Saudi Wahabists Threatening World War III

 

Saudi Arabia’s Dictator Demands Regime-Change in Syria — Otherwise WW III

The owner of Saudi Arabia, King Salman al-Saud, speaking through his spokesperson and chosen Foreign Minister, in an interview that was published on February 19th in Germany’s magazine Spiegel, says that he demands the resignation or else the overthrow of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad, who is allied with both Iran and Russia. Polls of the Syrian public, by Western polling firms, consistently show Assad to be overwhelmingly approved by the Syrian people to be the leader of Syria, and show that Syrians blame the United States for causing ISIS, which is disapproved by 76% of Syrians. The other named jihadist groups, such as al-Nusra which is Al Qaeda in Syria, received similarly low approval-ratings from the Syrian public. In stark contrast, a poll of Saudi Arabians shows that 92% of them approve of ISIS. But the United States is allied with the fundamentalist-Islamic dictatorship Saudi Arabia, against the separation-of-church-and-state democracy of Russia. So too is America’s fellow-NATO-member Turkey allied with the fundamentalist Muslims, and they’re publicly threatening to invade Syria (another nation that has strict separation of church-and-state) with ground troops. They’re backed by planes that were supplied to the Sauds by the United States. 
Robert Parry reported on February 18th, “A source close to Russian President Vladimir Putin told me that the Russians have warned Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan that Moscow is prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons if necessary to save their troops in the face of a Turkish-Saudi onslaught. Since Turkey is a member of NATO, any such conflict could quickly escalate into a full-scale nuclear confrontation.”
The Saudi Foreign Minister also says that his country is waiting for U.S. President Barack Obama to take the lead in forcing Assad to resign, because, he says, otherwise Assad will necessarily be overthrown in a war, and there is a possibility that World War III could result, though he also says, “I don’t think World War III is going to happen in Syria.” He even says that to talk about “the danger of World War III … is an over-dramatization,” because he expects America to lead in the overthrow of Assad. He’s waiting for Obama’s decison.
Spiegel’s  interviewer asked some challenging follow-up questions, such as, “Is Saudi Arabia not financing extremist groups? Zarif speaks of attacks by al-Qaida.” To that one, he answered, “Yes, but that’s not us. We don’t tolerate terrorism.”
In the UAE, the TV network of Dubai telecast on 22 January 2016 an interview with the former Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca Saudi Arabia, a high authority on the Sauds’ faith, which is likewise the faith of the six royal families of UAE, and this interview was telecast in Arabic, so the expectation was naturally to be speaking to the locals instead of to foreigners. However, a youtube on January 27th included subscripts in English, and is headlined “Former Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Adel Kalbani: Daesh ISIS have the same beliefs as we do.” He states there that the only difference between ISIS and their faith is that (1:55-) “We follow the same thought but apply it in a refined way,” because Saudis believe that (1:12-) “if we execute them [people] in a way that does not show us in a bad way, then that’s fine,” whereas ISIS’s way is so (1:09-) “brutal that it ruins our image in front of the world.” But that’s just the Saudi faith as it’s represented by the ‘holy men.’ What about the royals themselves? 
Here is the evidence on this matter, which Spiegel’s interviewer failed even to bring up: The individual who had been the bookkeeper, accountant, and bagman for Al Qaeda, and who personally collected (in cash) each one of the million-dollar-plus donations to Al Qaeda, from which donations the “salaries” (as he referred to them) of each one of the terrorists and terrorists-in-training were being paid, testified under oath in an American court case, saying that almost all of that money came from Saudi Arabia’s royal family, from their Princes, including from the one — Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud — who was, at the very time of 9/11, serving in the United States, as the Saudi Ambassador. Bandar subsequently became the chief of Saudi intelligence. The Saudi King appointed a man like that — a big donor to Al Qaeda — to be his Kingdom’s chief of intelligence. The current King of Saudi Arabia, King Fahd al-Saud, was mentioned by that bagman as having been among the people to whom Osama bin Laden had him deliver letters to at the time when the Saud family were planning whom to select to become the next King; Al Qaeda’s bagman said that he had delivered Osama’s letters to “Abdullah, Fahd, okay, Salman, Waleed bin Talal, Bandar, Turki of course, and Shaykh — Shaykh Bin Baz, Shaykh Uthaimeen, Shaykh Shehri, and Shaykh Hammoud al-Uqlaa, but Shaykh Osama told me that the — the letter for the — for — for the ulema [the religious leaders] I could give it — give it to Turki.” (I.e.: Turki was the contact-man with the religious scholars.)
Here was a follow-up question from the transcript, and the bagman’s answer to it:
Q Do you have any understanding why in that context Osama bin Laden would have been sending letters to both members of the royal family and the senior ulema [the scholars]?
A: My understanding from talking with people like Abu Basir al-Wahishi who become the — the head of al-Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula, who I used to be close to, okay, or Halad or Shaykh Abu Hasan [but is that the same person?], Shayk Mujahideen, Shaykh Aman, and Shaykh Abul Sef — my understanding that they — they want to know who they should support.
The counsel or advice from Osama bin Laden was respected by the members of the Saudi royal family, in order to help them to determine which one of them should become the next King. Presumably, Osama’s advice was necessary in order for them to learn which ones of themselves could become appointed to lead as King without sparking attacks by Al Qaeda and by the clergy (whose faith they spread) against the Saud family, and which ones would be unacceptable to Al Qaeda and to the clergy. Al Qaeda were, in a sense, the clergy’s enforcers, and they could do this at home in Saudi Arabia. This was the implicit threat: that they had to appoint someone who was in-synch with the jihadist goals, spreading the faith, the goal of the Wahhabist (which is the Saudi branch of Salafism) clerics. (Salafism/Wahhabism is jihadist by its very founding, and is above all dedicated to exterminating Shiites in order to unify global Islam behind the jihadist cause, religious conquest for purified Sunni faith, the Caliphate.)
