The French Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7:7)

France’s Nuclear Arsenal Could Kill Millions of People in Minutes
Kyle Mizokami 
France was the fourth country to join the so-called “Nuclear Club,” and at the height of the Cold War maintained its own nuclear triad of land-based missiles, nuclear-armed bombers and ballistic missile submarines. Today, France’s sea-based nuclear deterrent is the home of most of its nuclear arsenal, with four nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, of French design and construction, providing constant assurance against surprise nuclear attack.
France’s nuclear weapons arsenal began in earnest on February 13th, 1960, with the country’s first nuclear weapons test. The test, code-named “Gerboise Bleue” (Blue Desert Rat) confirmed that France had the know-how to build its own weapons. It also confirmed that France had the nuclear know-how to part ways with the United States and NATO and chart its own course versus the Soviet Union.
France began working on its own naval nuclear propulsion program in 1955, under what was known as Project Coelacanth. The first effort to build a nuclear-powered submarine, Q.244, was to be the first of five nuclear ballistic missile submarines. The effort to develop Q.244 was a failure, due to the inability of nuclear engineers to sufficiently miniaturize the reactor, and the submarine was cancelled in 1959. A subsequent project to develop a land-based reactor, PAT 1, was a success and led to development of Q.252, which became the submarine Le Redoutable.
At the same time, France’s defense industry was working diligently to produce a submarine-launched ballistic missile. The result was the M1 MSBS, or Mer-Sol Balistique Stratégique (Sea-Ground Strategic Ballistic Missile). The M1 was a two stage rocket with a 500 kiloton warhead and a range of 1,553 miles. This was sufficient range for a French ballistic missile submarine in the Bay of Biscay to strike Moscow.
France’s first generation missile submarines, the five submarines of the Le Redoutable class and the single L’Inflexible submarine, were all built at the Cherbourg shipyards and completed between 1971 and 1980. The cancellation of Q.244 may have been fortuitous, as it allowed the United States to make pioneer engineering decision in nuclear ballistic submarine design, something also seen in the Soviet Union’s first generation Yankee-class ballistic missile submarine. The overall layout of the Redoutable class was very similar to the U.S. Navy’s second generation Lafayette-class ballistic missile submarines, with fin-mounted hydroplanes and sixteen missile silos in two rows of eight directly behind the fin.
The first two submarines, Le Redoutable and Le Terrible, carried the M-1 missile, while the third, Le Foudroyant, carried the improved M-2 missile with a longer 1,841 mile range. The next two submarines, L’Indomptable and Le Tonnant had a mix of M-2 missiles and the new M-20, which had the same range but a gigantic 1 megaton thermonuclear warhead. The last submarine, L’Inflexible, carried missiles of a completely new design. Designated M4, the missiles had a 2,474 mile range, allowing them to strike as far east as Kazan.
At the height of France’s nuclear weapons arsenal, 87 percent of France’s nuclear arsenal was in submarines. France’s nuclear submarine fleet, the Force Océanique Stratégique (FOST), was based at Ile Longue in Brest, and FOST submarines were sent on two month patrols off the coast of France and Portugal. Three submarines were to be at sea at any one time, with a fourth also ready to go to sea.
Starting in the mid 1980s, all submarines except for Le Terrible were outfitted with improved M-4A and then M-4B missiles with ranges of up to 3,720 miles and multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles, allowing each missile to carry six 150 kiloton warheads. The MIRVing of the M4 increased the firepower of each submarine sixfold.
In addition to their nuclear firepower, the Redoutable class submarines had four 533-millimeter torpedo tubes for self-defense, capable of launching the L5 Mod. 3 anti-submarine torpedo and the F 17 dual-purpose torpedo. They could also launch the SM 39 Exocet anti-ship cruise missile, but the primary mission of ballistic missile submarines is always to avoid detection until their nuclear missiles are needed.

