Nuclear Winter Will Come Soon (Revelation 16)

In a March 23 news story in The New York Times, the general in charge of our nuclear arms arsenal, Jack Weinstein, called for “…a strengthened and modernized nuclear deterrence force in this country.” Why? Because nuclear deterrence has worked in the past and it will work in the future. On that premise, General Weinstein said, “I sleep very well at night.”
Many of us don’t. We recall that four or five times during the Cold War, when the U.S. and the Soviet Union had over 60,000 nuclear missiles on hair-trigger alert, there were accidents that came close to triggering a catastrophic exchange of nuclear missiles. For example, in 1979, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) computers showed that 200 Soviet missiles were streaking towards U.S. targets. “It took us several days to ascertain that an operator had mistakenly installed a training tape in the computer, “ said William Perry, in his book My Journey at the Nuclear Brink.
The unavoidable fact is, no plan of defense is perfect and the leadership of any country is not always reliably rational. What’s more, the belief in failsafe deterrence does not take into account the lightening fast response required in the face of a perceived nuclear missile attack—with only 15 minutes to decide whether to respond.
Nine countries now have nuclear weapons, and that in itself makes the current risk of mishap or misbehavior even higher than it was during the Cold War. What if an unstable commander in chief is seized by a maniacal sense of humiliation, depression, fury? History is replete with unlikely events spinning out of control. For example, the assassination of an Austro-Hungarian prince in 1914 triggered a concatenation of events that exploded into the horror of World War One-–a horror magnified because all countries were armed to the teeth. .
Contrary to General Weinstein, nuclear deterrence does not mean we can sleep more peacefully. It means rather that we had better start taking a closer look at the possibility of nuclear winter.
Recall that nuclear winter was the subject of a major scientific paper called TTAPS published in Science Magazine in December of 1983, so-named for the initials of the authors on the project, Robert Turco, Owen Toon, Thomas Ackerman, James Pollack, and Carl Sagan, the most famous of the group. Although there was a flurry of media for a short time, the subject evoked a vigorous backlash from industrial and military interests, and then vanished from attention once the Cold War collapsed at the end of the decade. Between 1990 and 2003 no new scientific papers on the subject were published.
However, after 9/11 and our headlong plunge into a misbegotten “war on terror” came a resurrection of interest . A number of leading climatologists and physicists returned to their laboratories to re-investigate the subject, only this time with new computers and advanced modeling tools, including NASA’s latest climate models. Within the last decade or so these scientists have produced at least five notable scientific papers in prestigious scholarly journals, each of which has been subject to peer review by reputable scientists. These studies not only confirmed the soundness of the basic physics but also showed a nuclear war could be even more devastating than previously thought.
One of the most riveting examples was a scientific paper published by the American Geophysics Union in the journal Earth’s Future in April, 2014. Four scientists, Drs. Owen B. Toon, Michael J. Mills, Julia Lee-Taylor, and Alan Robock studied the likely effects of a regional nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan, assuming each side would detonate 50 bombs of the same size as the one dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. The immediate result would be 20 million deaths. This would be followed by massive firestorms which would send millions of tons of smoke and black carbon into the stratosphere, higher than the cleansing effects of rain, where a layer of particles would then form and circle the globe. The earth’s temperature would drop to the coldest average surface levels in the last 1000 years—and killing frosts would reduce growing seasons by 10 to 40 days, producing a 30 to 40 percent reduction in agricultural yield over five years and cause massive human starvation.
What’s more, the bombs used in this computer study were only 15 kilotons, whereas the actual bombs in the present nuclear arsenal are seven to eight times more powerful. Dr. Steven Starr, director of clinical laboratories at the University of Missouri, declares that “Nuclear Winter would cause most humans and large animals to die from famine in a mass extinction event similar to the one that wiped out the dinosaurs.”
These scientists are saying, in effect, that a war fought with nuclear weapons is a game of Russian roulette with bullets in all chambers. Nuclear war, in short, is tantamount to mass suicide. If we choose to believe this science has any credence at all, and if we wish to bequeath a habitable planet to our offspring, then we had better start mounting a much louder cry to abolish these dreadful weapons.

There WILL Be a Nuclear Winter (Rev 16:10)