Furthermore: When Hillary Clinton was the U.S. Secretary of State, one of the first things she did was to send, to her Ambassadors in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and Kuwait, instructions for them to tell their royals to make sure that they would no longer allow those donations to continue; and she even said: “Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.” She didn’t name names, but they already knew the names. That was eight years after 9/11, in 2009, and there’s no reason to think that the situation has changed since, just as there indeed had been no change after the 9/11 attacks and the donations instead continued into at least 2009.
A truthful answer from the Saudi Foreign Minister, to the question, “Is Saudi Arabia not financing extremist groups? Zarif speaks of attacks by al-Qaida,” would have been: “We don’t support jihad that threatens our own regime, like ISIS does by saying that we Sauds aren’t descended from the Prophet [Mohammed] and that their leader al-Baghdadi is and so he should rule the world and we shouldn’t, and that we therefore aren’t qualified even to run Saudi Arabia, and to serve as custodians over Mecca and Medina, on that basis.” But, he didn’t give that honest answer.
The Saudi Foreign Minister went on to tell Spiegel, “We believe that introducing surface-to-air missiles in Syria [which the United States supplies to the Sauds] is going to change the balance of power on the ground.” He believes this because it will enable the overthrow-Assad forces on the ground to shoot down Russian jets. He supports jihadist groups, but only the ones that acknowledge the Sauds’ authority.
On February 20th, Almasdar News headlined “Turkey says Obama shares Syria concerns with Erdogan, affirms support,” and reported that, “Turkey’s presidency said U.S. President Barack Obama had shared his concerns over the Syrian conflict and promised his support on Friday, hours after a tense exchange between the two NATO allies over the role of Kurdish militants. In a phone conversation that lasted one hour and 20 minutes, Ankara said Obama had told his counterpart President Tayyip Erdogan that Turkey had a right to self-defense.” These “tensions” resulted from Obama’s urging Turkey to “show reciprocal restraint.”
In other words: Turkey is a member of NATO and it will therefore be backed by fellow-NATO-member U.S. in any war against Russia, but Turkey should use “restraint.” The issue there was the use by U.S.-backed Kurds in Syria, of U.S. weapons which those Kurds were firing against the jihadists who are trying to take over Syria. The pro-jihadist Erdogan wants to send his ground-forces into Syria to kill those Kurds, but those Kurds are allied now with both the United States and Russia, and so Erdogan has been holding off. The possibility exists that if the Syrian conflict can be ended without having sparked a nuclear war, then Syria will become a federal republic, and the Kurdish region in its easternmost corner will become a largely autonomous state within the Syrian federal union. That outcome is unacceptable to Erdogan, but U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has tentatively agreed with Russia that it needs to be and remain open.
The Saudi Foreign Minister told Spiegel, “It is important that Bashar leaves in the beginning, not at the end of the process.” In other words, King Saud agrees with Hillary Clinton that Assad must be forced out of power while, and not after, the battles to defeat ISIS are going on. They demand their own victory, before any political process can begin in Syria. (As the Sauds see Assad, he’s not only a secularist, but he’s a Shiite, and therefore should die and be replaced by a fundamentalist Sunni like themselves.)
Whether or not to continue America’s war against Russia, which has continued even after the Warsaw Pact ended in 1991 with a ceaseless expansion of NATO right up to Russia’s borders, is the biggest issue in the U.S. Presidential campaign, with Hillary Clinton and the Establishment Republicans demanding its continuation, and with Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump saying that there’s no sound reason for continuing it.
On February 18th, Stephen Kinzer had an op-ed in the Boston Globe titled, “The media are misleading the public on Syria,” and he wrote:
Washington-based reporters tell us that one potent force in Syria, al-Nusra, is made up of “rebels” or “moderates,” not that it is the local al-Qaeda franchise. Saudi Arabia is portrayed as aiding freedom fighters when in fact it is a prime sponsor of ISIS. Turkey has for years been running a “rat line” for foreign fighters wanting to join terror groups in Syria, but … we hear little about it.
The first reader-comment to it was: 
Ozark02/18/16 02:08 PM
When did you join the payroll of the Kremlin and Teheran, Mr. Kinzer?
The first reply to that was:
tsynchronous02/18/16 02:13 PM
Sadly he is on the payroll of a foundation funded by IBM — even though he thinks capitalism and the USA is evil.
A subsequent response to it was:
Miker602/19/16 05:19 AM
And notice that Stephen Kinzer completely leaves out Barack Obama’s famous “RED LINE” proclamation for Bashir Assad, and why did he completely back out of it?
That alone is enough to Stephen Kinzer to be the one who is misleading the public on Syria.
Or, how much is the fact being reported that, other than the United States leadership, many if not most of the other Western countries are saying that in the event of an invasion of Syria by Turkey, it will not have their backing: According to Russia’s Sputnik News on February 20th, Luxembourg and Germany have already said no to participating in any such invasion. It seems that U.S. President Obama is trying to get other allies to support and participate in invading Syria, but hasn’t yet had any takers, except for the terrorist-supporting nations, only one of which (Turkey) is even in NATO at all. (Perhaps if he can get other NATO members to join, then he’ll call a halt to John Kerry’s negotiations with Russia. War would presumably commence shortly afterward.)
The big problem — which virtually no one in the West’s ’news’ media talks about — is that NATO didn’t end when the Warsaw Pact did, but instead became a U.S.-run military club against the post-Soviet, non-communist, democratic nation of Russia.
Ending the corruption that’s behind all this will take forever. But something else is behind it that can and should be done more immediately.
End NATO Now. It has become urgent.