The French Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7)

Image result for putin visit france

Putin visits France for talks; Macron does not give an inch – WLOX.com

By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV, SYLVIE CORBET and JOHN LEICESTER

Associated Press

VERSAILLES, France (AP) – Flexing his diplomatic muscles, French President Emmanuel Macron said he had “extremely frank, direct” talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday, pushing for cooperation on Syria and against the Islamic State group but also launching an extraordinary attack on two Russian media outlets he accused of spreading “lying propaganda.”
The two leaders emerged from their first meeting – discussions at the sumptuous Palace of Versailles that lasted more than an hour longer than planned – clearly still at odds on multiple issues, but also seemingly keen not to let their differences define their fledgling relationship.
Macron said he spoke to Putin about LGBT rights in Chechnya and about the rights of embattled NGOs in Russia, vowing he would be “constantly vigilant” on these issues. Putin emphasized the need for closer cooperation between Russia and France, two nuclear-armed permanent members of the U.N. Security Council.
Speaking with remarkable frankness, Macron tore into the state-funded Russian media outlets Sputnik and Russia Today, for spreading what he said were “serious untruths” during the French election.
“When press outlets spread defamatory untruths, they are no longer journalists, they are organs of influence. Russia Today and Sputnik were organs of influence during this campaign, which, on several occasions produced untruths about me and my campaign,” Macron said.
“I will not give an inch on this,” he said. “Russia Today and Sputnik … behaved as organs of influence, of propaganda, of lying propaganda.”
Macron was the first Western leader to speak to Putin after the Group of Seven summit over the weekend, where relations with Russia were a key topic.
His invitation to the Russia leader was a surprise after the tough stance on Russia Macron took during the French election. Macron’s aides also claimed that Russian groups launched hacking attacks on his campaign.
Moscow strongly denied all allegations of meddling in the French election that Macron won on May 7. Putin on Monday again poo-pooed the idea as unfounded press speculation.
But he also defended his March meeting with Macron’s rival in the presidential race, far-right leader Marine Le Pen.
Putin described Le Pen as a politician who wants to develop friendly ties with Russia and said it would have been strange to rebuff her overtures.
He said the meeting with Le Pen didn’t represent an attempt to sway the race. Putin added that Russia had been well-aware of opinion polls predicting Macron’s victory.
Macron said he was firm on other issues, too.
He said any use of chemical weapons in Syria – where Russia is propping up the government of President Bashar Assad – is a “red line” for France and would be met by “reprisals” and an “immediate riposte” from France.
He did not specify what form such reprisals could take, but France flies warplanes over Syria and Iraq, striking Islamic State targets as part of an international coalition.
Macron portrayed the meeting as just a first step in resetting the country’s relations with Russia.
“Big things are built over time,” he said. “It was an exchange that was extremely frank, direct, with a lot of things that were said.”
“We have disagreements, but at least we talked about them,” he added.
The leaders’ first handshakes – relatively brief and cordial – after Putin climbed out of his limousine at Versailles were far less macho than Macron’s now famous who-will-blink-first handshake showdown with President Donald Trump when the two leaders met for the first time last week.
Putin said he and Macron agreed to discuss pursuing closer cooperation on anti-terror efforts, with a proposed exchange of experts to work toward that goal.
On Syria, Putin underlined the importance of securing the Syrian state, adding that it’s essential for combatting terrorism. Macron took the same stance, saying: “I want us to organize a democratic transition but also preserve a Syrian state.”
“Failed states in that region are a threat for our democracies,” and fuel terrorism, he said.
Later Monday, Putin was visiting a newly built Russian Orthodox Spiritual and Cultural Center near the Seine River that includes the Holy Trinity Cathedral. The site was sold to Russia under former President Nicolas Sarkozy amid criticism from human rights groups.
Ostensibly, the reason for Putin’s visit was for him to tour an exhibition in Versailles about the 300th anniversary of Russian Czar Peter the Great’s trip to Paris. But it became an opportunity for him and Macron to go over all the thorny issues that divide them, and see where they have common ground.
Human rights activists protested Monday in Paris over the situation of gays in the Russian republic of Chechnya, holding a banner “Stop homophobia in Chechnya” near the Eiffel Tower.
The Macron-Putin relationship got off to a less-than-ideal footing during Macron’s presidential campaign.
Macron had strong words for Russia in his race for the presidency, saying France and Russia don’t share the same values. Putin bet – wrongly – on Macron’s far-right opponent Marine Le Pen, hosting her at the Kremlin in March, before Macron then handily beat her.
___
Leicester contributed from Paris.