retro-nuclear-winter-videoSixteenByNine1050CU Boulder researcher seeks to extend understanding of nuclear winter
By Charlie Brennan Staff Writer
POSTED: Friday, July 21, 2017 – 6:25 p.m.
UPDATED: TODAY
CU Boulder researcher seeks to extend understanding of nuclear winter
President-elect Donald Trump in December grabbed the attention of nuclear weapons experts and others across the world by commenting in a television interview, “Let it be an arms race.”
Speaking to MSNBC “Morning Joe” co-host Mika Brzezinski — at a time before talk of Brzezinski’s supposed face-lift took over their dialogue — Trump said to her, “We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.”
White House spokesman Sean Spicer the next day tempered those remarks, saying, “There’s not going to be (an arms race) because he’s going to ensure that other countries get the message that he’s not going to sit back and allow that.”
The idea of an arms race conjures in some minds a heightened possibility that a nuclear power might actually unleash the most devastating weaponry known to humanity. Those fears have not been quieted by North Korea’s successful test earlier this month of an intercontinental ballistic missile that appeared capable of hitting Alaska and Hawaii. The test was framed by the United States as a “dangerous escalation” of serious tensions between the two countries.
Against that backdrop, researchers and students at the University of Colorado and Rutgers University are studying the human and environmental impacts of a potential nuclear war, using the most advanced scientific tools available
CU Professor Brian Toon and Rutgers Professor Alan Robock are hardly new to their subject matter, having been among those involved in the initial research that revealed the potential for nuclear winter, showing that the effects would last more than a decade, with smoke from nuclear conflagrations rising as high as 25 miles into the atmosphere.
Toon, at CU’s Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, said their new study is intended to calculate for the first time the impacts of nuclear war on agriculture, on the oceanic food chain and on humans, as well as migration activity and food availability.
Toon, 70, had taken note of Trump’s comments in December, but said they were not without precedent for the president.
“I think it’s a great concern. There’s no evidence that the administration knows about the consequences of nuclear conflict,” Toon said. Referencing an exchange reported in August 2016 by Brzezinski’s partner, Joe Scarborough, Toon added, “Trump has made a number of comments, (such as) why couldn’t he just bomb ISIS with nuclear weapons? What good are nuclear weapons if you can’t use them?”
Ice age temperatures’
Toon was a co-author — along with Carl Sagan and others — in 1983 on “Nuclear Winter: Global Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions.”
Termed the TTAPS study — an acronym taken from the authors’ last names — it coined the term “nuclear winter,” advancing the theory that uncontrolled fires would send hundreds of millions of tons of smoke and soot into the atmosphere, ultimately blocking out the sun and plunging surface temperatures by 20 to 40 degrees Celsius for a prolonged period of time.
While noting that he doesn’t believe Trump has given the issue a lot of thought, Toon said, “To be fair, I don’t think Obama gave it very much thought, either. I think he was aware of the problems. But there is no indication that the Department of Defense wants the American public to think about this kind of thing.”
He is well into his fourth decade of doing just that.
“A full-scale war between Russia and the U.S. would cause basically ice age temperatures on the planet,” said Toon, a professor in CU’s Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences and a recognized contributor to the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize that went to former Vice President Al Gore and the International Panel on Climate Change.
“It would be below freezing at our latitude for several years — even in the middle of the summer. It would stop all agriculture at mid latitude. This would lead to starvation. … There would be nothing to eat, basically, and people would starve to death.”
Alluding to the Book of Genesis and its reference to Joseph laying away a seven-year supply of grain, Toon said mankind is not nearly so well prepared.
“The reality is there is grain on hand for 60 days, and after 60 days, there is nothing left to eat,” he said. Citing one of three critical global flash points for potential nuclear war, he added, “Mass starvation is going to occur if India and Pakistan get into a war. …We’ve predicted a billion or two billion people could die of starvation in a war induced by India and Pakistan.”
The other two areas of global concern — in terms of potential nuclear conflict — that he discussed were North Korea and Russia’s possibly testing its influence beyond Ukraine in eastern Europe.
The role of scientists
The researchers are using supercomputers and sophisticated climate models developed by Boulder’s National Center for Atmospheric Research to calculate the amount of fuel fires in urban centers and how much smoke might be produced by nuclear blasts. They are also using world food trade and agricultural models to project the impact on crops and potential widespread famine from a nuclear war.
His years of work in this field leave him convinced he knows the bottom line.
“The surviving population on Earth would be hundreds of millions,” as opposed to the 7.5 billion who currently inhabit Earth. “The vast majority of the people would starve to death.”
And bringing the issue to Coloradans’ front door, Toon pointed out that about 450 of the United States’ deployed nuclear warheads are situated in silos ranging from Colorado’s northeastern plains through Wyoming, Montana and Nebraska.
“So, that’s a central target of a first strike, and those missiles are sitting there with launch-on-warning status, which is extremely dangerous because that means that if the president senses a launch by the Russians or someone else, then those missiles are meant to be launched within 10s of minutes,” he said.
“This is an invitation to error. There are many examples of us coming close to nuclear war because of mistaken indications of launch, or something else.”
Ball Aerospace, IBM, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Lockheed Martin and even the University of Colorado, he said, all help make the Boulder-Denver area an inviting target, he said.
But the focus of the new project — funded by a three-year, $3 million grant from the Open Philanthropy Project headquartered in San Francisco and including numerous additional partners — is global, not local.
Asked about the political implications of his work, Toon pointed out that President Ronald Reagan acknowledged the research concerning nuclear winter in 1985 and that concern shared by Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev helped push the eventual reduction in a onetime global nuclear arsenal of 77,000 weapons down to its present-day inventory of about 15,000 held by nine countries.
“That is the role of scientists — if they find something of importance, to tell the United States, to tell the government about it. It’s the role of the government to do something,” Toon said.
“That’s why we keep pursuing this. This is an important problem. It could have a huge impact on human civilization, and it is the government’s job to understand it and to do something about it.”

