A New Cold War?

[Brian Howell]

For many years I thought Tom Lehrer's wonderfully morbid "song for World War III" had happily become an anachronism. Now, I'm not so sure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIoBrob3bjI.

Back in January, I wrote a post in which I suggested a new Cold War. My suggestion was based on ongoing changes in Russia's nuclear stockpile. 

Since then, Russia's nuclear stance has become increasingly aggressive: the country is engaged in massive nuclear war training exercises—ostensibly in case of a nuclear attack from the West—and continues to add weapons to its stockpile. At present, its arsenal exceeds the limits of the 2011 START (STrategic Arms Reduction Treaty) by 246 weapons. That being said, both countries apparently intend to abide by the treaty's terms when it comes into full effect in early 2018. And the number of weapons each country has fluctuates pretty rapidly, as old weapons are replaced by newer—and potentially more lethal—ones. 

However, START limits only deployed nuclear weapons—those based on submarines, in bombers, and in silos (the so-called nuclear triad). It doesn't limit "stored" (mothballed) weapons. And, as noted in one of the herein linked articles, weapons often can be moved from stored status to deployed in just a few hours. This could allow Russia to continue to build nukes without express violation of the treaty.

Russia has also just pulled out of the Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement, which it co-signed with the US in 2000, which required each country to safely dispose of 34 tons of weapons-grade plutonium, as part of a bilateral reduction in nuclear capability. Putin's decree withdrawing Russia from the PMDA, was one of the last fragments of the cooperation between the US and Russian nuclear war complexes that began with the conclusion of the Cold War.

Putin's reasons for the withdrawal were because "Moscow noted 'a fundamental change in the circumstances regarding the aggressive Russophobia, which now forms the basis of the US policy towards Russia.'" The implicit ironies of that agreement's intent aside, Russia has said it will still adhere to the terms of the agreement—notwithstanding its withdrawal from it. 

It can take as little as 4kg of weapons grade plutonium to create a bomb. (See section M. Plutonium, item #30 of the immediately previous link). The United States has 88 metric tons of the stuff; the Soviet Union—er—Russia has 128 metric tons. At 4kg per, that's enough to create 22,000 new weapons.

Meanwhile, Putin has ordered the deployment of nuclear-capable Iskander missiles to Kaliningrad, which borders Poland and Lithuania. And US Secretary of Defense Ash Carter was reported as saying that the Pentagon is reviewing its nuclear playbook. 

There's more, but Russia is clearly engaging in aggressive nuclear geopolitics. The estimable publication Foreign Policy currently has an article up entitled The United States and Russia are Prepping for Doomsday. 

Are we indeed on the verge of another arms race? Is another generation of children going to learn to duck and cover, as I did in elementary school? 

Are you going to be able to sleep well at night?

[Brian Howell]

The data are from 2012 and earlier but the point is well made: https://evolutionistx.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/nuclearweapons_4fa46b5cd6d31.gif (scales up several times quite legibly).

[Brian Howell]

A higher quality version: http://visually.visually.netdna-cdn.com/NuclearWeapons_4fa46b5cd6d31.gif (view at full size)

[Brian Howell]

Nuke your favorite city, state or country: http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ 

Or choose from one of the US' 1956 specified targets.

http://futureoflife.org/background/us-nuclear-targets/#nukemap

And be sure to try it in 3D: (does not work in all browsers) http://nuclearsecrecy.com/n.ukemap3d/ (I just nuked SF with a 20KT bomb. The fallout drifted right over my home. I'm dead.)

[Vince Koloski]

Forget the New Cold War. The War Party in DC, with the active compliance of the US Media, particularly the NYT which appears to have assumed the role of propagandists for the neocon elements of the US Intelligence and Diplomatic community, seems to be preparing us for a new Hot War with Russia. 

Linked here is an analysis of the NYT Sept. 29th editorial laying out the points the War Party is using to prep us for the war. It's a bit long but reasonably cogent. It is from Chis Martenson's website. I am not often on the same page with him, but this one seems to hit the mark. 

https://www.peakprosperity.com/blog/102294/do-we-really-want-war-russia

Mentioned in the piece is the recent Dutch report on the downing of the Malaysian airlines MH-17 placing the blame squarely on Russia.

I have linked another piece from a site run by an ex-intelligence officer. The analysis is from one of his readers and thus open (as is the site itself) to charges of bias however it does an excellent job of laying out the both the timeline of the incident and the large problems with the report itself. http://thesaker.is/mh17-report-taken-apart-by-saker-reader/

Small aside on that note, the US has consistently stated that it has hard data (radar and satellite intelligence) on both this incident and the recent, (and much hyped as a Russian atrocity), of the bombing of the aid convoy in Syria. We have never released that data in either case. The Russians have released their radar and satellite data on both events which cast doubt on the US narrative in both cases. Why the US has never released its data makes no sense unless the data does not exist. We would not be revealing any information about our intelligence capacities that the Russians do not already have. 