Russians Ready To Start World War 3 (Revelation 16)

World War 3: Russian Bomber Intercepted, Tu-95 Carried Russia’s Nuclear Weapons Claims England

The Inquisitr
World War 3: Russian Bomber Intercepted, Tu-95 Carried Russia's Nuclear Weapons Claims England
Fears of World War 3 continue to rise, and when the RAF fighters scrambled to have a Russian bomber intercepted over the channel it was uncertain whether or not they actually carried Russia’s nuclear weapons. Now the British Ministry of Defense is claiming that Russian nuclear missiles were indeed on board the Tu-95 “Bear” bomber.
 In a related report by the Inquisitr, Vladimir Putin claims Russia will boast military superiority over the United States at least until 2020. The Russian military also recently claimed that Russia’s nuclear weapons were upgraded recently with new technology which supposedly makes U.S. missile defense system useless. Members of the U.S. Congress also claim that Putin has stationed Russian nuclear weapons in Ukraine already, and may even use Crimea for an invasion.

The sight of the two Russian bombers so close to British air space was yet another sign that Cold War 2 was upon us. During the confrontation, Tu-95 bombers and the RAF Typhoons came as close as 1,000 feet away from each other. They were so close that the British pilots could communicate with the Russian bomber with hand signals.

Sources within the British Ministry of Defense claims that one of the two Russian bombers intercepted carried at least one of Russia’s nuclear weapons designed to “seek and find” Trident submarines. Both Prime Minister David Cameron and Defense Secretary Michael Fallon were alerted after cockpit conversations confirmed the Russian bomber’s nuclear payload were intercepted by a Norwegian military listening post.

“We downloaded conversations from the crew of one plane who used a special word which meant the would-be attack was a training exercise,” said a senior RAF source according to Express. “They know that we can pick up their transmissions and it would only be of concern if the often used release weapon order was changed. We also knew from another source that one of the aircraft was carrying a nuclear weapon long before it came anywhere near UK airspace.”

Experts say the belief that the Russian bomber was carrying nuclear weapons is an example that Vladimir Putin is upping his game.

“This continual and increasing probing of NATO airspace by these nuclear bombers and fighter aircraft, tankers and electronic aircraft by Russian is a pattern of increased pressure by Russia designed to remind the West and NATO that they remain a large nuclear power, and a serious military power with reach,” said Justin Bronk of the Royal United Services Institute.

Some experts also claim the RAF is stretched too thin with its current defensive capabilities with threats of World War 3 on their doorstep.

“Putin is making the point that he has nuclear weapons and will carry them wherever he wants and NATO just has to take it,” said Air Cmdre Andrew Lambert, of the U.K. National Defense Association. “We have reduced the number of or Typhoon squadrons to the bare minimum. They have the Quick Reaction Alert commitments, NATO’s Baltic effort, and of course, the Falklands. So we are stretched three ways. We have too few air defense aircraft bearing in mind the commitments we now have.

Fortunately, the Russian bomber was not on a mission to start World War 3, and Vladimir Putin would have been required to give a direct order in order to make the warhead live. The other Russian bomber was apparently acting as a “mothership” during the military exercise.

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1804787/world-war-3-russian-bomber-intercepted-tu-95-carried-russias-nuclear-weapons-claims-england/#Qb0emZWolEvh3gPk.99

Climate Leading To The Nuclear War Is Nothing Compared To The Climate Change After (Rev 16)

Climate change brings world closer to ‘doomsday’: scientists

Source: Dawn.com

“It is now three minutes to midnight,” said Kennette Benedict, executive director of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, as the group moved its symbolic “Doomsday Clock” two minutes forward.
The Doomsday Clock was created in 1947. It has changed 18 times since then, ranging from two minutes to midnight in 1953 to 17 minutes before midnight in 1991.

The clock has been at five minutes to midnight since 2012 and the last time it was three minutes to midnight was in 1983, during the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union.
“Today, unchecked climate change and a nuclear arms race resulting from modernization of huge arsenals pose extraordinary and undeniable threats to the continued existence of humanity,” Benedict said.

“And world leaders have failed to act with the speed or on the scale required to protect citizens from potential catastrophe.” The scientists called on people to demand action from their leaders to curb fossil fuel pollution and to stop developing ever more modern nuclear weapons that are endangering the planet.

“We are not saying it is too late to take action, but the window for action is closing rapidly. The world needs to be awakened from its lethargy and start making changes,” Benedict said.

Such actions should cap greenhouse gas emissions at levels sufficient to keep average global temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, the group said.

“Efforts at reducing global emissions of heat-trapping gases have so far been entirely insufficient,” said Richard Somerville, a member of the Science and Security Board, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and a distinguished professor emeritus and research professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego.

“Unless much greater emissions reductions occur very soon, the countries of the world will have emitted enough carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by the end of this century to profoundly transform the Earth’s climate,” he said, noting that 2014 was the hottest on record and that the tipping point of ice loss in west Antarctica has been reached, meaning the melt is now unstoppable.

The climate changes that human are driving “will harm millions of people and will threaten many key ecological systems on which civilization relies”, he said.

Nuclear cuts

The scientists also called for dramatically reduced spending on nuclear weapons modernization programs, and a renewed focus on disarmament.

Benedict said that the world has about 16,300 nuclear weapons, which she described as “far too many”.

While the United States and Russia have far fewer weapons today than they did during the Cold War, the disarmament process has “ground to a halt”, said Sharon Squassoni, member, Science and Security Board, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, and director of the Proliferation Prevention Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Meanwhile, the United States has invested big money in modernizing its nuclear weapons systems, with some $355 billion planned for the next decade, and Russia is also upgrading its nuclear weapons, Squassoni said.

The United Kingdom has halved its nuclear arsenal stockpile since 2010 but continues to support its nuclear submarine program.

France is also building a next generation air-to-ground nuclear missile, while China is developing a new class of ballistic missile submarines, she said.