Putin Schools Trump In The Game Of Chess

By
James Marson and
Amie Ferris-Rotman
Updated Dec. 30, 2016 7:45 p.m. ET
MOSCOW—President Vladimir Putin said Russia wouldn’t expel U.S. diplomats in response to new U.S. sanctions despite the recommendation of his foreign minister, a move that seemed aimed at embarrassing the Obama Administration while expressing hope for stronger U.S. relations once President-elect Donald Trump takes office.
Mr. Putin’s decision came after Russia’s top diplomat, Sergei Lavrov, said in a nationally televised address that Russia must respond to the U.S. moves, which included kicking out 35 Russians it alleged were intelligence operatives serving under diplomatic cover. Instead Mr. Putin chose not to act, and invited the children of U.S. envoys to a New Year’s celebration held at a concert hall on the grounds of the Kremlin.
The Russian leader’s move appeared choreographed to highlight an attempt at rebuilding ties with the U.S. that have been at their worst since the end of the Cold War, strained by allegations of Russian hacking and aggression in Ukraine. But Mr. Putin reserved the right to respond in the future.
Mr. Trump praised Mr. Putin for his restraint in a Twitter message posted Friday. “Great move on delay (by V. Putin),” Mr. Trump wrote. “I always knew he was very smart!”
Mr. Putin on Friday slammed the new U.S. measures, which included imposing new sanctions on Russian agencies and companies, saying that they were aimed at further undermining U.S.-Russian relations. “We will formulate further steps in restoring Russian-American relations according to the policy that the administration of President D. Trump conducts,” Mr. Putin said.
Both Democrats and Republicans have been warning Mr. Trump that Mr. Putin is no friend of the U.S. and have signaled that they may step in to tighten sanctions on Russia if the Trump administration insists on taking a conciliatory approach to Mr. Putin.
Mr. Trump “can say all the nice things he wants, but that’s not going to change Vladimir Putin’s efforts to have a Greater Russia,” Sen. Bob Menendez (D., N.J.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told MSNBC on Friday. “He will be looking at a Senate that is very resolute in its views and may very well act independent of what the executive branch has done.”
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) has also said that Russia doesn’t share America’s interests. While he welcomed the Obama administration’s decision to impose the new sanctions, he hasn’t said whether he thinks additional sanctions or other steps are warranted.
The clearest picture of congressional sentiment will emerge next week, when Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R., Ariz.) plans to hold a hearing on foreign cyber threats to the U.S. Mr. McCain has said that Russia and the hacking of the Democratic National Committee will be part of the focus. Among those scheduled to testify are Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Adm. Michael Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency.
The Kremlin’s decision Friday contrasts sharply with Russia’s previous treatment of U.S. diplomats in Russia. The State Department earlier this year expelled two Russian officials, citing Russian mistreatment of U.S. diplomats.
U.S. diplomats have long complained of harassment and intrusive surveillance in Russia. Americans serving on government business in Russia are briefed on the dangers of being put in compromising situations by Russian intelligence.
Earlier this year, Russian national television broadcast footage appearing to show a Russian police officer tackling a U.S. official outside the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. The Russian foreign ministry claimed he was a spy. Footage showed the Russian pinning the person, described as a U.S. diplomat, to the ground. He is then seen sliding across the ground in an attempt to get inside the embassy.
Michael McFaul, the former U.S. ambassador to Moscow, was a frequent target of state television camera crews who stalked the diplomat and cast him in an unflattering light, tailing him and confronting him with hostile questions. He said Friday that Mr. Putin’s move appeared aimed at swaying Mr. Trump.
“He thinks he will have the ability with Trump to pursue important objectives defined by Putin, and why mess that up?” he said. “For Putin the objectives are pretty clear: the lifting of U.S. economic sanctions, getting Trump to agree with what he’s doing in Syria and his dream of dreams—the recognition of Crimea,” he added, referring to the peninsula that Russia annexed from Ukraine in 2014.
The Obama administration imposed new sanctions on Russian intelligence agencies and expelled what the State Department said were 35 intelligence operatives allegedly serving under diplomatic cover in the U.S. over Russia’s alleged use of cyberattacks to interfere with the presidential election.
The White House said in a statement that cyberattacks targeting the U.S. elections “could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government.”
Russia has denied involvement, and Mr. Lavrov on Friday accused the U.S. of having no evidence.
Mr. Putin said the expelled Russian diplomats will spend the New Year holiday at home with family. “We will not create problems for American diplomats. We will not send any home,” he said.
The moves by Mr. Obama and Mr. Putin show how both leaders are trying to shape future U.S.-Russia relations before Mr. Trump takes office, said Dmitri Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center.
Most of the 35 suspected intelligence operatives heading back to Russia on Saturday will be from Russia’s Washington embassy, with about a dozen departing from San Francisco, according to a statement on Facebook from the Russian consulate in San Francisco.
The Obama administration gave the Russians 72 hours to leave the country. “No tickets left for shorter and more comfortable itineraries,” the Facebook​ post said.
“Putin is looking beyond Obama, and has sought to counter Obama’s sanctions in a way that would not hurt chances of better relations under Trump,” Mr. Trenin said. “Trump finds himself in an interesting situation. He is being tested simultaneously both by his predecessor and a foreign leader.”
The State Department also notified Moscow that, as of noon on Friday, it would be denied access to two Russian government-owned compounds in the U.S. In return, Mr. Lavrov had said Americans should be banned from using their vacation home near Moscow. Mr. Putin said diplomats could use “leisure sites” over the holidays, without specifying which locations he was referring to.
“The outgoing American administration of Barack Obama, who have accused Russia of all mortal sins and tried to blame us for the failure of its foreign policy initiatives, among other things, has groundlessly made additional accusations that Russia interfered in the U.S. election campaign at the state level,” he said.
U.S. intelligence agencies say Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee and the email account of former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta. Officials said the sanctions imposed Thursday were a response to Russia’s election interference, its meddling in American foreign policy more broadly and its harassment of U.S. diplomats.
The U.S. had previously imposed sanctions on Russia over its military interventions in Ukraine. The two countries have also clashed over Russia’s military support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
—Siobhan Hughes and Felicia Schwartz contributed to this article.
Write to James Marson at james.marson@wsj.com

