US Deploys Itself Against Russia

Show of force: The B-1 Lancer (left), B-2 Spirit (centre) and B-52 Stratofortress (pictured right) together at RAF Fairford US deploys all its nuclear-capable bombers to Britain

Daily Mail

A spokesman for the base said the aircraft are being used ‘in support of exercises BALTOPS (Baltic operations), Saber Strike and Arctic Challenge taking place in the U.S. European Command area of responsibility.’
Show of force: The B-1 Lancer (left), B-2 Spirit (centre) and B-52 Stratofortress (pictured right) together at RAF Fairford
He told the Wilts and Gloucestershire Standard: ‘The deployment of strategic bombers strengthens the effectiveness of RAF Fairford as the U.S. Air Forces in Europe and Air Forces Africa’s forward operating bomber location’ and the deployment of the bombers provide: ‘important integration and interaction with our joint partners, UK and NATO allies.’
Despite their use solely being for exercise purposes currently, the aircraft are capable of delivering a nuclear strike and have been used in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past.
The decision to deploy the bombers on UK soil comes as tensions are mounting with Russia as it adopts more a aggressive military front.
Russian Tupolev Tu-95 ‘Bear’ strategic bombers have repeatedly been intercepted in recent months by NATO aircraft, including RAF Typhoons.
American power: The B-2 Spirit stealth bomber is the world’s most advanced strategic bomber

Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit

  • Cruising Speed: Classified – believed to be high subsonic
  • Range: 6,000 miles, 10,000 miles with one aerial refueling
  • Payload: Capable of carrying 16 B61 Nuclear free fall bombs or 80 conventional 500lbs bombs 
  • Crew: Two
One of the most advanced aircraft ever built, the B-2 Spirit America’s premier strategic bomber. It’s ‘flying wing’ design allows it to penetrate enemy radar systems to deliver either nuclear or conventional weapons.
The project was originally conceived during the Carter administration in 1976 as a way to counter the Soviet threat. It was shrouded in secrecy and cost nearly $45billion to develop until it’s first flight in 1989.
With just one air-to-air refueling the B-2 is capable of flying an astonishing 10,000 miles. This means that there is rarely a need to deploy it outside the U.S., except in cases where the American government wants to project a show of force.
The long-range, multi-mission B1-B Lancer has been part of the US Air Force since 1985

Rockwell B1-B Lancer

  • Top Speed: 900-plus mph
  • Range: Intercontinental 
  • Payload: Capable of carrying nuclear weapons and up to 75,000lbs of ordnance internally -the equivalent of 24 misiles
  • Crew: Four
Nicknamed ‘The Bone’ for its sleek look, the swing-wing B-1B Lancer was originally designed as an incredibly fast strategic bomber that could penetrate the Soviet Union’s airspace.
However, the collapse of the USSR meant that there was a reduced need for the United States’ nuclear bombers, so the B-1 was assigned a conventional role in the mid-1990s. In the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia six B-1Bs flew two per cent of strike missions but dropped 20 per cent of the total ordnance.
It has been nearly continuously deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001. It has also recently seen action in Libya and Syria. Upgrades will ensure the plane is in service up until at least 2040.

Obama Refuses To See His Legacy Go (Ezekiel 17)

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama has ordered intelligence officials to conduct a broad review of election-season cyberattacks, including the email hacks that rattled the presidential campaign and raised fresh concerns about Russia’s meddling in U.S. elections, the White House said Friday.
The review, led by intelligence agencies, will be a “deep dive” into a possible pattern of increased “malicious cyber activity” timed to the campaign season, White House spokesman Eric Schultz said. The review will look at the tactics, targets, key actors and the U.S. government’s response to the recent email hacks, as well as incidents reported in past elections, he said.
“The president wanted this done under his watch because he takes it very seriously,” he said. “We are committed to ensuring the integrity of our elections.”
U.S. intelligence officials accused Russia of hacking into Democratic officials’ email accounts in an attempt to interfere with the presidential campaign. The Kremlin rejected the accusations.
In the months leading up to the election, email accounts of Democratic Party officials and a top Hillary Clinton campaign aide were breached, emails leaked and embarrassing and private emails posted online. Many Democrats believe the hackings benefited Republican Donald Trump’s bid. Trump has downplayed the possibility that Russia was involved.
Schultz said the president sought the probe as a way of improving U.S. defense against cyberattacks and was not intending to question the legitimacy of Trump’s victory.
“This is not an effort to challenge the outcome of the election,” Schultz said.
Obama’s move comes as Democratic lawmakers have been pushing Obama to declassify more information about Russia’s role, fearing that Trump, who has promised a warmer relationship with Moscow, may not prioritize the issue.
Given Trump’s statements, “there is an added urgency to the need for a thorough review before President Obama leaves office next month,” said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., senior Democrat on the House intelligence committee. If the administration doesn’t respond “forcefully” to such actions, “we can expect to see a lot more of this in the near future,” he said.
The White House said it would make portions of the report public and would brief lawmakers and relevant state officials on the findings.
It emphasized the report would not focus solely on Russian operations or hacks involving Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and Democratic National Committee accounts. Schultz stressed officials would be reviewing incidents going back to the 2008 presidential campaign, when the campaigns of Sen. John McCain and Obama were breached by hackers.
Intelligence officials have said Obama and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney were targets of Chinese cyberattacks four years later.

