He said that in the event that the P5+1 group of world powers – US, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany – sign an unsatisfactory deal with Iran that does not dismantle its nuclear program, the Islamic Republic could have 50-100 nuclear warheads by the year 2024. In addition to the nuclear bombs, Steinitz warned Iran would also possess ballistic missiles with the ability to reach western Europe and the east coast of the United States ten years from now.
Steinitz said in this scenario, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria, Turkey, and perhaps other Middle East states, would begin their own nuclear weapons programs in answer to Iran.
“It is a difficult scenario, but not an impossible scenario,” Steinitz stated.
Steinitz: A bad deal will lead to an Iran with dozens of nuclear bombs 10 years from now | JPost | Israel News
Another great power is rising. This one is different from the rest. It is much more aggressive. It’s Islamic government is unlike the others. It threatens Israel and the US with death.
Personally, if Iran does get 50-100 nuclear warheads then I think we are looking at the end of the EU before 2024. Obviously, I will keep monitoring the Iranian threat.
“The global situation is extremely serious,” Lars Christensen from Danske Bank. “Russia is committing economic suicide, there is a massive corruption scandal in Turkey, and capital outflows from China threaten to have huge ramifications.”
“If the US dollar were to strengthen drastically at this point, we would go straight into a global recession.”
Indeed it is. The international order is unravelling. Russia is of course smashing the post-Cold War order by seizing Ukraine, and blowing up the global architecture of nuclear non-proliferation. Let us not forget that Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapons – the world’s third biggest arsenal at the time – in exchange for a guarantee by the great powers in 1994 that its territorial integrity would be upheld. Russia was one of the signatories.
China is laying claim to large parts of the East China and South China Seas, and has established an air identification control zone over the Japanese-controlled Senkaku islands.
China and Japan are one blow – or misjudgement – away from outright military conflict. …
Fire-sale of US Treasuries is a warning of acute stress across the world – Telegraph Blogs
I hope you are paying attention to this. It’s important. We are near a point of large collapse which may include both financial collapse and war. A great-power war would probably be delayed until a catalyst is hit.
I’ve posted this many times in the past, and here goes again:
Key Points from the Global Trend 2025 Report [from 2008]
- The international system—as constructed following the Second World War—will be almost unrecognizable by 2025 owing to the rise of emerging powers, a globalizing economy, an historic transfer of relative wealth and economic power from West to East, and the growing influence of nonstate actors
- By 2025, the international system will be a global multipolar one with gaps in national power continuing to narrow between developed and developing countries.
- Historically, emerging multipolar systems have been more unstable than bipolar or unipolar ones.
- We do not believe that we are headed toward a complete breakdown of the international system, as occurred in 1914-1918 when an earlier phase of globalization came to a halt.
- However, the next 20 years of transition to a new system are fraught with risks. Strategic rivalries are most likely to revolve around trade, investments, and technological innovation and acquisition, but we cannot rule out a 19th century-like scenario of arms races, territorial expansion, and military rivalries.
- China is poised to have more impact on the world over the next 20 years than any other country.
- Russia has the potential to be richer, more powerful, and more self-assured in 2025 if it invests in human capital, expands and diversifies its economy, and integrates with global markets. On the other hand, Russia could experience a significant decline if it fails to take these steps and oil and gas prices remain in the $50-70 per barrel range.
- For the most part, China, India, and Russia are not following the Western liberal model for self-development but instead are using a different model, “state capitalism.”
- Resource issues will gain prominence on the international agenda. Unprecedented global economic growth—positive in so many other regards—will continue to put pressure on a number of highly strategic resources, including energy, food, and water, and demand is projected to outstrip easily available supplies over the next decade or so.
- The world will be in the midst of a fundamental energy transition away from oil toward natural gas, coal and other alternatives.
- The World Bank estimates that demand for food will rise by 50 percent by 2030,
- Climate change is expected to exacerbate resource scarcities.
- Types of conflict we have not seen for awhile—such as over resources—could reemerge.
- The risk of nuclear weapon use over the next 20 years, although remaining very low, is likely to be greater than it is today as a result of several converging trends
- By 2025 the US will find itself as one of a number of important actors on the world stage, albeit still the most powerful one.
- The above trends suggest major discontinuities, shocks, and surprises, which we highlight throughout the text. Examples include nuclear weapons use or a pandemic.
- Also uncertain are the outcomes of demographic challenges facing Europe, Japan, and even Russia.
Entering the Age of Great Upheaval | 1913 Intel
The astronomical funding required to replicate our Cold War arsenal does not square with the security threats in today’s world. Nor will our conventional forces be able to withstand the cuts necessitated by the price burden of these nuclear delivery systems.
Procurement is racing ahead of policy. Do we need these new nukes? Can we do with fewer? Simply delaying these programs and scaling them back modestly could yield $60 billion in savings over the next 10 years, experts say. Deeper cuts would yield larger savings.
Lavishing funds on obsolete weapons designed to fight the Soviets robs our troops of the resources they need to fight terrorists. Policy makers need to reevaluate their spending plans on nuclear forces in the coming years to reflect today’s budgetary constraints and the diminishing utility of nuclear weapons in U.S. defense policy.
Are New Nuclear Weapons Affordable? | Joe Cirincione
Do you see a trend here? US leaders have made massive reductions in the country’s nuclear arsenal. They let everything age. Now people are complaining about the cost of replacing systems that are being retired.
Wouldn’t it just be easier not to replace these aging systems due to cost? Isn’t this the path to nuclear zero?
So that’s where the US headed – nuclear zero. Probably forced on you due to cost.
The US has long passed the red line in terms of nuclear reductions. It’s not how many times one can bounce the rubble that counts. It’s the recognition by enemy leaders that they cannot escape that counts. Only being about to retaliate one time is past the red line – enemy leaders know they can survive. Now there is virtually no talk of expanding the US nuclear arsenal. There is only talk of more reductions.