Trump Will Trash Obama’s Russia Sanctions

Trump Responds To Obama’s Russia Sanctions

 TED GOODMAN
 6:28 PM 12/29/2016
President-elect Donald Trump offered a short response to President Barack Obama’s retaliatory measures against Russia.
“It’s time for our country to move on to bigger and better things,” Trump said in a two-sentence statement released just after 6 p.m. EST. “Nevertheless, in the interest of our country and its great people, I will meet with leaders of the intelligence community next week in order to be updated on the facts of this situation.”
Trump’s insistence that “it’s time to move on” may rankle some in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, many of whom contend that Russia deliberately attempted to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Obama announced a series of measures Thursday, which include the removal of 35 Russian operatives currently residing in the U.S. The individuals have 72 hours to leave the country.
Obama also announced that Russians would not longer have access to two facilities used for intelligence gathering and as a retreat by Russian operatives and diplomats working in the United States. The Russian Federation maintained ownership of a 45 acre property on Maryland’s Eastern Shore (not far from Washington, D.C.).
The retreat near Centreville, Maryland was purchased by the Soviet Union in 1972 and transferred to the Russian Federation in 1995. The property was widely covered as a retreat for Russian diplomats for decades. Obama also shut down another site in New York.
Obama also said that there would be summary reports from specific intelligence agencies, set to be released before the end of his presidency.

The Domination of Russia And Babylon The Great (Daniel 7)

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump’s comments on Twitter Thursday about the U.S. need to strengthen and expand its nuclear capability raised again the issue of whether there are too many nuclear weapons in the world.
As it stands now, Russia has the most nuclear weapons — 7,300 — according to calculations provided by the non-partisan Ploughshares Fund, which advocates for a reduction in the number of such arms.
The United States has 6,970, U.S. records shows. Those numbers were negotiated between the two nations in a treaty negotiated by President Obama and the Russians and ratified by the Senate in 2010.
At its peak in 1967, the United States had 31,255 nuclear warheads, according to the Arms Control Association.
The other seven nations in the world’s nuclear weapons club combined have fewer arms than either the United States or Russia, according to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons:
• France, 300. The bulk of its weapons are based on submarines, and it also has some that are capable of being delivered by aircraft.
• China, 260. Its warheads can be delivered by land, air and sea, according to ICANW.
• United Kingdom, 215. It has four nuclear-armed submarines with 16 missiles apiece.
• Pakistan, 110-130. Its arsenal has increased in recent years and is mostly focused on its regional rival, India.
• India, 110-120. The Indian announcement that it developed a nuclear weapon spurred a similar campaign in Pakistan.
• Israel, 80. Israel has never publicly acknowledged that it has nuclear weapons, but the United States has long believed it developed its program secretly.
• North Korea, less than 15. This isolated nation has tested several weapons in recent years, but its ability to deliver any of them successfully remains unknown.