The Precarious Nuclear Game (Revelation 15)

Victor Gilinsky
The world relies too much on the indefinite continuation of the post-1945 taboo on military use of nuclear weapons. It was never a secure bar to such use, but now official statements and academic writings indicate a perceptible weakening of it. If a nuclear weapon country used its weapons in anger, anywhere, even on a relatively small scale, it would signal that nuclear war was no longer a theoretical possibility, but a reality. That realization is likely to have far-reaching political and social consequences worldwide. Yet it is hard to find any examination of what these consequences may be.
I don’t mean studies on the effects of nuclear weapons, or of a nuclear Armageddon, of which there is no lack. Anyone can access web-based graphic displays to estimate the devastation of a nuclear bomb dropping on his or her city. I have never heard of anyone moving out of one of those cities out of fear of a nuclear attack, but if a real nuclear bomb dropped somewhere, even far off, people are likely to think about it differently.
Nuclear terrorism: The diversion. I also don’t mean studies on what might happen if terrorists—rather than a country—used a nuclear weapon. There are many such studies, as well. The world’s leaders have adopted countering terrorist use of nuclear weapons as the main subject of the heavily advertised international security summits. It makes for “successful” meetings because all countries are on the same side in dealing with nuclear terrorism—they are all against it.
Nuclear terrorism is a concern, but the disproportionate official and academic focus on it diverts attention from the much more serious, but also much more difficult, problems of restraining countries that have nuclear weapons and keeping others who have an interest in getting them from doing so—and then using them. Dealing with nuclear weapon states, and would-be nuclear weapon states, means confronting argument over the rights and wrongs of nuclear weapon possession and considering major policy changes, all of which world leaders stay clear of.
Nuclear weapon use by nations. When it comes to nuclear weapon use by a nation, the most likely candidates are the countries outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty—India, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan—all of which are involved in territorial disputes that have led to wars. Initial nuclear weapon use may or may not involve large civilian casualties; it could in fact take place on a battlefield, with few civilian casualties. The current operative assumption in nuclear circles is apparently that after such an event the world would basically go on as it is, albeit with suitable changes in nuclear strategy by the other owners of these weapons, and possibly increased efforts by yet others to get the weapons, too.
But I think the more powerful result would be a sea change in the thinking of people around the world. They may decide, for example, that they don’t want to be anywhere near a potential target. Governments may find it difficult to maintain control without repressive measures. There may be a premium on shelter space. There are already news stories about the super-rich outfitting themselves with extraordinarily secure underground facilities. It sounds overwrought, but then we may be too complacent.
In the wake of military use of nuclear weapons, and the prospect of further use, popular movements may force changes—possibly violent changes—in the way that the world is organized. What these changes might be is difficult to say. We do know that the “experts” tend to underestimate the broader societal consequences of new circumstances that fall outside conventional assumptions.
Take a recent example: the 2011 Fukushima nuclear plant accident. A technical expert could have projected that a large tsunami would disable the safety systems of the plant and cause a severe accident. But no one had predicted that after the accident Japan, in reaction to public outcry, would then shut its nuclear reactors, and that the governments of a number of other countries would decide to end their nuclear power programs altogether.
Or consider the 2008 world financial crash. Not only did the central bankers insist in advance that it could not happen, but they failed to understand its broader economic significance even when important banks started to fail.
And, of course, there is the 100-year-old example of World War I. Even after the Austrian archduke’s 1914 assassination, no one expected a long world war that would destroy four major empires.
Weakening the taboo. What has changed to weaken the taboo against nuclear weapons use? For one thing, the horror of nuclear weapons has diminished in the public mind. I am old enough to remember having to jump under my desk during “atomic” bomb drills in high school. There is almost no one alive today—and likely no one in a position of influence—who has seen a nuclear explosion. We know that the experience made a deep impression on many of those who did, and convinced them in a visceral way of the need for caution. New generations of officials and academics treat nuclear weapons as abstract chess pieces. Of course, none of them wants nuclear war, but one senses a new interest in playing with the possibilities nuclear weapons offer for increasing a country’s influence, or protecting it against others with nuclear arms.
Academic journal papers talk of a new renaissance in nuclear security studies that examine the extent to which such weapons increase a state’s bargaining power and its prestige, all with a view to making use of—if not the bomb itself—at least the shadow cast by the bomb. Some of these political strategists write as if there are quantitative laws that govern the deterrent effect and influence of nuclear weapons, laws which need only be discovered to be applicable by national leaders to their advantage. This is, of course, dangerous nonsense, but it provides a useful academic validation for powerful officials and bureaucracies involved with the weapons who want them—and thus the possibility of nuclear war—to remain an important aspect of national policy.
And while indeed no one wants nuclear war, it would also be only human if there were moments when some of the nuclear weapons advocates yearned for a chance to test the results of their work in the real world. It is easy to rationalize the notion by suggesting that the results would not be as bad as people think with small, modern nuclear weapons; that at the lower end of weapon yields, nuclear weapons overlap with conventional ones; that escalation can be controlled; and so on. We have been there before. In an early book, Henry Kissinger wrote: “With proper tactics, nuclear war need not be as destructive as it appears when we think of it in terms of traditional warfare.”
There is now also public discussion of the possible acquisition of nuclear weapons in countries where such public discussions never took place before, namely South Korea and Japan. They are obviously concerned about the failure of the major guardians of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to cope adequately with North Korea. While any step in the direction of nuclear weapons is still only a remote possibility in South Korea and Japan, it is no longer an unthinkable one. If either country did acquire nuclear weapons, it would surely be the end of the NPT. And while acquisition of nuclear weapons does not translate to use, the more countries with nuclear weapons, the greater the chances that things could go wrong.