Why Worry About Global Warming When There Will Be A Nuclear Winter

Nuclear Weapons Are Much More Dangerous Than Global Warming

2014-11-26-Hiroshima.jpg
Hiroshima after the nuclear attack. The buildings burned, producing smoke. Multiple attacks, with much larger current bombs, could produce devastating global cooling.

Posted: 12/01/2014 12:24 pm EST Updated: 12/01/2014 12:59 pm EST

Skeptical Science is a great website that debunks global warming deniers. But their home page has a box counting up the amount of energy trapped by greenhouse gases in units of Hiroshima atomic bomb energy. While strictly correct, in the sense that the amount of energy released by the horrendous, genocidal attack on Hiroshima, Japan, on August 6, 1945, the equivalent of the explosion of 15,000 tons of TNT, is the same as that accumulated at Earth’s surface every fourth of a second by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, I find that this trivializes the horror of nuclear war.
I am not writing this to criticize global warming theory. I have been doing climate research for 40 years, since Professor Edward Lorenz recommended the study of climate as a Ph.D. topic for me in 1974. In 1978 I published the first transient climate model simulation of the warming response to increasing CO2 (Internally and externally caused climate change. J. Atmos. Sci., 35, 1111-1122). And I often explain the problem in the 10 words of Yale’s Anthony Leiserowitz: “It’s real. It’s us. Scientists agree. It’s bad. There’s hope.” But we do not need to shock and mislead people with the effects of nuclear weapons to solve this problem.
Nuclear bombs do more than release thermal energy, and their potential impact on climate far outweighs anything else humans could do to our climate. The blast, fires, and radioactivity would kill millions of people if dropped on modern cities. The direct casualties from just three weapons of the size used on Hiroshima, exploding on U.S. cities would cause more casualties than the U.S. experienced in World War II. But the smoke from the fires would cause the largest impact on humans.
I described the climatic effects of nuclear war and the continuing nuclear winter problem in a previous Huffington Post blog. To summarize, the current Russian and American nuclear arsenals can still produce a nuclear winter, with temperatures plummeting below freezing in the summer, sentencing most of the world to famine and starvation. Even a war between two new nuclear powers, say India and Pakistan, could put a billion people could be at risk of starvation from the agricultural impacts of the smoke from the fires that could be generated.
Nuclear weapons are useless. They would never be used on purpose by the major powers, but could be used by accident. Some countries might use them in a moment of panic, or in response to imagined threats and insults, or in a fit of religious hysteria. The arsenals of nuclear weapons states set a bad example for the world, encouraging proliferation. And they could kill us all.
Now that President Obama is feeling freer to do the right thing, rather than spending hundreds of billions of dollars to modernize our nuclear arsenal, he can rapidly reduce it, to make the U.S and the world safer, and to save us money for much more productive uses.
The time is now to ban nuclear weapons so we have the luxury of worrying about global warming.
For more information on this topic, click here and watch my 18-minute TEDx talk, here.

Preparing For Nuclear Winter (Revelation 15)