The Rapproachment of the Ten Nuclear Horns (Daniel 7:7)

2017 – year of rapprochement between Russia and the West – The Daily Coin
Donald Trump’s election victory in the US, and the coming election victories of either Francois Fillon or Marine Le Pen in France, are set to transform international relations as the US and France seek rapprochement with Russia.
Last Sunday’s results of the primaries of the French Republican Party’s primaries for the election of the French President, by giving victory to former President’s Sarkozy’s Prime Minister François Fillon, has confirmed the prospect of the next French government seeking normalisation of relations with Russia.
At least this is what Fillon and his rival in the contest Marine Le Pen both say.
Coming in conjunction with the statements of the US President-elect Donald Trump, it marks 2017 as a year of huge change in the approach of the West towards Russia.
The lifting of EU sanctions on Russia and the likely cooperation between the US and Russia to defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq, which had seemed very unlikely just a short time ago, now suddenly seem real and reasonable.
Both Trump and the next French President will probably try to convince Britain to support this enterprise. In that case that will leave Germany as the last major country defending EU economic sanctions against Russia, with France and Italy leading a huge lobby within the EU to have the sanctions lifted – if only because of the effect on their economies of Russia’s counter-sanctions – with Britain increasingly unwilling to interfere in these huge questions because of its need to trigger Article 50 next year (probably in March), starting the process for it to leave the European Union.
The alliance of the US and Russia to defeat ISIS in Syria will probably receive support from France as well. At least that is what both Francois Fillon and Marine Le Pen both say.
These reshuffles in the international system will completely change the course of the conflict in Syria, probably accelerating its resolution, but will create additional problems in other countries of the region like Libya.
It is very likely that the terrorists currently in Syria will try to flee to Libya or, in the worst scenario, to Europe, following the same path traced by the migrants who have been flooding the continent. Should that happen Europe will need Russia’s cooperation to deal with that as well.
Russia’s current experience detecting Jihadi militants in its soil, as well as the Russian intelligence databases of terrorists, will be extremely important for the European countries in their investigation of migrants entering Europe to claim asylum.
by Guilherme Schneider
Source – The Duran

The Nuclear Horns of Prophecy (Daniel 7-8)

