Tag Archives: Nuclear Strike

Russia to keep a dozen ships in Mediterranean to protect its national security

Russia announced on Thursday that it will keep a fleet of about dozen navy ships in the Mediterranean Sea, a move President Vladimir Putin said is needed to protect his country’s national security.

Putin said the plan should not be seen as saber rattling, but it comes as Moscow is serving as a key ally and arms supplier to Syrian President Bashar Assad during that nation’s civil war. The only naval base that Russia has in the Mediterranean and anywhere outside the former Soviet Union is located in Syria.

Russia to keep around a dozen ships in Mediterranean, Putin says | Fox News

Back in 2009 Russia explained that it reserves the right of nuclear pre-emptive strike in the case of the country’s national security being threatened. And now we are finding out that the conflict in Syria affect’s Russia’s national security. That’s what Putin is telling us, anyway.

Sponsored Ads

So the conflict in Syria has the potential  to set off a great-power conflict. It just depends on how it plays out. Unfortunately, things might be going from bad to worse. Syria’s help from its allies is making a big difference. It is defeating the rebels, and it is threatening Israel. This war is threatening to suck in Israel. If Israel does get sucked into the war, then start worrying about a great-power conflict.

Russia reserves pre-emptive nuclear strike right

Russia in a new review of its policy on use of nuclear weapons will reserve the right to undertake a pre-emptive strike if it feels its security is endangered, a senior Kremlin official told a Russian newspaper.

[Published on Oct. 13, 2009.]

Russia reserves pre-emptive nuclear strike right

Russian Defence Chief flags pre-emptive strike

Nuclear Weapons: How Few Is Too Few? – Forbes

Let’s hope this latest effort to limit nuclear weapons turns out better than Obama’s gun-control initiatives in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook tragedy.  However, there is good reason to believe it won’t, and for much the same reason that the National Rifle Association says gun control is a bad idea: if guns are illegal, then only criminals will have guns.  What’s the connection?  I’ll come back to that later, but first let me tell you a little bit about the Obama worldview.

[My comment: If you eliminate your nukes and your enemy cheats, then only your enemy will have nuclear weapons.]

Some supporters of nuclear disarmament describe our current approach to nuclear strategy as a failure of imagination that one day could lead to unprecedented catastrophe (proponents of missile defense often say the same thing).  However, it may be that what the Obama Administration has failed to imagine in its strategic calculations is just how bad the global situation might become if Russia’s next leader is a neo-fascist, or China decides to pursue regional hegemony.  There’s no way of knowing for sure when our efforts to shrink the nuclear arsenal cross the invisible line into greater vulnerability, but it may be we are already there today.

Nuclear Weapons: How Few Is Too Few? – Forbes

“There’s no way of knowing for sure when our efforts to shrink the nuclear arsenal cross the invisible line into greater vulnerability, but it may be we are already there today.”

We’ve already crossed the line. Here is the problem: Everybody assumes that our enemies are never willing to absorb one nuclear strike in retaliation. In one retaliatory nuclear strike the enemy’s leaders can survive, but the people take a hit. Would enemy leaders ever accept this?

What if enemy leaders are afraid of revolution? That means if they do nothing then they might die.

What if enemy leaders are afraid of stumbling into a nuclear war with the US? If they do nothing then they might die.

A US that can only retaliate one time might be a tempting target (right now) if given the right excuse. All other options for these leaders might be worse. Yes, their people take a hit, but the leaders will survive. And when was the last time totalitarian leaders put the people before themselves?

Finally, underground bunkers can ensure the survival of militaries and a few million citizens. Also, one might expect that around 90% to 95% of the population will die in a nuclear war. That still leaves 5% to 10% surviving. In China that is still a big number.

The key to preventing this is the ability to retaliate many times over many years. Then the leaders know that they themselves cannot survive.

Do you think that people who just experienced a massive crisis (World War II) just might have more wisdom about national security than a people who have never experienced one?

Scenario: Israel-Iran nuclear war

In those first minutes, they’ll be stunned. Eyes fixed in a thousand-yard stare, nerve endings numbed. They’ll just stand there. Soon, you’ll notice that they are holding their arms out at a 45-degree angle. Your eyes will be drawn to their hands and you’ll think you mind is playing tricks. But it won’t be. Their fingers will start to resemble stalactites, seeming to melt toward the ground. And it won’t be long until the screaming begins. Shrieking. Moaning. Tens of thousands of victims at once. They’ll be standing amid a sea of shattered concrete and glass, a wasteland punctuated by the shells of buildings, orphaned walls, stairways leading nowhere.