Will deterrence prevent nuclear use? What could go wrong? Nowadays, respectable people in nuclear weapons countries insist that their weapons are not for use in fighting wars but purely for deterrence.
But what is deterrence? It is convincing opponents not to harm you out of fear that, if they do, you will harm them more than they can stand. You don’t have to think very hard to realize that nuclear deterrence is based on the threat to use nuclear weapons in certain circumstances (which for some countries include conventional attacks by their adversaries). In other words, deterrence cannot be divorced from use. That is why trained and dedicated officers in nine countries operate in shifts, waiting for orders to release their weapons. In other words, non-use is predicated on adversaries never using their nuclear weapons, or crossing some stated “red line.” One has the feeling that in the strategy of some countries, a so-called second strike may precede an adversary’s first strike.
One might ask, why in these circumstances would any country do anything that would risk nuclear retaliation? The short answer is that human beings sometimes do foolish things. Or they might evaluate the situation differently from their opponent, perhaps regarding the threat of a nuclear attack as a bluff.
To take a current example: If I understand correctly, Pakistan threatens to respond to an Indian military incursion with newly developed battlefield nuclear weapons. India previously threatened such incursions in response to what it claimed were Pakistani-sponsored terrorist attacks. Will India now be deterred from responding? Will Pakistan now refrain from supporting activities that may trigger an Indian response? Probably they themselves are not sure.
In one of his early books, Henry Kissinger described deterrence as a product of three multiplicative factors: “power, the will to use it, and the assessment of these by the potential aggressor.” (One always assumes nowadays that one’s adversary is the aggressor.) Two of the three factors are psychological. In other words, deterrence is in the mind of the adversary, and we know that minds do strange things. I would add another psychological element—the adversary’s evaluation of the consequences of not taking actions despite the risk of nuclear retaliation. It may be as simple as a politician knowing if he does not take the risk, he is finished.
Dangerous bias toward “hawks.” The risk of nuclear use is exacerbated by the cult of toughness at high levels in government. In a crisis, national leaders—likely tired, possibly awake with stimulants, and largely unfamiliar with the details, and perhaps even the basic facts, of nuclear weapon use—will be subject to multiple pressures, each with inevitable consequences for their political future. (That is, if the national leader is actually the one making the decision.) There is in these situations a bias in favor of hawks as opposed to doves. It is an age-old problem. In his history of the Greek wars, Thucydides famously commented that in times of war reckless audacity was equated with courage, and prudent hesitation with cowardice.
The experts describe the stability of deterrence as a delicate matter—with too little retaliatory power you risk attack, but if you threaten to build up too much strength, especially on the defensive side, the opponent may misinterpret it as initial steps toward aggression and you may risk preemptive attack. But if deterrence is a delicate affair that requires constant tuning by experts, is it something to count on never to fail?
That no nuclear weapons were used during the Cold War, and since, has been taken by the nuclear weapon professionals as a demonstration of the effectiveness of deterrence. But is this really a valid conclusion? For one thing, we know there were close brushes with possible use. For another, the lack of use does not necessarily translate into effective deterrence. There may be no deterrence at work at all if countries, even hostile adversaries, have no intention of using nuclear weapons against each other for reasons unrelated to the fear of retaliatory attack. What conclusions can be drawn from the decades of non-use of nuclear weapons for the future? None we can be sure of.
Accidental war. The taboo on nuclear weapons may also fail accidentally. There have been situations in both the United States and the Soviet Union/Russia that could have led to the launch of nuclear weapons by mistake but for the action of an individual officer. It would be surprising if such situations have not also occurred in other nuclear weapon countries. There have also been occasions when nuclear bombs fell out of airplanes on routine patrol. In one such case, a multi-megaton bomb very nearly exploded—after impact, five of six electronic locks failed.
A nuclear weapons enterprise requires extraordinary care and discipline at all stages, and never more so in dealing with weapons ready to launch. It is, however, extremely difficult to maintain proper discipline and motivation in a system that is never used. There are exercises and inspections, but that is not the same thing. There is a tendency, of which there is some evidence, to become sloppy. The nuclear risks are obvious.
Where now? There was a large element of luck in getting through the Cold War without nuclear weapon use. Will that luck hold?
The United States and Russia have reduced their large nuclear arsenals, but no other countries seem inclined to follow their lead. By all accounts, most other countries with nuclear weapons are building more, or modernizing them, or both. The countries outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty—India, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan—are increasing the sophistication of their forces. India seeks a submarine-based strategic force, Israel already has one and is expanding it, North Korea is building more weapons and is experimenting with submarine-launched missiles, and Pakistan is introducing short-range nuclear weapons to counter a possible Indian conventional attack. It is difficult to believe that with all this expensive nuclear weaponry deployed, that the world’s nuclear countries will confine its use to gaming nuclear exchanges and calculating whose weapons cast the larger and more ominous shadow.
As if to underline that we should expect no change in this picture, on October 27 the nuclear weapon countries (with the bizarre exception of North Korea) would not support a UN General Assembly resolution to start discussions on eliminating nuclear weapons. The resolution passed overwhelmingly and the negotiations will apparently start next year, with or without the nuclear powers. A hard look at the worldwide societal consequences of nuclear weapon use could help to support these discussions and underline their importance.
In the 1959 movie, On the Beach, a survivor of nuclear war asks, “If everyone was so smart, why didn’t they see this coming?” Exactly. Stop and think about what may be coming if we don’t act.
Above all, when it comes to nuclear weapons, we should not allow ourselves to just drift into the future. We need to look ahead as best we can and steer in a safer direction.