 
Jeremy Bernstein
For some years I have been puzzling over the question of why some countries that want nuclear weapons succeed in building them and others don’t. As we enter what could be a new age of proliferation, the question takes on considerable importance. The US has a president-elect who has said he would repeal the Iran deal, which among other things prevents substantial uranium enrichment by Tehran for ten years, and who openly suggested during the campaign that our allies in Asia, and even the Arabian peninsula, take responsibility for their own nuclear deterrence. If, say, South Korea or Saudi Arabia began to pursue a nuclear program, how likely might they be to succeed?
History offers us a number of insights about this. Among the countries that succeeded in getting the bomb were Israel and South Africa and among those that didn’t were Libya and Iraq. It seemed to me that what the successful countries had in common was both a substantial technological infrastructure and a government that was both determined and permissive. An anecdote I once heard about the Soviet program makes the point. Stalin decided that the program might be better motivated if he appointed the much-feared Lavrentiy Beria, the head of the secret police, to direct it. When Beria decided that some of the nuclear scientists were straying off the ideological reservation he went to Stalin to complain. Stalin allegedly said to him, “You leave my physicists alone. We can shoot them later.”
Among the successful countries, the story of the Israeli-program is well known: they had a very sophisticated scientific establishment and a determined government. The situation in Pakistan is even more striking. About a half dozen physicists using rather primitive computers designed the device and a very determined government backed the production of the fissile elements. And then there is the remarkable case of South Africa.
South Africa’s interest in nuclear technology goes back to the late 1940s. It was realized that the country had a substantial supply of uranium and a large number of trained scientists. The government acquired two reactors and when it began to think about nuclear weapons, the idea was to generate plutonium for them in reactors. This was abandoned in favor of enriching uranium. South African scientists adapted a method—stationary centrifuges—that had never been used on an industrial scale: injecting Uranium hexafluoride gas at very high velocity into a tube with a sharp curve. When the gas goes around the curve the centrifugal force pushes the heavier isotope U238 out, leaving more U235—which is the fissile isotope of uranium, meaning it can be fissioned by neutrons of any energy which is what you need to make an explosive chain reaction.
From this supply of U235, the South Africans amassed enough weapons-grade uranium to produce seven nuclear devices, which were never tested. In 1989 the country abandoned the program and this material was turned over to the International Atomic Energy Agency. One curious aspect of the program was that only whites were allowed to work on it. I am always reminded of Tom Lehrer’s song on proliferation:
South Africa wants two, that’s right.
One for the black and one for the white.
In this case the whites got them all.
So what happened with the failures, Libya and Iraq? A good deal of sporadic reading has long persuaded me that one way or the other both countries had or had acquired sufficient means to pursue a program—in the case of Libya there were financial resources and in the case of Iraq both financial and scientific resources. The Libyans started with almost nothing, but the oil boom enabled them to buy what they needed. Yet both countries had leaders—Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi—whose feelings about these weapons were ambivalent and always secondary to preserving the ideology of the regime. Neither, I assumed, would have had the slightest hesitation to shoot their physicists.
Now there is an excellent new book, Unclear Physics: Why Iraq and Libya Failed to Build Nuclear Weapons, by the Norwegian political scientist Målfrid Braut-Hegghammer, that is the most detailed study of these two programs that I have seen. After reading it I think that my general conclusions were right, but the situation was much more nuanced than I had realized. The book is divided into two parts, one on each country. The Libyan story is simpler and the treatment of it is shorter so I will start with that.
One curious feature of the Iraqi and Libyan programs is that both countries had signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In the case of Libya, this meant that there were sporadic inspections by the IAEA. There was never much to inspect. But Libya’s membership in the NPT also meant something that I was not aware of until I read this book: the IAEA supplied instructors for courses in nuclear physics and engineering. The problem in Libya was that no one showed up for the lectures and the instructors gave up. It is an ineluctable fact that the Libyans never had the remotest chance of making nuclear weapons on their own. They simply did not have scientists with the requisite skills.
Muammar Gaddafi tried without success to buy a finished weapon from the Chinese and in the late 1990s began going to the black market to acquire the necessary technology. The primary source of this was the Pakistani proliferator A.Q. Khan. The Libyans bought a package that included centrifuges and the plans for a Chinese nuclear device that had been successfully tested in a rocket. This was supposed to be a “turn key” facility, which would require less special expertise to operate, and which would provide a direct road to nuclear weapons. But the Libyans never could get it to work. Finally in 2003 they gave up and in 2004 Kahn’s package was turned over to the CIA, in exchange for diplomatic recognition.
The situation in Iraq—where the “preemptive” US war was ostensibly fought on the presumption that there was a covert nuclear weapons program in place—was much more complicated. The Iraqis did have scientists with the necessary skills. But here the regime was an impediment. An interesting case is that of Jafar Dhia Jafar. He came from an important Iraqi family and did his scientific studies at the University of Birmingham in England. He would have liked to stay there on the faculty but was turned down and returned to Iraq. He became involved with the Iraqi nuclear program early and was one of its directors. He and his colleagues never fully understood exactly what their mission was, so when one of the secretaries accidentally wrote “Unclear Physics” on the top of a letter, it was adopted as a mantra. Saddam Hussein appointed his son-in-law to direct the program. When Hussein Shahristani, one of the leaders of the program, was arrested and tortured because it was thought that he deviated from Baathist dogma, Jafar tried to come to his defense. Jafar was placed under house arrest while still trying to direct parts of the program.
A crucial moment in the Iraqi program came on July 7, 1981, when the substantial Osirak reactor that had been supplied by the French was destroyed in a daring Israeli air raid. The Israelis already had suspicions about the Iraqi program and there had been assassinations of Iraqi nuclear scientists. (Just as there have been assassinations of Iranian scientists in recent years.) The 1981 raid is often viewed as the reason the Iraqi program was halted. My view is that it was essentially pointless. The worry of the Israelis was that the Osirak reactor was going to produce plutonium. But it is hard to imagine a reactor more poorly designed for that purpose. The fuel was highly enriched uranium—a large percentage of U235—whereas what one wants is a large percentage of U238. The IAEA was present to take possession of the U235, which could have been useful for making bombs. But after the raid the Iraqis gave up the idea of plutonium and Iraqis decided to pursue a clandestine program to enrich uranium. Needless to say A.Q. Khan tried to sell them his package. The Iraqis did not trust him and in any event were not going to use centrifuges. There were other small reactors that also used highly enriched uranium and that had not been destroyed in the Israeli raid. After the 1990–1991 Gulf War in Kuwait, the IAEA removed this uranium and none was diverted.
One may ask if we had not invaded Iraq in 2003 would they have produced a bomb? I think the answer is not obvious. Saddam Hussein’s son-in law was running the program and he had zero technological competence. He was always announcing absurd deadlines. To make him happy the scientists gave him technical reports that he could not understand. But the deeper question is, Did Saddam really want a bomb? I think sometimes he did and sometimes he didn’t. What he always wanted was to give the impression that Iraq might get one. In this he seems to have succeeded too well.
Which brings us to the present. Of the various countries that have been mentioned, which might be most likely to succeed? We know North Korea has succeeded. Surely South Korea and Iran could succeed. Saudi Arabia does not at present have enough of a scientific infrastructure, but with their unlimited wealth might try to buy a weapon.
The larger question is whether Trump is serious about abandoning the decades old efforts to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. He has spoken of proliferation as being the greatest danger but does he understand what this means? Given his view if the Iran deal as somehow being financial, one has one’s doubts.
Målfrid Braut-Hegghammer’s Unclear Physics: Why Iraq and Libya Failed to Build Nuclear Weapons is published by Cornell University Press.