India has plans to expand its nuclear submarine fleet and Pakistan has started a third plutonium reactor and is developing a new short-range nuclear missile.

“Israel reportedly is also modernizing some of its undeclared nuclear forces and North Korea as we all know continues its nuclear program without any of the restraints previously applied under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,” she told reporters.

She said that any post-nuclear optimism that arose at the end of Cold War “has essentially evaporated”.

Ukraine’s Big Lesson: Don’t Give Up Your Nukes

World War 3: Russia’s Nuclear Weapons Threat Has Ukraine Discussing Restoring Nukes

2014-ukraine-crisis-map
Posted in: Politics Posted: September 14, 2014

 
Ukraine is apparently preparing for the possibility of World War 3, with Ukraine’s defense minister responding to Russia’s nuclear weapons threats by claiming they may consider restoring Ukraine’s nuclear weapons programs.In a related report by The Inquisitr, Vladimir Putin has been escalating tensions lately with the announcement of a Russian nuclear weapon test launch of an ICBM from a nuclear submarine. Putin has also promised the Western world that there will be “corresponding countermeasures” to any sanctions, and is already working hard on improving Russia’s nuclear weapons programs.
Due to recent world events, Catholic leader Pope Francis has declared that World War 3 has already begun in a “piecemeal” fashion in Ukraine, Iraq, Syria, Gaza, and Africa.

“War is madness,” Pope Francis declared. “Even today, after the second failure of another world war, perhaps one can speak of a third war, one fought piecemeal, with crimes, massacres, destruction. War is irrational; its only plan is to bring destruction: it seeks to grow by destroying. Greed, intolerance, the lust for power. These motives underlie the decision to go to war and they are too often justified by an ideology.”

It’s not only the Western world that fears World War 3 is around the corner. A recent poll in China showed that a majority of the Chinese believe World War 3 will happen relatively soon.

Ukraine’s Nuclear Weapons Program Restored?

Under the Clinton administration, Ukraine was urged to give up its nuclear weapons it had retained from the former Soviet Union. The Budapest Memorandum obligated the United States, England, and the newly formed Russian Federation to respect Ukraine’s border in return for Ukraine’s agreement to give up the Soviet nuclear weapons. If any party were to violate Ukraine’s territory, or to provide “threat or use of force” or “economic coercion,” the Budapest Memorandum obligated each party to “seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine.”

According to Vestnik Kavkaza, Minister of Defense of Ukraine Valerii Heletei claimed earlier today during a press conference that Russia is threatening Ukraine with tactical nuclear weapons.

“I am drawing attention to Russia’s threatening Ukraine with the use of tactical nuclear weapons,” Heletei noted. “If we fail to defend Ukraine today, if the world does not help us, we will have to get back to the creation of such weapons, which will defend us from Russia.”

Fortunately, Ukraine will not restore the development its own nuclear weapons immediately, but it is being considered as an option for the future. Heletei stressed that Ukraine’s nuclear weapons programs would only be an option if NATO member states do not provide weapons, especially from member states like the United States and England.

According to BBC News, Heletei also claimed that some NATO countries have begun sending Ukraine weapons.

“I have no right to disclose any specific country we reached that agreement with. But the fact is that those weapons are already on the way to us – that’s absolutely true, I can officially tell you,” he said.

Defense officials representing the United States, Italy, Poland, and Norway have already denied there any plans to send weapons to Ukraine.

So far, the Ukraine war has resulted in 2,600 deaths in the last five months of conflict with pro-Russian forces. According to NATO, Russia’s military has about 1,000 troops in eastern Ukraine, while an army of about 20,000 more are stationed near the border. Russia denies sending direct military aid to the rebels, insisting any Russian soldiers are “volunteers” fighting in the war.

Do you think the Ukraine war could potentially escalate into World War 3? How do you think the world’s leaders should resolve the conflict?

Expect A Nuclear Terrorist Attack Soon

World War 3 Scenario? Some Worry ISIS Could Get Nukes in Pakistan

2812de710e5d3b2e660f6a706700266e-676x450
By Jack Phillips, Epoch Times | November 28, 2014

This undated image posted online shows children at an Islamic State group training camp in Raqqa, Syria. Across the vast region in Syria and Iraq that is part of the Islamic State group’s self-declared caliphate, children are being inculcated with the extremist group’s radical and violent interpretation of Shariah law. (AP Photo/Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently)

There’s fears that members of ISIS, or the Islamic State–the terrorist group occupying much of Syria and Iraq–are currently trying to gain a foothold in Pakistan, a nuclear-armed country.

According to an opinion piece from the Khaama Press’ Ahmad Hasib Farhan, an Afghanistan-based publication, “Pakistani media reported recently that a group of 10 commanders from ISIS are currently in Baluchistan to seek allegiance of Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and the Baloch freedom movement.”

And a few weeks ago, TTP leader Maulana Fazlullah expressed his support for ISIS. Last month, it was reported he pledged allegiance to the jihadist group.

On Friday, Al Arabiya TV quoted Taliban spokesman Shahidullah Shahid as saying: “Oh our brothers, we are proud of you in your victories. We are with you in your happiness and your sorrow.”

“In these troubled days, we call for your patience and stability, especially now that all your enemies are united against you. Please put all your rivalries behind you,” Shahid said. “All Muslims in the world have great expectations of you … We are with you, we will provide you with Mujahideen (fighters) and with every possible support,” he added, speaking to ISIS.

The network said ISIS activists have been seen in Pakistan’s Peshawar city and distributed leaflets promoting the jihadi group. Also, ISIS flags have been seen in the Indian-administered territory of Kashmir.

As a result, there’s been concerns that ISIS could get its hands on nuclear weapons possessed by the Pakistani government.