https://i1.wp.com/graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2016/04/01/multimedia/retro-nuclear-winter/retro-nuclear-winter-videoSixteenByNine1050.jpgHow to survive a nuclear winter
Posted on May 6, 2017 by energyskeptic
[ Clearly you’d want to move to Australia or New Zealand or stockpile 5 years of food. Related posts:
Nuclear winter: World-wide ozone loss from small nuclear war = 1 billion + deaths
The EMP Commission estimates a nationwide blackout lasting one year could kill up to 9 of 10 Americans through starvation, disease, and societal collapse
Alice Friedemann http://www.energyskeptic.com author of “When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, 2015, Springer and “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”. Podcasts: Practical Prepping, KunstlerCast 253, KunstlerCast278, Peak Prosperity , XX2 report ]
Extracts from: Robock, A. 2010. Nuclear winter. Climate change 1418-1427.
Survivors face not only radiation but high levels of toxic chemicals from plastics, asphalt, oil refineries, forests, and so on.
The global average cooling, of about 1.25 C, would last for several years, and even after 10 years the temperature would still be 0.5 C colder than normal.
These numbers might not seem like much, but even during the Little Ice Age, global temperatures were only about 0.5 C below normal. Every once in a while large volcanic eruptions produce temporary cooling for a year or two. The largest of the past 500 years, the 1815 Tambora eruption in Indonesia, produced global cooling of about 0.5 C for a year.
Year 1816 became known as the ‘Year Without a Summer’ or ‘18 hundred and froze to death’. There were crop-killing frosts every month of the summer in New England. The price of grain skyrocketed, the price of livestock plummeted as farmers sold the animals they could not feed, and a mass migration westward from the US East Coast across the Appalachians to the Midwest began. In Europe, widespread famines occurred and the weather was so cold, dark, and gloomy that Mary Shelley was inspired to write Frankenstein in 1816. A nuclear war could trigger declines in yield nearly everywhere at once, with strong impacts on the global agricultural trading system.
The most important consequence of nuclear winter for humans is the disruption of food supplies. 8 This comes from environmental disruptions that reduce or completely wipe out agricultural production and the disruption of the distribution mechanisms.
Not only would it be virtually impossible to grow food for 4–5 years after a 150-Mt nuclear holocaust, but it would also be impossible to obtain food from other countries. In addition to the disruption of food, there would be many other stresses for any surviving people. These would include the lack of medical supplies and personnel, high levels of pollution and radioactivity, psychological stress, rampant diseases and epidemics, and enhanced UV-B.
There are many ways that agriculture is vulnerable to nuclear winter. The cold and the dark alone are sufficient to kill many crops. Superimposed on the average cooling would be large variations. During the summer of 1816 in New England, there were killing frosts in each summer month. Only 1 day with the temperatures below freezing is enough to kill rice crops. Colder temperatures mean shorter growing seasons, and also slower maturation of crops; the combination results in much lower yields. Most of the grains that are grown in mid-latitudes, such as corn, are actually of tropical origin, and will only grow in summer-like conditions. For example, a study done in Canada shows that with summer temperatures only 3 C below normal, spring wheat production would halt. Insufficient precipitation would also make agriculture difficult.
The tremendous productivity of the grain belt of the US and Canada feeds not only those countries but also many in the rest of the world where normal climate variability often results in reduced harvests. This productivity is the result of modern farming techniques that allow a tiny percentage of the population to produce more than enough for the rest. To do this, tremendous energy subsidies are needed. Farmers depend on fuel for their machinery, fertilizer, and pesticides, none of which would be available or distributed in the aftermath of a war.
Furthermore, insects have a higher tolerance for radiation and the stresses that would follow than do their predators, such as birds. Whatever might grow would be eaten by pests, already a significant problem in today’s production.
Also, the seeds that are in use were designed to yield high productivity assuming the current climate and inputs of chemicals and energy as discussed above. These seeds would not grow well in a radically altered growing environment.
Our dependence on technology is such that if every human in the US went out to the fields to try to raise crops with manual labor, and if they knew what they were doing, and if they had enough food to eat, and if they were healthy, they still could not produce what is produced today.
Thus, most of the world’s people are threatened with starvation following a full-scale nuclear war. The number that would survive depends on how much food is in storage and how much could be produced locally. Earlier studies of various countries around the world conclude that even with extremely optimistic assumptions of perfect distribution systems within countries, 8 that each person who will survive becomes a vegetarian and eats the minimum needed for survival, and the others waste none of the food, that nations in Asia, Africa and South America could only last 1–2 months. In many nations, people would be reduced to a hunter/gatherer existence with nothing to hunt and precious little to gather.
The effects on health would add to the misery. Immune deficiencies can be produced by any of the following: burns and trauma, radioactivity, malnutrition, psychological stress, and UV-B radiation. All of these would be present for the survivors in the target nations.
Pollution from dioxins, PCBs, asbestos, and other chemicals will make the air unhealthy to breath. Severe psychological stress will prevent the survivors from making the efforts to continue to exist.
One might think that the ocean shore would be a good place to survive because the temperatures would not fall as much, and there would be plenty of food to catch. Although the ocean would not cool very fast, the darkness would decimate the phytoplankton, which are at the base of the oceanic food chain. That, combined with toxic and radioactive pollution, would severely limit the food sources in the oceans. Furthermore, the large temperature contrasts between the oceans and the land would produce strong storms that would make fishing difficult at best.
Citizens in Australia and New Zealand have the best chance to survive.
The good news: Earth will not be plunged into an ice age. Ice sheets, which covered North America and Europe only 18,000 years ago and were more than 3-km thick, take many thousands of years to build up from annual snow layers, and the climatic disruptions would not last long enough to produce them. The oxygen consumption by the fires would be inconsequential, as would the effect on the atmospheric greenhouse by carbon dioxide production.

The Reality That Is Nuclear Prophecy (Revelation 15)