Russia And Babylon the Great Join Horns (Daniel 7)

Reuters
Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Sunday U.S. President-elect Donald Trump confirmed to him he was willing to mend ties, though he also said he would welcome President Barack Obama in Russia.
Putin also told a news conference in Lima after the APEC summit that Russia is ready to freeze oil output at current levels.
Putin said he thanked Obama during Sunday’s meeting in Lima “for the years of joint work”.
“I told him that we would be happy to see him (Obama) in Russia anytime if he wants, can and has desire”, Putin said.

Why the US, Russia, and China are Three of the Ten Horns (Daniel 7:7)

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump holds a campaign event at the Jacksonville Equestrian Center in Jacksonville, Florida U.S. November 3, 2016. REUTERS/Carlo Allegri
REUTERS/FILE
Donald Trump in Florida earlier this month.
Trump has called communist China a “currency manipulator,” threatened to impose stiff tariffs on Chinese imports, and accused the country of inventing the idea of climate change to hurt US businesses.
Xi, in turn, told Trump “facts have shown that cooperation is the only correct choice” for the United States and China, according to Xinhua, the Chinese state news agency.
In the phone call that Trump made to Xi, the two men agreed to maintain close communications and to meet at an early date.Trump, Putin talk about better relations
Despite the optimistic tone, analysts believe the relationship between Trump and Xi could grow tense if Trump follows through on his campaign promises, including a vow to impose a 45 percent tax on Chinese imports.
Russian President Vladimir Putin called Trump Monday to offer congratulations. Trump’s transition office said the president-elect “is very much looking forward to having a strong and enduring relationship with Russia and the people of Russia.’’
The Kremlin said Putin also expressed Russia’s readiness to ‘‘establish a partner-like dialogue with the new administration on the basis of equality, mutual respect, and noninterference in domestic relations,’’ the Associated Press reported.
‘‘During the call, the two leaders discussed a range of issues including the threats and challenges facing the United States and Russia, strategic economic issues, and the historical US-Russia relationship that dates back over 200 years,’’ it said.
In its statement on the phone call, the Kremlin added that both Putin and Trump agreed that the US-Russian ties are in ‘‘extremely unsatisfactory’’ condition now.
It said that Putin and Trump agreed to continue phone contacts and to plan a personal meeting in the future.
Trump said during the presidential campaign that he wants to be friends with Russia and join forces in the fight against the Islamic State, yet he outlined few specifics as to how he would go about it.
President Obama began his presidency with a goal to ‘‘reset’’ ties with Russia, but they eventually plunged to the lowest point since the Cold War over the conflicts in Ukraine and Syria.
Throughout the campaign, the Kremlin insisted that it had no favorites and rejected the claims of interference in the US election.
Russia’s state-controlled media, however, made no secret of their sympathy for Trump.
In China, foreign policy experts appear to be nervous about the prospect of a trade war.
In an editorial on Sunday in Global Times, a newspaper known for its nationalistic views, said that trade would be “paralyzed” if Trump imposed the tariff he has touted.
The article threatened a “tit-for-tat” response, saying that sales of American cars, airplanes, iPhones, and soybeans would suffer and that China could limit the number of students who go to the United States to study.
“Making things difficult for China politically will do him no good,” the editorial said. “Trump, as a shrewd businessman, will not be so naive.”
Trump is a longtime critic of US trade policies with Asian countries, and his pledge to rethink security commitments in Japan and South Korea has created uncertainty in the region.
China, as a rising superpower, sees both benefits and potential dangers in Trump’s leadership. Some analysts believe his focus on domestic issues might allow China to exert more influence in Asia and the Pacific.
Others worry that he may abandon international agreements, such as a landmark accord on climate change reached last year.
Li Yonghui, dean of the School of International Relations and Diplomacy at Beijing Foreign Studies University, said in an interview that Trump’s emphasis on domestic affairs might help ease tensions between the two countries.
But he added that Chinese leaders needed to prepare for the possibility that Trump might increase pressure on Beijing, for example, by imposing more restrictions on trade.
“He’s very different from the Obama administration when it comes to issues like trade and economics,” Li said. “There’s still a lot of uncertainty.”