“Although world leaders especially Americans hold several international conferences on addressing this immediate and extreme threat, there is no guarantee that terrorist organization such as ISIS won’t acquire nuclear weapons,” Khaama Press opined.

It added that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons need to be “secured” to make sure ISIS doesn’t get close to them. “There are only two options that will work to make sure ISIS and other terrorist organizations do not obtain Pakistani nuclear weapons. First, the US takes control of Pakistan’s nukes and disarms Pakistan. In return, Washington can provide security guarantees to Pakistan similar to how it did with South Korea,” it adds.

The site also argues that the US could help Pakistan in protecting its nuclear arsenal.

Walid Shoebat, an ex-Muslim Brotherhood member who has become a voice against Islamic terrorism, said: “among all the nuclear states Pakistan is the only country that leaked and transferred nuclear technology to the countries that are still under UN and U.S. sanctions. It is also the only nuclear state that shelters and protects terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Haqani Network and now the infamous ISIS.”

“While the global leaders certainly understand that there is an extreme threat to global security if the risk that ISIS could get a hold of nuclear weapons, all world leaders, especially Americans, do is hold international conferences on addressing the issue,” added Shoebat.

Russian Horn Planning To Win World War III (Revelation 17)

Does Russia Think Their New Nuclear Weapons Could Win A War?

Forbes

A Russian mobile nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile launcher. Russia has developed a new generation of tactical nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems, very disturbing given the dismal state of our own nuclear weapons programs. Moscow has also been deploying small, ground-based nuclear weapons close to the borders of our eastern-most NATO allies. Source: Loren Thompson, Forbes.com

A Russian mobile nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile launcher. Russia has developed a new generation of tactical nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems, very disturbing given the dismal state of our own nuclear weapons programs. Moscow has also been deploying small, ground-based nuclear weapons close to the borders of our eastern-most NATO allies. Source: Loren Thompson, 
Forbes.com

They may well think so. A new round of Russian nuclear weapons development, their new aggressive posture and their new spurning of joint nuclear programs with the United States, all point to a disconcerting trend in Russian thinking amid a growing confidence in the nation’s military capabilities.

Americans have short memories. Russians don’t. It’s only been 25 years since the Wall came down, but in Russia’s mind the Cold War didn’t end. If Russia’s invasion of Ukraine isn’t enough of a heads-up, then maybe their new generation of tactical nuclear weapons is.

That’s right – new tactical nuclear weapons – as in “yeah, we might use them since they’re only tactical.” No one would risk war over that.

Here in America, we’ve been a little full of ourselves, thinking we were so superior to Russia and everyone else in technology and weaponry. I mean, we could turn them into dust, right? But lately, in our obsession with drones and cyber warfare, we haven’t been paying attention to the whole nuclear weapons thing.

On September 10, Putin said Russia will develop a new guaranteed nuclear deterrent to counter the United States and NATO.

Actually, they already have. Russia reportedly thinks its tactical nukes are now better than both ours and NATO’s. NATO member countries have only 260 older tactical weapons. Sited in Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey, the U.S. has 200 nuclear bombs with an overall capacity of 18 megatons. France has 60 atomic bombs.

As discussed in a report outlined in PRAVDA, Russia has 5,000 nuclear weapons of different tactical classes including Iskander warheads and torpedo, aerial and artillery warheads, all right next to Europe.

The US has 300 tactical B-61 bombs on its own territory, but this does not touch the imbalance. The United States cannot improve this situation as we have destroyed many of our Cold War tactical nuclear missiles, land-based missiles and sea-based Tomahawk cruise missiles. And we pinned ourselves with our own treaties.

The recent START 3 treaty was overwhelmingly favorable to Russia, and they have taken advantage of it with gusto.

Russia has developed long-range cruise missiles of a new generation that will soon be deployed on submarines of the Black Sea Fleet and missile ships of the Caspian Flotilla.

The U.S. State Department admitted as much in a report published at the beginning of September, stating that Russia has passed us in nuclear weapons capability for the first time in 40 years.

Letting our nuclear arsenal fall into disrepair is one thing (Washington Post), but allowing Russia to build a new strategic nuclear weapons force more advanced than ours is another thing altogether. And they even have a new generation of missiles.

So Russia does think it has the upper hand. And they might, if Putin and the hard-liners are willing to use force as much as they seem lately. And if they’re correct about the West being chicken when it comes to retaliating against them for anything.

Maybe it’s just coincidental that Russia plans to send long-range bombers to the Gulf of Mexico “just for practice”. Russia has decided not to participate in scheduled joint nuclear security efforts with the United States. Russia is boycotting a U.S.-hosted international security summit meeting in 2016.

When the heads-of-state gave Putin too much grief about the Ukraine at the G-20 meeting last week, he just got up and left.

These are not the actions of a beleaguered country concerned about world opinion.

The decline in U.S.-Russian relations is symptomatic of many things and can be dangerous as isolation can breed misinterpretations (NYTimes). Russia views our Congress as weak and ineffective, hamstringing our Commander-in-Chief. Russia is paranoid that they themselves will be seen as weak. And Kremlin hard-liners are reticent about letting U.S. experts into their nuclear sites.

For 60 years, the huge nuclear arsenals of both the U.S and Russia have been part of each country’s ego, but for Russia it was a much larger part. It’s why they’ve spent billions on upgrading their nuclear capability while many of their people suffer.

Which would be bad enough if our weapons actually worked well and were ready if we ever needed them.

But they aren’t.

Everyone was shocked and outraged when failures started to surface a few years ago at the sites of America’s nuclear strike forces.

– Six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles were flown across the country by mistake aboard a B-52 bomber. The crew was unaware they had them and no one knew they were missing.

– Nineteen launch officers were taken off duty for bad attitudes and weak performances in an inspection.