Nuclear Proliferation – An Expanding and Frightening Reality
Nuclear Proliferation – An Expanding and Frightening Reality
By Jeffrey T. Fowler, Ph.D.
Faculty Member, School of Security and Global Studies, American Military University
Several major factors are contributing to today’s social, political and military instability. The world population has increased and is expected to reach approximately 9.9 billion by mid-century. That represents a 33% increase from 2016.
Similarly, climate change is projected to cause worldwide temperatures to rise from 2 to 9.7 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. Also, natural resources continue to dwindle.
When we add to this mix the continued proliferation of nuclear weapons and technology by rogue states such as North Korea and Iran, it is not difficult to envision terrorist groups obtaining nuclear materials or technology at some point in the future.
The Foundations of Nuclear Instability
During the Cold War, nuclear capability was strictly controlled by and limited to only a few nations. The leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union understood the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). They comprehended that the use of their nuclear arsenals might well cause total destruction of both nations.
However, the weapons developed during the Cold War included small nuclear devices designed for tactical use on the battlefield or for repelling an invasion. They were typically in the hands of specially trained engineers or U.S. and Soviet special forces.
As a senior technician on a nuclear fire team in Europe in the 1970s, I had access to two now-declassified systems. One of them, the Special Atomic Demolitions Munition (SADM), was small enough to be carried in a backpack. The second system was the Medium Atomic Demolition Munition (MADM), which was transported on a special truck.
The SADM and MADM systems were used by special combat engineer units to create barriers to a Soviet advance into Western Europe. The Soviets created equally small tactical nuclear weapons, including one type that supposedly could fit in a suitcase or briefcase.
While there is debate over the existence of small, easily portable nuclear devices outside the hands of nation-state actors, three non-state groups have been identified as seeking to gain nuclear expertise. They are Chechen separatists in Russia, Al-Qaeda and the Japanese group Aum Shinrikyo. In regard to terrorist or criminal organizations, one can only imagine the infinite ways to use these small nuclear devices.
The Soviet Collapse and Nuclear Proliferation
Two major factors that led to nuclear proliferation were the collapse of the Soviet Union and the theft – and subsequent sale – of nuclear knowledge by Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan (A.Q. Khan) of Pakistan.
The Cold War ended in 1991 when the Soviet Union imploded. At the end of the Cold War, Soviet nuclear warheads were stationed in three former Soviet republics that became independent states – Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan.
Approximately 35,000 nuclear warheads were scattered across seven time zones. Those nuclear weapons did not include 22,000 smaller nuclear devices for battlefield and tactical use stored in all 15 former Soviet republics.
The Soviet regime had created an elite class composed of bureaucrats, scientists and military personnel who now found their vaunted status in jeopardy, both figuratively and economically.
The Soviet system flourished on bribes and corruption, even when the Soviets were at the height of their power. Living in a corrupt system and having access to all sorts of conventional and unconventional weapons, coupled with the survival instinct of self and family, prompted former Soviet officials to justify selling their knowledge, raw materials or even weapons to the highest bidder.
Ostensibly, all of the weapons, both strategic and tactical, have been accounted for and either destroyed or placed back in the hands of Russian Federation authorities. But not everyone agrees with this benign assessment.
Even assuming that the small tactical nuclear devices are all accounted for, there remains the possibility of the theft or sale of weapons-grade fissile materials. There is also the possibility of some nuclear physicists using their in-depth knowledge to instruct others on how to build such a device.
Russia’s immense and highly active nexus of government and organized crime is a major concern in this regard. As of 2004, it was estimated that approximately 600 metric tons of highly enriched uranium remained under inadequate security in Russia. In the post-Cold War period of lawlessness, Russia was not the only candidate for possible illicit nuclear proliferation.
Khan and the Proliferation of Nuclear Technology in the Middle East
Pakistan figures prominently in the proliferation of nuclear knowledge around the world, including North Korea. Pakistan achieved its independence from India in 1947. It then fought two wars with India in 1948 and again in 1965.
Living in the shadow of its gigantic neighbor, it is not surprising that Pakistan viewed India as its biggest threat to national security. The question was how to achieve an edge. A nuclear armed Pakistan was the answer. Enter Dr. Khan.
In 1972, Khan went to work at the Physical Dynamic Research Laboratory (FDO) in the Netherlands. FDO is a subcontractor to Ultra Centrifuge Netherlands (UCN), a Dutch firm within Urenco, a uranium enrichment conglomerate.
Despite surveillance by Dutch and American intelligence, Khan was allowed to travel to Pakistan in 1975. He carried stolen blueprints for atomic centrifuges and critical contact data on firms supplying centrifuge components.
The Pakistani regime allowed him to create nuclear enrichment centrifuges allegedly using a Chinese model. As a result, Pakistan produced enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon in the 1980s. Pakistan also admits to shipping some centrifuges to Iran.
Khan then began to construct an international network of suppliers. The network was discovered in 2003 when Italian authorities seized a German vessel carrying 1,000 nuclear centrifuges to Libya’s then-dictator Muammar el-Qaddafi.
Khan’s activities included supplying Pakistani centrifuges to the North Koreans in return for ballistic missile technology. There were also suspicions that the Khan network had dealings with Al-Qaeda.
Khan believed the nuclear “club” wanted to keep less-developed countries from gaining nuclear weapons. He may also have had a purely selfish economic motive. He was ultimately placed under house arrest in Pakistan and released in 2009. Since then, Pakistani authorities have not allowed Western authorities to question Khan about his activities.
The Global Future Remains Uncertain Due to Nuclear Instability
It is difficult to know what the future holds, but certainly the world is a more dangerous place today than it was during the Cold War. The reason for this situation is increased nuclear instability, stemming from the proliferation of nuclear knowledge used by rogue regimes such as North Korea to produce nuclear weapons.
According to a Rand study, “most recent open-source estimates suggest North Korea may already have enough fissile material to build between 13 and 21 nuclear weapons; by 2020, it could possess enough for 50 to 100.” In essence, the North Koreans have presented the world, and especially its neighbors South Korea and Japan, with a fait accompli.
How Will Iran Use the Enormous Influx of Cash from the US Nuclear Pact?
Opinions in the West vary as to the value of the Iran nuclear deal. The U.S. has released large amounts of cash and gold and $400 million from previously frozen Iranian assets to Tehran, ostensibly to ensure the freedom of American hostages. How will Iran use that enormous influx of cash?
Iran also has a supply of uranium. Just before he left office, President Barack Obama and other U.S. allies agreed to allow the Russian Federation to ship 130 tons of raw uranium to Iran.
The Iranian regime’s hardliners have been vocal enemies of the West for many years and it does not appear that lifting sanctions has changed their minds.
Rogue states in possession of nuclear weapons, such as Iran, is a great concern. But extremist groups obtaining nuclear technology and weapons is an even greater cause for alarm.
After the November 2015 Paris terrorist attacks, video of a Belgian nuclear official found in the apartment of one of the terrorists involved raised alarms. A NATO review of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and the Islamic State of Iran and the Levant (ISIL) indicated that they are potential nuclear threats.
Rising world populations, climate change and dwindling natural resources are likely to create social, political and military instability this century. Adding the global war on terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear technology in rogue states, we will be living in “interesting times” indeed, as the ancient Chinese curse says.
About the Author
Jeffrey T. Fowler, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor in the School of Security and Global Studies at American Military University. He holds a B.A. in law enforcement from Marshall University, an M.A. in military history from Vermont College of Norwich University and a Ph.D. in business administration with a concentration in criminal justice from Northcentral University. Jeffrey is also a published author, a former New York deputy sheriff and a retired Army Captain with more than 20 years of service.