The U.S. and Russian Horns Unite (Daniel 7)

Publicado: 13 Nov 2016 | 18:35 GMT
The US and Russian leaders have never had such similar positions on the key issues of world politics as Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President-elect Donald Trump, Vyacheslav Volodin, speaker of the Russian parliament, said.
“Putin and Trump have numerous common points and shared views,” Volodin told Russian NTV Channel in an interview published Sunday.
Volodin expressed hope for improvement in US-Russian relations, but also called for caution saying that Trump is yet to make practical steps towards rapprochement with Russia and show that his statements were not just empty promises.
“If Trump brings his promises to life, it will radically change the situation. We have only seen Trump as a candidate but we are yet to see what [kind of] president he will be,” the Duma speaker said.
He stressed that “restoring trust and respect” should be a primary goal in relations between the two countries, adding that the actions of previous US administrations have brought them to a historic low.
Acting US President Barack Obama either ignored Russia’s initiatives or deliberately “whipped up tensions, therefore contributing to the growing animosity” between Russia and the US, according to Volodin.
The speaker of the parliament’s lower chamber criticized the recent US presidential election campaign, noting that the smearing was unprecedented. He said that the whole campaign was focused on discrediting Trump through all available means, adding that the hysteria whipped up around his personality by his opponents only showed that he was a “strong candidate” and his rivals were really afraid of losing the elections.
He also drew attention to some flaws in the US electoral system, including early voting and the Electoral College. He said that early voting opens ways to numerous violations and makes elections less transparent, while the Electoral College is a sort of filter that allows the elites to tamper with the real popular vote.
NATO panicking over Trump election victory – Pushkov
Russian Federal Council member, Aleksey Pushkov said that NATO is apparently in a state of panic over the potential change in US policy with regards to the Alliance after Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential elections. He made the comments on Twitter in response to the latest NATO actions.
On Saturday, Germany’s Spiegel magazine reported that NATO strategists drafted a ‘worst-case’ scenario, in which Trump orders US troops out of Europe. On Sunday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stressed that importance and the unique nature of the US-NATO ties and urged Trump not to abandon his European allies.
“We face the greatest challenges to our security in a generation. This is no time to question the value of the partnership between Europe and the United States,” he wrote in an opinion peace for the Guardian.
On Saturday, Pushkov also said that there is a real prospect of Trump “reviewing the interventionist policies of NATO,” adding that it makes the atlantists in Europe “nervous.” He also warned that Trump is likely to face an “unprecedented pressure” over Syria as both the US establishment and NATO allies will try to convince him to continue the policy of the previous administration which supports those opposing Syrian President Bashar Assad.
Meanwhile, a leaked telegram sent by the British ambassador to the US showed that the UK is already planning to exploit Trump’s openness to “outside influence” to make the President-elect’s foreign policy more favorable to London. The British government also listed all of Trump’s campaign statements about NATO in a special paper in order to develop ways to respond.