– The AP published a series of additional stories documenting signs of weak morale, training gaps, exam cheating, security violations and leadership lapses, including the firing in October 2013 of Maj. Gen. Michael Carey, commander of the entire ICBM force.

This is insane. We can do better than this. We do better in every other facet of nuclear.Why can’t we take care of our nuclear weapons?

Because we don’t respect our own people who handle these weapons, who are responsible for their maintenance, their preparedness, who keep the missiles armed, secured and ready for a launch order from the President.

No one wants to work at these nuclear weapon sites anymore. What were once highly sought-after, honored positions that garnered great respect and opportunities for promotion, are now shunned by soldiers as dead-end positions with no possibility of promotion, plagued by insufficient funding and poor logistical support.

Requests for help and supplies go unanswered by upper command.

And no wonder. Inspectors are obsessed over checklists, records and bureaucracy, but ignore aging blast doors that don’t seal shut and crews that have only a single special wrench to maintain 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Some Commanders have tried to improve professionalism, discipline and morale within the missile force, but got little support from higher-ups.

Whether it’s the ICBM and Minuteman forces, or the Air Force’s nuclear bomber force, our nuclear strike forces are in disarray. The B-52 bombers are so expensive to replace that the plan is to let them get to be a hundred years old.

But things could change. On Friday, Defense Secretary Hagel told reporters at the Pentagon, “The internal and external reviews I ordered show that a consistent lack of investment and support for our nuclear forces over far too many years has left us with too little margin to cope with mounting stresses.”

“Routine neglect of our nuclear weapons programs over the years has compromised our ability to respond to an actual threat.”

To address this, Hagel announced a boost in funding for the Pentagon’s nuclear projects of 10% per year over the next five years, or an addition of almost $8 billion between 2016 and 2020 to the present $15 billion annual maintenance for our nuclear arsenal (RT.com).

And the Pentagon management may have gotten the message, announcing last week that it could change the way it funds our nuclear forces. It would shift money for ICBMs, nuclear bombers and nuclear submarines outside of the Defense Department’s budget and into a new account. Such a change would elevate the military’s nuclear mission among senior leadership to a status that would have some actual power.

“We will need to know what’s working and what’s not,” Hagel said. “We must restore the prestige that attracted the brightest minds of the Cold War era.”

The situation is very different for those who serve in the Nuclear Navy. There, morale is high. The ships are actually nuclear powered, so the nuclear is “active” and performing, not just something sitting there unused and decaying, never moving and unlikely ever to be used.

In the end, however, our nuclear force crews, and the American public, see the threat of full-scale nuclear war as “simply nonexistent.”

Not so in Russia. They’re ready. And what would we do if they used these tactical nukes against one of its neighbors?

This same question never seems to go away.

Follow Jim on https://twitter.com/JimConca and see his and Dr. Wright’s book at http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1419675885/sr=1-10/qid=1195953013/

Toying With World War III

WORLDWAR3TheEnd
Noam Chomsky 20 October 2014

Palestine News Network

We have come perilously close to disaster before, says Noam Chomsky, and are toying with catastrophe again. It is not that possible peaceful solutions are lacking.

In October 2014, the Plymouth Institute for Peace Research (www.pipr.co.uk) asked Noam Chomsky to comment on some important world developments, including the threat of nuclear war, the recent escalation of violence in Gaza, and the growth of ISIS in Iraq.

This year commemorates the centenary of the 1914-18 First World War. What are your reflections?

THERE IS much debate about assignment of responsibility/blame for the outbreak of this horrendous conflict, along with general agreement about one point: There was a high level of accident and contingency; decisions could easily have been different, avoiding catastrophe. There are ominous parallels to nuclear catastrophe.

An investigation of the history of near-confrontations with nuclear weapons reveals how close the world has come to virtual self-annihilation, numerous times, so much so that escape has been a near miracle, one unlikely to be perpetuated for too long. The record underscores the warning of Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein in 1955 that we face a choice that is “stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?”

A second no less chilling observation is the alacrity of the rush to war on all sides, in particular the instant dedication of intellectuals to the cause of their own states, with a small fringe of notable exceptions, almost all of whom were punished for their sanity and integrity – a microcosm of the history of the cultivated and educated sectors of society, and the mass hysteria that they often articulate.

The commemorations began around the same time as Operation Protective Edge. It is a tragic irony that Gaza is home to WWI memorial graves. What were the real—as opposed to rhetorical reasons—for Israel’s latest assault on Gaza?

It is critically important to recognize that a pattern was established almost a decade ago and has been followed regularly since: A ceasefire agreement is reached, Israel makes it clear that it will not observe it and continues its assault on Gaza (and illegal takeover of what it wants elsewhere in the occupied territories), while Hamas observes the ceasefire, as Israel concedes, until some Israeli escalation elicits a Hamas response, offering Israel a pretext for another episode of “mowing the lawn” (in Israel’s elegant parlance).

I have reviewed the record elsewhere; it is unusually clear for historical events. The same pattern holds for Operation Protective Edge. Another of the series of ceasefires had been reached in November 2012. Israel ignored it as usual, Hamas observed it nevertheless.

In April 2014, Gaza-based Hamas and the Palestine Authority in the West Bank established a unity government, which at once adopted all of the demands of the Quartet (the US, EU, UN, Russia) and included no Hamas members. Israel was infuriated, and launched a brutal operation in the West Bank, extending to Gaza, targeting mainly Hamas. As always there was a pretext, but it quickly dissolves on inspection. Finally killings in Gaza elicited a Hamas response, followed by Protective Edge.

The reasons for Israel’s fury are not obscure. For 20 years, Israel has sought to separate Gaza from the West Bank, with full US support and in strict violation of the Oslo Accords that both had signed, which declare the two to be a single indivisible territorial entity.