Preparing For The End? (Revelation 15)

The thought of a nuclear attack is so horrible most people would not want to even think about it for a second. Hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, would be killed instantly; just as many could die in the following days, and untold numbers would be permanently injured. Material and economic damage would surpass all but the biggest natural disasters in the past century. But it is our job to combat weapons of mass destruction, and that means preparing for the worst – so we can best survive it.
Our Nuclear Survivability scientists, researchers and military experts are helping our military enhance battlefield survivability. They’re developing radiation hardened electronics to protect our equipment and infrastructure from a damaging electromagnetic pulse. And in doing so, they’re preserving our military capability to quickly react to such an attack and carry out offensive operations as ordered by national and military leaders.

Of Course Ww3 Will Be Nuclear (Revelation 15)

 QUESTION: Marty, do you think nuclear weapons will be used this time?
PDH
ANSWER: History is a road map to the future because human nature remains the same. People are far too often foolish. They attribute guns as the cause of violence as if humankind was peaceful before the invention of the gun. At an ancient battlefield site in Scotland, archaeologists unearthed the largest cache of Roman lead sling bullets ever discovered. You see, the Romans also had bullets. They used powerful slingshots to propel them instead of gunpowder. So, even the idea of shooting someone with a lead bullet is nothing new.
It is true that technology advancements have aided conquests. The Turks took Constantinople, which had been impregnable, because of the invention of the cannon, which depicted in the painting of the fall of Constantinople. The cannon was invented in China where they discovered gunpowder. This replaced ancient siege engines and battering rams. Today we have nuclear weapons. The weapons themselves are not evil, only the people who push the buttons to launch the weapons are evil.
A weapon by itself does not kill. Even biological weapons must be deployed, which is by no means a modern unique development. Lord Jeffrey Amherst, for whom Amherst Massachusetts was named, was indeed the commanding general of British forces in North America during the final battles of the French & Indian war (1754-1763). He won the wars, but his reputation was a bit tarnished in the end. Amherst’s name became associated with germ warfare. He approved giving smallpox-infected blankets to the American Indians. This was reported in Carl Waldman’s “Atlas of the North American Indian” (1985). There are surviving letters, such as that from Colonel Henry Bouquet to General Amherst, dated July 13, 1763, concerning the distribution of blankets to “inoculate the Indians.”
History repeats ONLY because people repeat the same patterns with whatever technology they have available at that moment in time. World War I was notorious for the use of chemical weapons, which infected about 1.2 million people and killed about 90,000. The chemical weapons used produced very slow-moving or static gas clouds over the battlefields. Additional chemical weapons included disabling chemicals, such as tear gas, but also included lethal chemicals like phosgene, chlorine, and mustard gas.

US Has Created the Terror of the Endtimes

Babylon The GreatUS is institutionalizing the terror it promised to end in the Middle East

MELIH ALTINOK  @melihaltinok
The U.S., which set foot in the Middle East following the atrocious terrorist attack of Sept. 11, 2001, is still present in the region. The ground for this mandatory visit is still the same. Ending terrorism at its roots and protecting the U.S. from afar.It is highly questionable if the source of terrorism is the “natural” political condition of the region or the oppressive and exploitative policies of countries such as the U.S.
For the sake of our purpose, let us assume for a moment that the justifications of Washington are true. Let us focus solely on what is happening in the field and examine whom the U.S. acted with in the last few years to introduce “stability and democracy” to Syria and Iraq.
The Democratic Union Party (PYD) is one of Washington’s allies in Syria. As is already known, this group is the Syrian offshoot of the outlawed PKK, which is listed as a terrorist group by Turkey, the EU and the U.S. This relation is official. So the PKK and the PYD do not even need to conceal the fact that they are strategically and administratively the same organization.
Nevertheless, while legitimate groups, such as the moderate Free Syria Army (FSA) are present in Syria, the U.S. government chose to ally with PYD militants. Moreover, they did this explicitly before the eyes of Turkey, which has been an ally of the U.S. for a half century and lost innumerable citizens to PKK terror.
Sadr’s supporters, who gathered in Baghdad yesterday in turbans and cloaks, did not even mention the U.S. at the protests they made.
So, is it possible for the U.S. to end terrorism by acting with terrorist groups and radical components of religious conflicts in the region?
Of course not.
No matter how insistently the U.S. denies this scenario, it is commonly accepted by the people of the Middle East. The U.S. clearly reveals its true intentions by acting with questionable formations instead of acting with NATO member Turkey, which is determinedly fighting against the PKK, the PYD and Daesh.
What I really wonder is when will U.S. citizens and intellectuals start to react against the spending of taxes to support terrorist organizations and radical religious groups located thousands of kilometers away.

Turkey Correctly Anticipates WW3 (Revelation 15)

