The Defence Intelligence Agency chief has said it is “inevitable” that a nuclear weapon launched from North Korea would hit the US mainland.
Lieutenant General Vincent Stewart told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the possibility of an attack was very real after a recent nuclear missile test conducted by Pyongyang.Sponsored Ads
He warned that if the isolated country and its leader Kim Jong-un are left on the “current trajectory the regime will ultimately succeed.”
Vladimir Putin’s government continues to show signs that it would not hesitate to launch a nuclear war, two top analysts of Russian strategic thinking said at a recent Mitchell Institute Forum on Capitol Hill which I had the privilege to host.
Unlike the United States, nuclear weapons are “literally the number one military priority” for Russia’s government and security agencies, said speaker Mark Schneider, senior consultant at the National Institute for Public Policy.
Schneider insisted that the underlying problem is that the Russian attitude toward nuclear weapons, is “fundamentally different from ours.” Putin and the men around him, he said, are “aggressive, distinctly paranoid and have very little understanding of the rest of the world.”
The West has been frustrated since 2012 over Russia’s decision to violate the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty by testing a new ground-launched cruise missile. The treaty, which eliminated nearly 2,700 missiles on both sides, prohibits production or flight test of any such missiles with a range between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. According to public reports, the Russians now have gone beyond testing and deployed the missile, further violating the treaty.
It is now time to stop scolding and up the ante. There is no reason for Russia to deploy these missiles. The Russians face no serious threat from west, east, or south—no nation on the planet wants to attack Russia. While diplomacy should not be abandoned, it will have to be backed by the only type of power Russia really understands: principled strength. In fact, the treaty itself originated from the use of such power: President Ronald Reagan deployed nuclear-tipped ground-launched cruise missiles and Pershing II ballistic missiles to Europe in response to a previous Russian deployment. This U.S. deployment laid the groundwork for successful negotiation of the INF Treaty.
An especially elegant use of such power would avoid a tit-for-tat violation of or, worse, a withdrawal from the treaty. Rather, Russia should feel the pinch from a capability that lies well within international agreements (and a capability Russia itself possesses): a sea-based nuclear-armed cruise missile. This would require restoration of the Navy’s nuclear capability on Tomahawk cruise missiles in what was known as TLAM-Ns—Tomahawk land-attack missile-nuclear.
If you knew there were going to be a nuclear war with Russia in one year, what should the military do? More nuclear weapons would be nice. Not to make the rubble bounce, but rather to allow more strikes over several years. That way anybody surviving in a fallout shelter will eventually die when they come out.
” In June 2015, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work and then-Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral James Winnefeld observed, “Russian military doctrine includes what some have called an ‘escalate to de-escalate’ strategy—a strategy that purportedly seeks to de-escalate a conventional conflict through coercive threats, including limited nuclear use,” a policy they categorized as “playing with fire.” In March 2017, EUCOM commander General Custis Scaparrotti rightly noted that Russian nuclear doctrine was “just alarming.”
… High-level Russian nuclear threats are commonplace. …
Driven by a desire to enhance its nuclear and military capability, Russia is violating virtually all of the existing arms control treaties and conventions.
A 2016 article by Hans Kristensen and Robert Norris credits Russia with 2,600 actual deployed strategic nuclear warheads, mainly due to the undercounting of bomber weapons under New START. This number will almost certainly increase to over 3,000 and, perhaps, significantly more, with or without New START. In 2017, Kristensen and Norris estimated that the U.S. has 1,590 deployed strategic nuclear weapons.
According to the Military Doctrine of Russia, last updated in 2014, Russia reserves “the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy.”
What if Israel nukes Syria? Syria is an ally of Russia. Israel is an ally of the US. Does that that kind of event qualify for a nuclear response from Russia against the US? I think it possibly could qualify.
The U.S. has begun considering adding a new kinetic energy weapon to its arsenal in hopes of countering advances in Russian nuclear technology that could potentially threaten U.S. tactical military dominance.
Called the Kinetic Energy Projectile, the weapon is a tungsten-based warhead launched at more than three times the speed of sound that bursts into numerous flaming, metal fragments easily capable of piercing most conventional types of armor, according to Aviation Week. The Army is looking into fitting the new super-weapon onto existing launch platforms that are capable of supplying sufficient charge to shoot the projectile at such speeds. One reason for the weapon would be to respond to Russia’s pursuit of miniaturized nuclear warheads fired by tanks.
The threat posed by North Korea’s nuclear-weapons program is getting worse — much worse. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, meeting Thursday and Friday at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, face an urgent and growing problem that is more severe today than ever before.
Through 2015, Pyongyang likely had enough fissile material for only a small number of weapons, probably fewer than 20, which constrained North Korea’s nuclear options. North Korea, however, is busy increasing both its stocks of weapons-grade material and its capacity to make more.
Saudi Arabia is still believed to be seeking nuclear weapons technology in a bid to counter the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program, which continues to operate in an advanced manner despite the landmark nuclear agreement, according to a new report by a proliferation monitoring organization that labeled the Kingdom a nuclear “newcomer.”
“Saudi Arabia is in the early stages of nuclear development” and is expected to “more actively seek nuclear weapons capabilities” in order to counter the ongoing threat posed by Iran, according to the report.
North Korea is believed to have built and is operating a plant to produce lithium 6, a key ingredient for hydrogen bombs that are much more powerful than conventional nuclear weapons, a U.S. think tank claimed Friday.
The Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) said the plant appears be located at the Hungnam Chemical Complex near Hamhung on the North’s east coast. It cited a 2012 order the North placed in China to purchase large quantities of mercury and lithium hydroxide, key materials to produce lithium 6.
“Lithium 6 is a critical raw material needed for the production of single-stage thermonuclear and boosted fission weapons. These findings add credibility to North Korea’s claims that it has been developing thermonuclear or boosted fission weapons, regardless of the actual status of those efforts,” ISIS said in a report.
As Secretary of Defense under President Clinton, Bill Perry has spent most of his life watching the world prepare for nuclear war. And given the current political climate, he thinks the world isn’t nearly as scared as it should be.
All of this has experts, including Perry, worried about an era of renewed nuclear threat from jittery states and rogue actors. Perry often talks about his nightmare scenario: a small amount of enriched uranium falling into the hands of a terrorist group.
“I think of all of the nuclear catastrophes that could happen, this is the most probable,” the 89-year-old said. “I think, I would say, there’s probably an even chance, this would happen sometime in the next 10 years.”