A look at the map explains the reasons. Gaza offers the only access for Palestine to the outside world; without free access to Gaza, any autonomy that might be granted to some fragmented Palestinian entity in the West Bank will be effectively imprisoned.

The Governments of Israel, Britain, and the US are surely thrilled with the appearance of ISIS; a new ‘threat’ providing them with new excuses for war and internal repression. What are your thoughts about ISIS and the latest bombing of Iraq?

Reporting is limited, so what we can conclude is necessarily a construction from scattered evidence. To me it looks like this:

ISIS is a real monstrosity, one of the many horrifying consequences of the US sledgehammer, which among other crimes, incited sectarian conflicts that may by now have destroyed Iraq finally and are tearing the region to shreds.

The almost instantaneous defeat of the Iraqi army was quite an astonishing event. This was an army of 350,000 men, heavily armed, trained by the US for over a decade. The Iraqi army had fought a long and bitter war against Iran through the 1980s. As soon as it was confronted by a few thousand lightly armed militants, the commanding officers fled and the demoralized troops either fled with them or deserted or were massacred.

By now ISIS controls almost all of Anbar province and is not far from Baghdad. With the Iraqi army virtually gone, the fighting in Iraq is in the hands of Shiite militias organized by the sectarian government, which are carrying out crimes against Sunnis that mirror those of ISIS.

With crucial assistance from the military wing of the Turkish Kurds, the PKK, the Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga has apparently held off ISIS. It seems that the PKK are also the most significant force that rescued the Yazidi from extermination and are holding off ISIS in Syria, including the crucial defense of Kobane.

Meanwhile Turkey has escalated its attacks against the PKK, with US tolerance if not support. It appears that Turkey is satisfied to watch its enemies – ISIS and the Kurds – killing one another within eyesight of the border, with awful consequences likely if the Kurds cannot withstand the ISIS assault on Kobane and beyond.

Another major opponent of ISIS, Iran, is excluded from the US “coalition” for policy and ideological reasons, as of course is their ally Assad. The US-led coalition includes a few of the Arab oil dictatorships that are themselves supporting competing jihadi groups. The major one, Saudi Arabia, has long been the major source of funding for ISIS as well as providing its ideological roots—no small matter.

ISIS is an extremist offshoot of Saudi Wahabi/Salafi doctrines, themselves an extremist version of Islam; and a missionary version, using huge Saudi oil resources to spread their teachings throughout much of the Muslim world. The US, like Britain before it, has tended to support radical fundamentalist Islam in opposition to secular nationalism, and Saudi Arabia has been a primary US ally since the family dictatorship was consolidated and vast oil resources were discovered there.

The best informed journalist and analyst of the region right now, Patrick Cockburn, describes US strategy, such as it is, as an Alice-in-Wonderland construction, opposing both ISIS and its main enemies, and loosely incorporating dubious Arab allies with limited European support.

An alternative would be to adhere to domestic and international law: appealing to the UN Security Council and then following its lead, and seeking political and diplomatic avenues to escape from the morass or at least mitigate its horrors. But that is almost unthinkable in US political culture.

As military operations in Iraq grow, NATO further destabilizes Ukraine. What are your thoughts about the US-Russia proxy conflict and its potential for nuclear war?

It is an extremely dangerous development, which has been brewing ever since Washington violated its verbal promises to Gorbachev and began expanding NATO to the East, right to Russia’s borders, and threatening to incorporate Ukraine, which is of great strategic significance to Russia and of course has close historical and cultural links.

There is a sensible analysis of the situation in the leading establishment journal, Foreign Affairs, by international relations specialist John Mearsheimer, entitled “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault.” The Russian autocracy is far from blameless, but we are now back to earlier comments: we have come perilously close to disaster before, and are toying with catastrophe again. It is not that possible peaceful solutions are lacking.

One final thought, about a dark and menacing cloud that looms over everything we discuss: like the proverbial lemmings, we are marching resolutely towards an environmental crisis that may well displace other concerns, in the not too distant future.

Source: Plymouth Institute for Peace Research

Expert Is Correct: Babylon the Great Will Lose World War III (Revelation 17)

World War 3: America Will Lose Nuclear War To China And Russia, U.S. ‘Expert’ Predicts On Iranian TV

world-war-3-nuclear-china-russia-665x385
 
The United States is deliberately provoking Russia and China into World War 3, but when it comes to a nuclear war, the result will not be the total mutual annihilation that is usually assumed to be the inevitable result of all-out nuclear World War 3.
Instead, the United States will lose.

That extreme, and extremely grim, World War 3 forecast came from an American retired university professor interviewed Monday on the English-language Iranian TV network Press TV.

James Henry Fetzer, 73, who lists himself as a professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota and currently sits on the editorial board of the online publication Veterans Today, is a frequent guest on the Tehran, Iran-based 24-hour news channel — though in the U.S. he is generally considered a fringe conspiracy theorist for his opinions that the 9/11 attacks were staged by the U.S. government and that the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre was the work of Israeli death squads with U.S. government cooperation among other, similar beliefs.

After Fetzer, a former U.S. Marine, published a 2013 article containing his Sandy Hook conspiracy theories, the University of Minnesota criticized him for using his affiliation with the university as well as his UM email address in connection with the article.

Fetzer published his latest Sandy Hook article, calling the tragic mass shooting a “hoax” on the  Veterans Today site September 19. The web publication has also recently published articles on UFOs and “The Geopolitics of World War 3.”

But Fetzer’s opinions are often sought out by the Iranian news channel, and on Monday, Fetzer gave the network some of his most dire viewpoints yet — viewpoints which predicted an inevitable World War 3, one which Fetzer says the United States will lose.

Fetzer accused the United States of “attempting to encircle Russia with a series of anti-missile batteries ostensibly directed toward Iran because of its ‘nuclear weapons program’ when Americans and Russians and most of the world know that Iran has no nuclear weapons program.”