The country’s deputy Prime Minister Numan Kurtulmus said the conflict had put the world “on the brink of the beginning of a large regional or global war”.
In an interview he said: “If this proxy war continues, after this, let me be clear, America and Russia will come to a point of war.
Turkey and its Western allies, the US and Britain are calling for Syrian President President Bashar al-Assad to step down.
But Russia’s President Vladimir Putin is a key backer of the Syrian leader.
Tensions between Russia and the US have ratcheted up this week as the US pulled the plugs over talks on Syria and accused Russia of hacking attacks.
US Secretary of State John Kerry last week called for a war crimes investigation after accusing Moscow and the regime of deliberately bombing hospitals as a Russian-backed assault on Aleppo in northern Syria continues.
Relations between the two countries were already at their lowest since the Cold War over the Ukraine conflict, after the Russian annexation of the Crimean Peninsula.
Earlier this month, Moscow said it was suspending joint research with the United States on nuclear energy projects.
In the interview with Turkey’s state-run press agency, Kurtulmus also insisted that Turkish forces at the Bashiqa camp in northern Iraq were “legitimate” and would remain in the country for “as long as necessary”.
But Iraq’s chiefs called Turkey an “occupying” force last week when the Turkish parliament agreed to extend its military operations in Iraq and Syria for a year.
Turkey has said its forces are training Iraqi fighters to help retake the country’s second biggest city, Mosul, from IS in the near future.
Kurtulmus’s promise came after a bitter war of words between President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi on Tuesday.
Erdogan told Abadi to “know your place” and that the leader was not his equal.
Abadi responded by mocking Erdogan’s plea to the Turkish people to counter the attempted coup in July via a video phone call.
“We will liberate our land through the determination of our men and not by video calls,” Abadi’s official Twitter account said.

Prepare For Nuclear War (Revelation 15)

By Daily Star – October 16, 2016
Relations have plunged to Cold War levels, but tensions could heat up as it is warned Putin is primed and ready to go to war against the US.
Russian military man Lt Gen Yevgeny Buzhinsky laid the blame at the door of the West for provoking the anger of the Motherland.
The retired general said: “Of course there is a reaction. As far as Russia sees it, as Putin sees it, it is full-scale confrontation on all fronts. If you want a confrontation, you”ll get one.”
“But it won”t be a confrontation that doesn”t harm the interests of the United States. You want a confrontation, you”ll get one everywhere.”
Moscow media is also openly talking about the possibility of a clash as officials threaten to shoot down US planes using the Kremlin’s newly deployed missile defence system in Syria.
Fyodor Lukyanov, Editor-in-Chief of Russia in Global Affairs, said: “Most likely no-one wants to launch a big collision between Russia and the United States. But this is exactly the case when unintended consequences might emerge.”
Cold War deployments are being setup by the Russia military as nuclear bombers sweep the US border and plans are set in motion for new bases in Cuba.
Experts have warned Russia could invade “overnight” as the Kremlin has the power and might to launch an invasion “within hours”.