Russia Nuclear Horn Refuses to Back Down

RUSSIA: Vladimir Putin warned the US that missiles in Alaska heighten the threat of nuclear war
The Russian leader laid down the ultimatum as he promised Russian military build-up will continue in the face of US missiles deployments in Alaska and Europe.
Putin warned the US missiles defence systems are “one of the most serious problems in modern times”.
Putin said: “While what we are doing is of local nature, what the US is doing in Alaska is of global nature. A missile defense system is being developed there.
“This system is one of the most serious problems of the modern times in the security sphere. It’s not just a defense system, it’s a part of the nuclear potential brought to the periphery.”
He added: “This is not something that prevents a nuclear missile attack, but something that minimises the so-called retaliatory strike.”
Putin stressed Russia doesn’t intend to be at war or compete with the US – but would respond to threats from the Pentagon.
But he called for “cooperation” between the powers – as US President Donald Trump is thought to want to warm up relations with Russia.
Putin said: “Russia and the US are nuclear powers. We have a special responsibility to the planet, to the international community for the international security.
“Of course, the sooner we establish cooperation in the military sphere, the better.”

Russia Fears US Nuclear Threat

Russia warns that US missiles based in Europe are increasing the risk of a nuclear war
By Dailymail.com Reporter 11:56 EDT 28 Mar 2017, updated 13:06 EDT 28 Mar 2017
Russia warned US deployment of THAAD was a threat to world security
It also warned that the anti-missile system would spark a new arms race
US has deployed THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) missile system in South Korea in response to North Korea’s provocative ballistic missile tests
Russia has warned the US deployment of an anti-missile system will spark a new arms race and was a threat to world security designed to contain Russia and China.
The US has deployed its THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) missile system in South Korea in response to North Korea’s increasingly provocative ballistic missile tests.
It is designed to shoot down short, medium and intermediate range ballistic missiles.
The reclusive state has conducted five nuclear tests and a series of missile launches in defiance of UN resolutions.
Shoots down short and medium-range ballistic missiles in the terminal phase of their flight
  • Uses hit-to-kill technology – where kinetic energy destroys the incoming warhead
  • Has a range of 200km and can reach an altitude of 150km
  • US has previously deployed it in Guam and Hawaii as a measure against potential attacks from North Korea
Viktor Poznikhir told a disarmament conference in Genev: ‘The presence of the global ABM [anti-ballistic missile] system lowers the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons, because it gives the US the illusion of impunity for using strategic offensive weapons from under the protection of the ABM “umbrella”.
‘The ABM shield is a symbol of the build-up of rocket forces in the world and a trigger for a new arms race.’
The Russian defence ministry also said it regarded US naval patrols in the Black Sea as a potential threat to its safety, because it was unclear what kind of missiles the ships were carrying.
Russia, which illegally annexed Ukraine’s Crimea in 2014, has its own Black Sea Fleet based at Sevastopol.
THAAD is designed to shoot down short, medium and intermediate range ballistic missiles
Earlier this month, North Korea fired ballistic missiles that landed in the sea less than 200 miles off the northwestern coast of Japan.
The incident was one of the numerous military tests conducted by the despotic state, which has expanded its ballistic and nuclear missile capability in the wake of what it views as US and South Korean aggression.
Pyongyang insists that it needs nuclear weapons for self-defence against ‘hostile enemies’.
South Korean and U.S. troops began the large-scale joint drills on March 1 that the North calls an invasion rehearsal.
US moves parts of missile defence equipment to South Korea

The Nuclear Winter (Revelation 16:10)