This could be Tehran, or what’s left of it, just after an Israeli nuclear strike.

Iranian cities — owing to geography, climate, building construction, and population densities — are particularly vulnerable to nuclear attack, according to a new study, “Nuclear War Between Israel and Iran: Lethality Beyond the Pale,” published in the journal Conflict & Health by researchers from the University of Georgia and Harvard University. It is the first publicly released scientific assessment of what a nuclear attack in the Middle East might actually mean for people in the region.

Its scenarios are staggering. An Israeli attack on the Iranian capital of Tehran using five 500-kiloton weapons would, the study estimates, kill seven million people — 86% of the population — and leave close to 800,000 wounded. A strike with five 250-kiloton weapons would kill an estimated 5.6 million and injure 1.6 million, according to predictions made using an advanced software package designed to calculate mass casualties from a nuclear detonation.

.:Middle East Online::Nuclear Terror in the Middle East: Lethality Beyond the Pale :.

The danger of dismissing North Korea’s nuclear threat – Washington Times

Prudence and common sense appear to be absent in the Obama administration and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, who during the current crisis with North Korea, falsely reassure the American people that Pyongyang cannot deliver on its threats to make a nuclear attack on the U.S. mainland.

North Korea could deliver a nuclear bomb in the hold of a freighter under a foreign flag to destroy a U.S. port city such as New York or Los Angeles. They could give a bomb to terrorist groups such as al Qaeda or Hezbollah to deliver by truck or plane across the porous U.S. border. They could use a false-flagged freighter to move a Scud or their medium-range Nodong missile close enough to make a nuclear strike on the U.S. mainland.

What about North Korea’s claim that it has long-range nuclear missiles that can strike the United States right now? If our current crop of leaders is as prudent as were President Dwight Eisenhower and Sen. Lyndon Johnson in 1957, they would warn the American people that North Korean nuclear threats to the U.S. heartland may be real.

PRY: The danger of dismissing North Korea’s nuclear threat – Washington Times

New threats suggest North Korea’s nukes work

The new direct threat from North Korea of a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the United States – while not surprising – suggests, experts say, the rogue nation actually now is close to placing a bomb aboard a three-stage missile, which is capable of reaching the western United States.

While some analysts still don’t believe North Korea has mastered the ability to mount a nuclear warhead on a ballistic missile, other experts believe North Korea made the threat of a pre-emptive nuclear attack on the United States because its Feb. 12 nuclear test proved to be a success toward the miniaturization of a nuclear weapon to be placed on its long-range missiles.

It took time, from the test until now, to analyze the data. The rogue nation is known to have conducted nuclear tests, as well tests on multiple stage rockets.

New threats suggest North Korea’s nukes work

North Korea threatens nuclear strike, U.N. expands sanctions | Top News | Reuters

A North Korean general said on Tuesday that Pyongyang was scrapping the armistice. But the two sides remain technically at war as the civil war did not end with a treaty.

North Korea threatens the United States and its “puppet,” South Korea, on an almost daily basis.

“Since the United States is about to ignite a nuclear war, we will be exercising our right to preemptive nuclear attack against the headquarters of the aggressor in order to protect our supreme interest,” the North’s foreign ministry spokesman said in a statement carried by the official KCNA news agency.

North Korea threatens nuclear strike, U.N. expands sanctions | Top News | Reuters

Chinese general who threatened nuclear strike on U.S. visits Washington this week

“If the Americans draw their missiles and position [sic]-guided ammunition onto the target zone on China’s territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” Zhu told reporters for the Financial Times and the Asian edition of the Wall Street Journal, according to their July 14, 2005, editions.

The comments raised questions within the Pentagon about the sincerity of China’s policy of not being the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict.

Zhu’s comments also were the most explicit statement of Chinese strategic intent since 1995 when another general, Xiong Guangkai, implicitly threatened to use nuclear arms against Los Angeles if the United States defended Taiwan in a conflict.

“If the Americans are determined to interfere … we will be determined to respond,” Zhu said.

Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner | Washington Free Beacon

China test fires new long-range missile | Washington Free Beacon

China’s military conducted the first flight test of a new long-range intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that U.S. officials say will be Beijing’s first strategic missile armed with multiple warheads.

The flight test of the DF-41 road-mobile ICBM occurred July 24 and is raising new concerns within the U.S. military and intelligence agencies over China’s long-range missile threat, according to officials familiar with reports of the test.

The DF-41 missile is a first-strike nuclear capability, based on its mobility, estimated range, targeting precision, and multiple warheads.

…,  the new ICBM is said by U.S. officials to be designed to hit U.S. targets with multiple nuclear warheads.

China has claimed it will not be the first to use nuclear weapons and that its nuclear forces are designed for a counterstrike against a nuclear attack on its territory.

China test fires new long-range missile | Washington Free Beacon

What does that mean – no first use of nuclear weapons?

China will not be the first to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear capable country. All bets are off against a nuclear capable country, like the US for example.

What if Israel uses nuclear weapons? Does that imply first use by the US?

Yes it does. All bets are off if Israel uses nuclear weapons against a chemical attack by its neighbors. The fact that it is defending itself is irrelevant. Both Russia and China can claim second use of nuclear weapons in any retaliation against the US in that scenario.

China also claims that its nuclear forces are for defensive purposes only. However, one can use their forces in a pre-emptive strike by claiming it was for defensive purposes. My defensive strategy is to strike you first before you are able to strike me. China can logically argue that it is obvious the US and China are on the path to war. China can then launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the US in defense.

I would love to know about the design of China’s warheads. Chinese agents have stolen our best warhead designs. It’s only appropriate that China nuke us with our own warhead designs.

The Cox Report

The Cox Report contained five major allegations about China and nuclear weapons.

  • China stole design information regarding the United States’ seven most advanced thermonuclear weapons.
  • These stolen secrets enabled the PLA to accelerate the design, development and testing of its own nuclear weapons.
  • China’s next generation of nuclear weapons would contain elements of stolen U.S. design information and would be comparable in effectiveness to the weapons used by the United States.
  • Small warheads based on stolen U.S. information could be ready for deployment in 2002 also enabling China to integrate MIRV technology on its next generation of missiles.
  • These thefts were not isolated incidents, but rather the results of decades of intelligence operations against U.S. weapons laboratories conducted by the Ministry of State Security. In addition, the report described the illegal activity likely persisted despite new security measures implemented as a result of the scandal.

Cox Report – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If the US Disarms, Will Its Adversaries Do the Same? :: Gatestone Institute

In a crisis, therefore, or in a run-up to a crisis, the incentives by our adversaries to use force or threaten the first-use of force, including nuclear weapons, would also rise precipitously. Our enemies would no longer need to fear our land-based retaliatory capability from our Minuteman missiles: they would no longer be available. As a result, an adversary would have every incentive to “get our submarines,” a probability the report even acknowledges, but only in a footnote. The report then concludes by stating that a technological breakthrough could, in fact, make our entire nuclear submarine fleet vulnerable and thus “dramatically” change the recommendations of the report – a conclusion particularly worrisome in light of the proposals to reduce our submarine fleet to only ten submarines.

The report also makes the astounding argument that as all 450 US deployed warheads would be available to deter Russia, we would thus have nothing to worry about. But this would be true only if the US launched a nuclear strike first. Historically, however, our deterrent needs have always been calculated based on what would be needed for retaliation, or what is known as an “assured second strike”. Under the Global Zero force structure, an adversary might well conclude that only a very limited number of US nuclear forces would survive an initial attack or series of surreptitious attacks. The temptation to “go for it” in a crisis might look too good to pass up – creating the most highly unstable deterrent policy one could possibly propose.

If the US Disarms, Will Its Adversaries Do the Same? :: Gatestone Institute

Ex-IDF intelligence chief: A nuclear Iran more dangerous than military strike – Haaretz

Yadlin said he favored exhausting all other options before striking Iran’s nuclear facilities but stressed that a “nuclear Iran is more dangerous than attacking Iran.”

“If they can’t be contained when they don’t have nuclear weapon, how can they be contained when they do?” Yadlin said.

Ex-IDF intelligence chief: A nuclear Iran more dangerous than military strike – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News