare for a July summit in Brussels amid increasing tensions between the U.S. and its European allies.

European officials told The New York Times on Tuesday that they fear President Donald Trump will use the summit to again berate European leaders for what he regards as unfair trade practices and not meeting their defense commitments.

Trump will afterwards fly for a summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and they warned of the impact on the alliance of Trump leaving under a cloud before meeting the Russian leader, who NATO has accused of attempting to destabilise the alliance.

At the summit, member states are to discuss plans backed by U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis for a fighting force capable of rapidly reinforcing NATO “spearhead” units in eastern Europe.

In May, Putin bragged that Russia had developed a new nuclear powered missile with unlimited range, but U.S. officials told CNBC that the Kremlin was yet to perform successful multiple tests of the weapon.

Last year Russia recorded its first drop in military spending since 1998, spending 3.9 trillion rubles ($61 billion) on defense, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.