Nuclear Famine

Daryl Williams 17 April 2016, 1:00pm
EnvironmentScience

(Image via en.wikipedia.org.)
THE COLD WAR is over, the Berlin Wall has fallen, nuclear warhead numbers have declined significantly — so the threat of nuclear catastrophe has passed, right?
Well, sadly no.
In fact, things may be more dangerous today than at the height of the Cold War.
Computer simulations of the indirect climate effects of even a “small” regional nuclear exchange indicate that the whole world would still be imperiled.
A recent 16-page scientific paper, ‘Multidecadal global cooling and unprecedented ozone loss following a ‘regional nuclear conflict‘, by Mills, Toon, Lee-Taylor and Robock, outlines the horrific unexpected consequences. Once you boil down the “science-speak” it paints a bleak picture – via an “Earth system model” which includes atmospheric chemistry, ocean dynamics and interactive sea ice and land components – which we should do everything we can to avoid.
It deserves far more attention than it has received and its findings should be informing our foreign, defence and emergency management policies. In summary, the scenario it simulates is as follows:
The black carbon heats the stratosphere (by up to an amazing 80 degrees C) and cools the lower atmosphere and surface (by 1.1 degrees C in the first four years, down to 1.6 degrees in the fifth year, slowly rising to 0.25 to 0.5 degrees 20 years later). The colder surface temperatures reduce precipitation by 6% globally for the first five years and still by 4.5% one decade on.
Oh, and hundreds of millions of Indians and Pakistanis would be incinerated to death … but let’s concentrate on the long-term climate repercussions.
It is the combination of dramatic extended drops in surface temperatures termed ‘the coldest average surface temperatures in the last 1000 years’ and precipitation with a dramatic increase in UV radiation.
That spells big trouble for Earth in the form of
That is,
As well, ‘… the average growing season is reduced by up to 40 days throughout the world’s agricultural zones over these five years’. The increased UV-B radiation would reduce plant height, shoot mass and foliage area, damage DNA and significantly increase insect losses. A 16% loss of ozone could reduce phytolankton levels in the ocean by 15%, resulting in a loss of seven million tons of fish per year.
The report also states:
And yet, I didn’t read anything about this in the 2016 Defence White Paper or in any plans by Emergency Management Australia. Why not?
The above effects are globally averaged figures. Regional extremes can be worse. Large areas of continental landmasses would experience significantly greater cooling than average:
Which is worse than any volcanic winter in the last 1000 years. There would be significant regional drying over the Asian Monsoon region, including the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia, as well as the Amazon, the American South-East and Western Australia — which would be 20% to 60% drier.
All from a “minor” nuclear exchange  between India and Pakistan. Amazing, no?
Given the consequences found and the quality of the work (state-of-art climate model with stratospheric chemistry included) it is hard to understand why governments, the media and most of all, the public ignored its findings.
The report gives no estimates of death tolls but suggests they would be huge.
Another report, ‘Nuclear Famine: Two Billion People at Risk?’ by Dr Ira Helfand, puts
And this may be conservative, as possible cascading effects from social breakdown, disorder, military actions, migration upheavals don’t seem to have been considered.
In terms of probability (one in 100 year chance?) times impact (hundreds of millions dead, collapsed world economy, radioactive fallout), this problem dwarfs all other natural and man-made disasters.
Sadly, public awareness of nuclear famine seems minimal. The handful of videos on YouTube on the subject have very few views. For instance, the video Nuclear Famine by Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has had only 8490 views while Nuclear Famine – a Billion People at Risk by Physicians for Social Responsibility has had only 314 views … over three years!
We need to be more aware and if enough people make the effort, perhaps we can put these serious problems on the map and hopefully progress towards a nuclear-famine-free world.
As Winston Churchill said:

Nuclear Winter Is Unavoidable (Revelation 8:10)