The Growing Risk of Nuclear War

German think tank warns of growing nuclear war danger
By Peter Schwarz
15 October 2016
In September, the German pro-government think tank “Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik” (SWP) published a study on the implications of US policy towards Russia and European security. [1] The 28-page document is aimed at a professional audience and is written in political and military jargon that couches the annihilation of millions of human lives in matter-of-fact terms, as if dealing with the solution to a technical problem.
But this prosaic language conceals a nightmare scenario. American policy towards Russia, as described by the SWP study, focuses primarily on preparation for a nuclear war, which would involve large parts of Europe. If the results of the study are to be taken seriously, then the risk for the present generation of dying in a violent atomic storm is alarmingly high.
The study’s author, Dr. Peter Rudolf, an SWP employee, not only provides his own assessment, but references every paragraph with other sources. The text contains 118 footnotes, each of which refers to multiple articles in foreign policy and military journals and statements by leading politicians. The study summarizes the debate that is currently taking place in leading circles of the military and political establishment.
At its very beginning, the study stresses that the nuclear war danger is not an abstract, hypothetical risk. As “the first and most important structural feature” of US-Russian relations, the study names the “mutual nuclear annihilation capability.”
Even 25 years after the end of the Cold War, the United States and Russia, who together possess “approximately 90 percent of all nuclear weapons in the world,” maintain their strategic nuclear weapons “in constant combat readiness.” “They want to guarantee,” the study says, “if necessary under extreme time pressure, that they are able to make the decision to use nuclear arsenals… This is to prevent one’s own nuclear weapons being eliminated by a first strike.”
The study points to the very short time frame for decisions as “anything but conducive” to “crisis stabilization.” The flight times of ballistic missiles between the two countries run to “11 minutes for sea-based and 30 minutes for land-based missiles.”
The risk that a political crisis could “accidentally” result in a nuclear exchange due to these short reaction times is thus extremely high. This risk is further elevated by the ruthlessness with which the US and its NATO allies are escalating the conflict with Russia in Eastern Europe and Syria, and by the advanced planning for a nuclear war.
According to the SWP study, “a reinvigorated Russia, at least from the perspective of military planners in the Pentagon,” is regarded “as a potential enemy in a time of newly unfolding great power conflicts, as an enemy who—like China—needs to be deterred by the capacity for conflict dominance.” For this deterrent, according to the study, there are three strategic approaches in the US.
The first school of thought, which the study refers to as “confrontational, ’Neo-Containment,’” focuses on unconditional confrontation. It regards “consideration of alleged or actual Russian security interests” to be inappropriate. “Rather, external pressure should be increased and Russia forced into an arms race, in the opinion of this school.”
The second school advocates a “realpolitik approach to the management of US-Russian relations.” It proposes to recognize Russia’s claim to spheres of influence on its periphery, “in the interests of a regulated power rivalry,” while “at the same time signaling clearly that any aggression against a NATO member would be answered militarily.”
And finally, there is the school of thought that takes a “cooperative and inclusive approach.” It postulates self-critically “that the US bears a share [of the blame] in the deterioration of bilateral relations, especially through the expansion of NATO in a period of Russian weakness, and by promoting missile defence,” and advocates “a differentiated approach, combining a readiness to cooperate and risk mitigation.”
The study counts the Obama administration as part of this third, “cooperative-integrative,” school. This is remarkable, when one considers that Barack Obama is the first American president during whose entire eight years in office the country has continuously waged war. Obama’s political record includes: supporting the right-wing coup in Kiev directed against Russia; the massive deployment of NATO troops to Russia’s western border; the unconditional guarantee of military assistance to the aggressive Baltic states, and the escalation of the Syrian war, which could provoke a direct confrontation between the Russian and American military.
One can easily imagine, therefore, what would happen if one of the two other, more confrontational schools of thought prevailed, within which the leading contender for the American presidency, Hillary Clinton, holds considerable sway. On this question, Clinton attacks her semi-fascist challenger Donald Trump from the right by accusing him of weakness towards Russia.
How far the plans and preparations for a nuclear war against Russia (and China) are already advanced in the strategic think tanks and leading military circles is made clear in the SWP study’s chapter, “New confrontation and its consequences.” The risks of a nuclear escalation of the conflict with Russia are now higher than during the Cold War, and continue to increase.