I don't sleep well at night and won't sleep any easier under the  next president.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ipse Dixit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Ipse-dixit+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/59dd3264-d768-4ed4-9e70-050a795af2de%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Scott Hotes]

Nuclear is just one part of the story.

The U.S. has a military budget over 10x that of Russia.

In particular, part of that is going into our "nuclear modernization" program, that includes PGS (Prompt Global Strike), and the "Advanced Hypersonic Weapon", see:  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_Global_Strike#Advanced_Hypersonic_Weapon

In fact, here is Putin responding directly to PGS.

So when you say that "Russia is clearly engaging in aggressive nuclear geopolitics", I very much wonder if the real concern here is not closer to home...

Scott

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Brian Howell <bdho...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Brian Howell]

But Prompt Global Strike is not nuclear. It uses conventional weapons. In fact, the original goal was to retrofit ICBMs and other nuclear missiles with conventional, non-nuclear warheads. (Fortunately, somebody realized that such a weapon might still be perceived as a nuke and that approach was scrapped.) And the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon is simply a delivery platform for PGS payloads, like an advanced bomber. Neither weapon system relates in any way to upgrading the United States' nuclear arsenal.

However, Russia is working hard on new nuclear payload delivery systems: http://gizmodo.com/russia-reveals-satan-2-nuclear-missile-capable-of-destr-1788187587. (Don't you love the jargon?)

[Scott Hotes]

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Brian Howell <bdho...@gmail.com> wrote:

But Prompt Global Strike is not nuclear. It uses conventional weapons. In fact, the original goal was to retrofit ICBMs and other nuclear missiles with conventional, non-nuclear warheads. (Fortunately, somebody realized that such a weapon might still be perceived as a nuke and that approach was scrapped.) And the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon is simply a delivery platform for PGS payloads, like an advanced bomber. Neither weapon system relates in any way to upgrading the United States' nuclear arsenal.

After initially developing the program, it was clear to supporters that tying PGS to enhanced

nuclear capabilities would create publicity difficulties, thus they pivoted focus to a so-called

CPGS capability (C for "conventional").  Not clear that anyone believes this kind of rapid 

strike tech could not be used for enhanced nuclear.

In any case, that was not the point.  The point is really that in funding PGS and similar, the

White House is escalating tensions.  Why is the U.S. and our tax dollars going to fund a

new type of unprecedented, weapons delivery system?  Does that both you or other readers

of Ipse Dixit?  That was the rhetorical question really.  FWIW, it bothers me.

Here is further analysis:

http://carnegieendowment.org/2015/12/08/prompt-global-strike-american-and-foreign-developments-pub-62212

Crisis instability is also a real risk; an adversary’s fears that CPGS weapons could destroy its strategic weapons could lead the adversary to employ those weapons preemptively. “Strategic” does not just mean nuclear. In a conflict with the United States, for instance, Beijing would want to protect its anti-access/area-denial capabilities. It could do so by destroying or disabling the GPS satellites on which CPGS weapons would, in all probability, rely for navigation. Fearing this, the United States would have an incentive to destroy Chinese anti-satellite capabilities with CPGS weapons early in a conflict. This threat would, in turn, give China an incentive to attack the GPS constellation preemptively to disable CPGS weapons. The result could be rapid escalation that both sides might rather avoid.

 Scott

[Brian Howell]

Seriously, I'm more concerned about Russian nuclear escalation. The new Satan 2 "super nuke" missile (linked to previously and below)  is a MIRV with 16 40MT warheads that each can destroy an area the size of Texas. It can outfly extant missile defense shield technologies and evade radar. And with a 10,000km range, it can hit targets throughout Europe as well as on both the east and west coasts of the United States. The London Daily Mail calls it "terrifying."

I'm also concerned that Russia is opening or seeking to reopen bases in Egypt, Viet Nam, and Cuba. Talk about crisis instability.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3870192/Russia-unveils-image-terrifying-Satan-2-missile-Super-nuke-destroy-area-size-FRANCE.html

[jack saunders]

See scary new Economist cover -- Putin with glowing red eyes.

 

---

From: Brian Howell <bdho...@gmail.com>
To: Scott Hotes <sah...@gmail.com>
Cc: Ipse Dixit <Ipse-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Ipse Dixit] A New Cold War?

Seriously, I'm more concerned about Russian nuclear escalation. The new Satan 2 "super nuke" missile (linked to previously and below)  is a MIRV with 16 40MT warheads that each can destroy an area the size of Texas. It can outfly extant missile defense shield technologies and evade radar. And with a 10,000km range, it can hit targets throughout Europe as well as on both the east and west coasts of the United States. The London Daily Mail calls it "terrifying."