10:47 09.12.2014(updated 11:37 09.12.2014)
VIENNA, December 9 (Sputnik), Daria Chernyshova — In the event if a nuclear war breaks out in one region of the Earth, the entire planet would suffer grave consequences, characterized by falling temperatures, less precipitation and reduced sunlight, Mike Mills, a scientist at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, told Sputnik Tuesday.
“Even if the nuclear war happened in one part of the planet – India and Pakistan – the whole globe would be affected by the temperatures dropping, precipitating dropping, sunlight dropping and also the amount of harmful ultra-violet would increase, because of the ozone layer,” Mills said on the sidelines of the Vienna Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons.He described a scenario where after an initial explosion cities would be engulfed by giant firestorms, like those seen during World War II – in Tokyo and Hiroshima.
Heat from the sun would encourage smoke from the fires to rise up into the stratosphere, where the ozone layer is. Since weather features like rain do not occur this high up in the atmosphere, the smoke could not be simply washed away by rain, like it would lower down. Thus it could remain in the stratosphere for years, absorbing sunlight, preventing it from reaching the surface of the Earth. As a result, temperatures at the surface would drop and precipitation patterns would be affected. This in turn would have an impact on agriculture and ecosystems, leading to reductions in crop production, which in turn could give rise to a global famine.
Mills pointed out that as long as countries possess nuclear weapons, it is not a question if they will be used, but when.
“You know that governments change, and relations between countries can change; and as long as we possess the ability to annihilate each other and pose this catastrophic risk to the survival of our species and others on the planet, if we gave as long enough time, they would be used, eventually. Right now there is an increasing number of countries with nuclear weapons and that increases the risk of conflict between different nuclear armed states exponentially,” Mills told Sputnik urging to reverse that.
He stressed that nuclear powers are not doing enough to eliminate nuclear weapons. For instance, the new START treaty signed in 2010 between the United States and Russia, did not consider the climatic consequences of nuclear war. Mills pointed out the need to raise awareness about the risks of a nuclear winter, as in his view, greater awareness would put more pressure on governments to push for disarmament.“You really can’t ignore the impact on humanity of that kind of a war, and if someone were to say – well, we don’t care what happens to human beings after nuclear war, we have to question that kind of leadership whether it is coming from the military or diplomats,” Mills said adding that the well-being of society should be at the forefront of international leaders’ minds.
The Vienna Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons is taking place on December 8-9 in Hofburg Palace in the Austrian capital. Its aim is to promote nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation. According to the conference’s organization committee, over 16,000 nuclear warheads still exist, many of which are on “high alert”.

The Horns Line Up For Nuclear War (Daniel)

William Bullitt accompanied President Woodrow Wilson and Colonel Edward House to Paris to negotiate an ambitious peace treaty after the carnage of World War I. Reflecting on the handiwork of vengeful allies in the Versailles Treaty, Bullitt prophetically declared, “This isn’t a treaty of peace… I can see at least eleven wars in it.” The victors in World War II did far better, establishing a progressive international order that fostered economic progress and helped prevent wars between major powers for over half a century.
This international order is under great strain, challenged by pervasive anxiety, growing inequality, regional flash points, anemic economies, and ceaseless refugee flows from war-torn areas. Lesser despots have fallen, opening up ungoverned spaces, while secular strongmen have arisen in lynchpin states like India, Israel, Egypt, the Philippines, and Turkey. Confident leaders have also taken up residence in Washington, Moscow, and Beijing, promising to cure national ailments while building up arms.
These developments play out against a backdrop of declining American standing and increasing domestic divisions since decisively winning the Cold War and easily toppling Saddam Hussein. In retrospect, the 9/11 attacks were a major pivot point. Overreach followed. Subsequent ill-advised and ill-executed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan sapped America’s strength, treasury, and influence. President George W. Bush’s crusade to extend Democracy worldwide is now a distant memory.
Relations between major powers are now strained as Vladimir Putin pushes back against NATO expansion and President Xi Jinping seeks dominion over the East and South China Seas. Add to this the black-swan event of Donald Trump’s election, facilitated by Russian hacking, the FBI Director’s interventions, voters who cast ballots for Trump assuming he wouldn’t win and voters who declined to vote for Hillary Clinton, assuming she would.
Republicans on Capitol Hill now widely dismiss the value of diplomacy to reduce nuclear dangers, which President Donald Trump could well accentuate. The prophetic voices of our time might well be those of Mikhail Gorbachev and William J. Perry. Gorbachev, in an essay in Time magazine, bemoans “the militarization of politics,” arms buildups, and leaders who are bellicose, confused, or “at a loss.” Gorbachev warns, “It all looks as if the world is preparing for war.” Perry warns against missiles and warheads that can be launched very quickly and that foster greater illusions of fighting and winning nuclear wars.
At this juncture, it is hard to envision actions to stop this slide, let alone to convince Washington and other capitals to take them. Gorbachev calls on leaders of states with nuclear weapons to gather under the auspices of the United Nations to declare, as he and President Ronald Reagan did in a 1985 Geneva summit that, “Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” Those who deride rhetorical gestures of this sort have forgotten, or didn’t experience the bellicose rhetoric and the dangerous nuclear competition of the early 1980s. This joint statement paved the way for these unorthodox leaders to break the back of the nuclear arms race.
Since the United States and Russia adhere to nuclear doctrines allowing first use, it would be useful for Trump and Putin to publicly reaffirm this statement. The leaders of China, India and Pakistan – all poised to significantly expand their nuclear arms capabilities – could be encouraged to join them.
Important pledges can lose their effect unless backed up by deeds. My view, as readers of these posts well know, is that the single most symbolic and practical step that states possessing nuclear weapons could take would be to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which bans all nuclear testing for all time. Only three nuclear-armed states have done so—Russia, Great Britain, and France. The United States, China, and Israel have signed but not ratified the Treaty; India, Pakistan, and North Korea haven’t even signed. All are needed for the Treaty to enter into force, lending new credence to global non-proliferation efforts. A chain of ratifications can begin with the United States, followed by China, India, Pakistan, and Israel. President Obama couldn’t hope to gain the necessary Senate votes. President Trump could redefine himself and reduce nuclear dangers by doing so.
Note to readers: A version of this essay appeared in Defense One on February 15th.