Fetzer also told Press TV that the current U.S. bombing raids in Syria were not directed at ISIS but instead were intended to deliberately destroy Syria’s infrastructure.

He told the Iranian news operation — whose CEO is appointed directly by Iran’s leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameni — that the U.S. airstrikes were “an act of treachery and duplicity,” and “one of the most disgraceful actions ever undertaken by the United States in any situation whatsoever.”

The U.S actions in Syria, as well as those in regard to Russia and China, give those two nuclear superpowers “every right to exercise or display their military power, which in my opinion is actually capable of defeating the United States in a nuclear exchange,” Fetzer told Press TV.

Fetzer concluded by calling for the United States to “back down,” presumably in order to avoid World War 3.

Ukraine Preparing For World War III

World War 3: Russia’s Nuclear Weapons Threat Has Ukraine Discussing Restoring Nukes

World-War-3-Russias-Nuclear-Weapons-Threat
 
Ukraine is apparently preparing for the possibility of World War 3, with Ukraine’s defense minister responding to Russia’s nuclear weapons threats by claiming they may consider restoring Ukraine’s nuclear weapons programs.

In a related report by The Inquisitr, Vladimir Putin has been escalating tensions lately with the announcement of a Russian nuclear weapon test launch of an ICBM from a nuclear submarine. Putin has also promised the Western world that there will be “corresponding countermeasures” to any sanctions, and is already working hard on improving Russia’s nuclear weapons programs.

Due to recent world events, Catholic leader Pope Francis has declared that World War 3 has already begun in a “piecemeal” fashion in Ukraine, Iraq, Syria, Gaza, and Africa.

“War is madness,” Pope Francis declared. “Even today, after the second failure of another world war, perhaps one can speak of a third war, one fought piecemeal, with crimes, massacres, destruction. War is irrational; its only plan is to bring destruction: it seeks to grow by destroying. Greed, intolerance, the lust for power. These motives underlie the decision to go to war and they are too often justified by an ideology.”

It’s not only the Western world that fears World War 3 is around the corner. A recent poll in China showed that a majority of the Chinese believe World War 3 will happen relatively soon.

Under the Clinton administration, Ukraine was urged to give up its nuclear weapons it had retained from the former Soviet Union. The Budapest Memorandum obligated the United States, England, and the newly formed Russian Federation to respect Ukraine’s border in return for Ukraine’s agreement to give up the Soviet nuclear weapons. If any party were to violate Ukraine’s territory, or to provide “threat or use of force” or “economic coercion,” the Budapest Memorandum obligated each party to “seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine.”

According to Vestnik Kavkaza, Minister of Defense of Ukraine Valerii Heletei claimed earlier today during a press conference that Russia is threatening Ukraine with tactical nuclear weapons.

“I am drawing attention to Russia’s threatening Ukraine with the use of tactical nuclear weapons,” Heletei noted. “If we fail to defend Ukraine today, if the world does not help us, we will have to get back to the creation of such weapons, which will defend us from Russia.”

Fortunately, Ukraine will not restore the development its own nuclear weapons immediately, but it is being considered as an option for the future. Heletei stressed that Ukraine’s nuclear weapons programs would only be an option if NATO member states do not provide weapons, especially from member states like the United States and England.

According to BBC News, Heletei also claimed that some NATO countries have begun sending Ukraine weapons.

“I have no right to disclose any specific country we reached that agreement with. But the fact is that those weapons are already on the way to us – that’s absolutely true, I can officially tell you,” he said.

Defense officials representing the United States, Italy, Poland, and Norway have already denied there any plans to send weapons to Ukraine.

So far, the Ukraine war has resulted in 2,600 deaths in the last five months of conflict with pro-Russian forces. According to NATO, Russia’s military has about 1,000 troops in eastern Ukraine, while an army of about 20,000 more are stationed near the border. Russia denies sending direct military aid to the rebels, insisting any Russian soldiers are “volunteers” fighting in the war.

Pope Francis Warns: On The Brink Of World War 3 (Revelation 6:2)

Pope Francis says world’s many conflicts amount to piecemeal World War Three

world war 3
By Reuters Staff
September 13, 2014

Pope Francis said on Saturday the spate of conflicts around the globe today were effectively a “piecemeal” Third World War, condemning the arms trade and “plotters of terrorism” sowing death and destruction.

“Humanity needs to weep and this is the time to weep,” Francis said in the homily of a Mass during a visit to Italy’s largest war memorial, a large, Fascist-era monument where more than 100,000 soldiers who died in World War One are buried.

The pope began his brief visit to northern Italy by first praying in a nearby, separate cemetery for some 15,000 soldiers from five nations of the Austro-Hungarian empire which were on the losing side of the Great War that broke out 100 years ago.

“War is madness,” he said in his homily before the massive, sloping granite memorial, made of 22 steps on the side of hill with three crosses at the top.

“Even today, after the second failure of another world war, perhaps one can speak of a third war, one fought piecemeal, with crimes, massacres, destruction,” he said.

In the past few months, Francis has made repeated appeals for an end to conflicts in Ukraine, Iraq, Syria, Gaza and parts of Africa.

“War is irrational; its only plan is to bring destruction: it seeks to grow by destroying,” he said. “Greed, intolerance, the lust for power. These motives underlie the decision to go to war and they are too often justified by an ideology …,” he said.

Last month the pope, who has often condemned the concept of war in God’s name, said it would be legitimate for the international community to use force to stop “unjust aggression” by Islamic State militants who have killed or displaced thousands of people in Iraq and Syria, many of them Christians.

In his homily, read at a somber service to thousands of people braving the rain and which included the hauntingly funereal sound of a solitary bugle, Francis condemned “plotters of terrorism” but did not elaborate.

– by Stefano Rellandini in Redipuglia, Italy