I'm also concerned that Russia is opening or seeking to reopen bases in Egypt, Viet Nam, and Cuba. Talk about crisis instability.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3870192/Russia-unveils-image-terrifying-Satan-2-missile-Super-nuke-destroy-area-size-FRANCE.html

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ipse Dixit" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Ipse-dixit+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/CAAq%2BNfeXoOKvO02qg8tOx%3DvteQqobzmddJci83ybnDT4sU11kA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Scott Hotes]

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Brian Howell <bdho...@gmail.com> wrote:

Seriously, I'm more concerned about Russian nuclear escalation. The new Satan 2 "super nuke" missile (linked to previously and below)  is a MIRV with 16 40MT warheads that each can destroy an area the size of Texas. It can outfly extant missile defense shield technologies and evade radar. And with a 10,000km range, it can hit targets throughout Europe as well as on both the east and west coasts of the United States. The London Daily Mail calls it "terrifying."

I'm also concerned that Russia is opening or seeking to reopen bases in Egypt, Viet Nam, and Cuba. Talk about crisis instability.

Since I had no idea, I decided to Google the number of foreign military bases maintained by

the U.S. government.  It is over 1000, and depending on how you count, over 1100.

I'm not sure on what moral authority we can question a move by Russia to re-open 3 of theirs. 

In terms of our place in the world, before all else, the U.S. is a war machine or unprecedented

power and influence.  Similar to the sad fact that once our species gained dominance over the

rest, we proceeded to destroy others with reckless abandon, now as the U.S. takes its position

as the sole "superpower" it is poised to do the same WRT nation states.

Scott

[jack saunders]

Scott wrote:  I'm not sure on what moral authority we can question a move by Russia to re-open 3 of theirs.

Good question.  And if we want to calmly apply morality (or rationality) in other foreign affairs, what's all the uproar over the Philippine president saying he thought it might be time to investigate what China had to offer his country -- should it propose to take over the Big Brother contract from the remote empire on the other side of the world.  

To me that is so obviously an intelligent RFP.  Western writers were horrified, and evidently used some serious muscle to walk him back a bit.

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ipse Dixit" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Ipse-dixit+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/CAC7%2BDAC2UwyyAGGecKqyNxdiT2jYdvM5p5v%3DKtiD3ZdW0hTGFQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Brian Howell]

Okay, your numbers are a little out of date: the number of foreign bases is now below 800, though I admit that's a lot. Russia pales by comparison with 20 (as of 2015). So forget about the bases. Thanks for the research, Scott. But what leads you to think we are going to destroy other nation states with reckless abandon? Don't you think that there would be countervailing efforts by other countries and alliances, albeit temporary (think of the US and USSR during WWII), should the US be any more aggressive than it already is? Then again, we outspend the next nine largest militaries combined. But the issue I have is why would be do such a thing? Why are we "poised" to destroy other nations, as you wrote? What are the strategic advantages? And which countries are we ready to obliterate?

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/us-military-bases-around-the-world-119321

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2014/05/interactive-russia-foreign-military-bases-201459104513678477.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/these-are-the-worlds-20-strongest-militaries-ranked-2015-9/#2-russia-19

--

Brian Howell
www.linkedin.com/in/bdhowell

[Scott Hotes]

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Brian Howell <bdho...@gmail.com> wrote:

Okay, your numbers are a little out of date: the number of foreign bases is now below 800, though I admit that's a lot. Russia pales by comparison with 20 (as of 2015). So forget about the bases. Thanks for the research, Scott. But what leads you to think we are going to destroy other nation states with reckless abandon? Don't you think that there would be countervailing efforts by other countries and alliances, albeit temporary (think of the US and USSR during WWII), should the US be any more aggressive than it already is? Then again, we outspend the next nine largest militaries combined. But the issue I have is why would be do such a thing? Why are we "poised" to destroy other nations, as you wrote? What are the strategic advantages? And which countries are we ready to obliterate?

I was simply making an analogy to the sad fact of what human nature has looked

like historically when you remove structural balancing factors.

What does the future look like?  Take two topics that have come up on this list:

the rise of major tech companies blurring the lines of nations (predominantly US

companies) and the fact that technology is quickly making a large part of the

population "redundant".  OK, throw in global climate change.

Can the world work together to face these things fairly?  Is there reason to

believe the U.S. will be an egalitarian force here?  Or, is our out-sized investment

in a massive military build-up, military presence, willingness to push moral boundaries

with toppling governments, drone strikes on civilians, extrajudicial prisons, etc. an 

indication that the opposite may be true?

Scott

[Craig Good]

Apropos to this, I think:

https://defensetalk.quora.com/Much-Ado-About-%E2%80%9CSatan-2%E2%80%B3-or-Dealing-With-Flaky-Media




--
--Craig WWJGD?
clg...@me.com http://www.craig-good.com

"Lack of freedom can be measured directly by lack of stupid."
--Penn Jillette