The “informal rules and regimes” that could moderate the ever-present risk of a military escalation of the East-West conflict at that time have been lost, according to the study. “What has disappeared is also the political sensitivity in dealing with military risks, and precisely the risk of a potential nuclear escalation, should deterrence fail.”
The study comprehensively shows how “the strengthening of conventional deterrence” by NATO–i.e., the stationing of troops on the Russian border, the plans for bringing in reinforcements, etc.—sets in motion an arms dynamic that inevitably leads to nuclear escalation. “The new policy of deterrence in Europe will hardly, as is sometimes assumed or hoped, be restricted to the conventional level,” it states. “The credibility of extended deterrence always rested on the nuclear escalation option.”
It is in this context that the final document of the Warsaw NATO summit in July 2016 should be understood. “It says, NATO remains a ‘nuclear alliance,’ and in the case of a threat to the fundamental security of a member state, has the capability and determination to impose unacceptable costs on an opponent.”
“For the first time since the end of the East-West conflict,” the study continues, “there are again in NATO considerations to conduct exercises with a view to scenarios where there could be a nuclear escalation. The danger of nuclear war in Europe as a result of an escalating crisis threatens to return.”
Among the texts to which the study refers on this issue is the essay, “Why a nuclear war would most likely begin in the Baltic states,” [2] which appeared in the conservative US foreign policy journal the National Interest on July 20, 2016.
The article accuses the US government of not taking the possibility of a nuclear war between America and Russia seriously enough following the end of the Cold War, and of having neglected atomic weapons capabilities. In reality, it says, such a possibility not only exists, but is becoming more likely. Then the article lists eight reasons why the greatest danger for such a war exists with regard to the three Baltic states.
It refers to the statement of President Obama during a visit to Estonia two years ago that the defence of the capitals of the three countries was “just as important as the defence of Berlin and Paris and London.” This is “an extraordinary assertion,” when one considers that “the population of metropolitan London (about 8 million) is greater than that of all three Baltic states combined (about 6 million), and that the eastern coast of the Baltic Sea is so close to the Russian heartland.”
It then argues that, due to the superiority of conventional Russian forces in the region, compliance with the guarantee of security for the Baltic states would almost automatically lead to a nuclear escalation.
“The bottom line is that all the ingredients are present in the eastern Baltic area for an East-West conflict escalating to nuclear weapons use,” the article concludes. This is a “prescription for catastrophe.”
The study of the SWP, which generally promotes a pro-US line, does not delve into the causes and the background of the US drive towards war. Only at one point does it hint that it has to do with the quest for world domination. The US sees itself “in a time of renewed great power conflict,” it says. “Russia and China are the potential enemies that must be deterred by superior military power—and through the ability for conflict dominance.”
The changes in the international security situation have “activated the old, never vanished but seldom openly articulated core power interests of the USA, which, in the 1940s, under the influence of geo-political thinking… developed and were since followed: namely, to prevent one or more hostile great powers controlling the resources of Eurasia and acquiring a power potential that could endanger American supremacy.”
The SWP study does not deal with European reactions, although the openness with which it addresses the danger of a nuclear war expresses a certain concern regarding the consequences of America’s Russia policy. One might have expected the European governments to show more restraint in face of this imminent danger threatening to incinerate large parts of Europe. However, the opposite is the case.
While Germany and France refused to actively support the Iraq war in 2003, and Germany stood aside in the 2011 Libyan war, Paris and Berlin, like London, are now participating in both the escalation of the conflict with Russia in Syria and the NATO deployment to the Russian border.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault has publicly accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of war crimes. President François Hollande has cancelled a meeting with Putin in Paris. British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson is calling for demonstrations outside the Russian embassy. Berlin has increased its troop contingent in the Middle East. And the German media are full of inflammatory articles against Russia.
That does not mean that political agreement exists between Europe and the United States—in fact, political and economic tensions are growing. But Europe’s ruling classes are reacting to the same objective developments that prevail in the US. In response to the global financial and economic crisis, unresolved since 2008, growing social tensions at home and the risk of violent class struggles, they react by turning to militarism, war and authoritarian forms of rule.
The danger of nuclear annihilation will not deter them from this course, just as the foreseeable catastrophe did not stop them in 1914 and in 1939 from plunging humanity into the inferno of the First and the Second World Wars. Only an independent, international movement of the working class against war and its cause, capitalism, can prevent a nuclear catastrophe.
Notes:

US Bringing World to the Brink of Nuclear War

By: Cindy Sheehan
What’s happening in Syria has been going on for over five years and it’s not a civil war. The conflict began as a U.S.-funded effort to depose President Bashar Assad and install a puppet government in Damascus friendly to U.S. interests. I am sure there are some legitimate forces in Syria who oppose the government of Assad, but the U.S. does not care about democracy—afterall Assad was elected by his people.
Also in Syria, approximately one dozen militias are not only trying to overthrow the Assad government but they are also fighting amongst themselves . The ranking Democrat on the U.S. Congressional House Intelligence Committee, uber-Zionist Adam Schiff of California, said of the phenomena of CIA-funded militias fighting in places like Aleppo, “It’s part of the three-dimensional chess game.” This chess game, played by empires for millennia, profit the wealthy and as always, the people pay the heavy price.
Today we learned that China is contemplating joining Russia and Syria in their alliance to protect the sovereignty of Syria and for stabilization in the Middle East.
The U.S. has long invaded and provoked weaker countries like Afghanistan and Iraq which have little hope of retaliating but nonetheless use what resources they have to fight off U.S. imperialism. However, provoking Russia in places like Syria and Ukraine seems to be the height of arrogance and stupidity on the part of the U.S.
For many years, Russian President Vladimir Putin has been the rational actor in this insane U.S. provocation, but Russia is getting ready to fight back—reportedly holding civil defense drills, warning Russians abroad, and even testing nuclear missiles.
US Foreign Policy: Killing People to Save Them
Some of us see no hope for the mis-leaders here in the U.S. to provide some sanity in its foreign policy. In the last U.S. presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the war criminal Clinton reaffirmed her hardcore stance to go to war with Russia, through Syria, if necessary. Clinton also declared her support for a “no fly zone” over Syria, which the chair of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford said would require 70,000 U.S. troops to maintain and would definitely mean war with Russia.
Even though Russia has been invited into Syria by the government—as rational people who are filled with apprehension over the reality of this danger—we should be calling on all world leaders to pause in their rush to war.
But the only thing that can really stop imperialist carnage is an international working-class force, refusing to be used as cannon-fodder for capitalism, and instead fighting for socialism.
Our very survival as a species depends on international solidarity.