Phi Quyền Chính - Anarchism

Nhân Chủ-Chủ Quyền Cá Nhân Con Người-Thượng Đế, Nhà Nước là Ảo Thể- Chúng Ta là Thực Thể- Không có Thượng Đế, Không có Nhà Nước, Chỉ có Chúng Ta, Tôi và Quí Vị phải Quyết Định Phương Cách Tự Trách Nhiệm Trao Đổi để Sống Chung Tự Do, Bình Đẳng với Nhau Mà Thôi!

Nhận Định

The Ones Who Fear A True Nuke World War Are The Ones Who Have Nukes

As PQC has repeatedly stated, those masters of the deep state need to live well in a very safe society to rule- and need a lot of people to be their slaves to serving them and doing their works. Since the state exists- There will be war after war as there always has been, even some kind of mini-nuke like MOAB will be used, but only in proxy wars. Direct nuke war between super dickhead nations is never on the table. They are psychopaths, but not idiots (like most of you folks). Hyping-up  World Nuke War is just a crude psyop plot to scare the shit out of dumbshit people, who have no brain but only beliefs in their heads. They want you to be scared so they can control you. They want you to hate and being hated – be divided so they can conquer and rule you. So, Stop being a brainless cannon fodder with that stupid “world nuke war 3 story”.

PCQ

==

Nuclear Weapons: Who Has What at a Glance

Updated: January 2017

At the dawn of the nuclear age, the United States hoped to maintain a monopoly on its new weapon, but the secrets and the technology for making nuclear weapons soon spread. The United States conducted its first nuclear test explosion in July 1945 and dropped two atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. Just four years later, the Soviet Union conducted its first nuclear test explosion. The United Kingdom (1952), France (1960), and China (1964) followed. Seeking to prevent the nuclear weapon ranks from expanding further, the United States and other like-minded states negotiated the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1996.

India, Israel, and Pakistan never signed the NPT and possess nuclear arsenals. Iraq initiated a secret nuclear program under Saddam Hussein before the 1991 Persian Gulf War. North Korea announced its withdrawal from the NPT in January 2003 and has tested nuclear devices since that time. Iran and Libya have pursued secret nuclear activities in violation of the treaty’s terms, and Syria is suspected of having done the same. Still, nuclear nonproliferation successes outnumber failures and dire forecasts decades ago that the world would be home to dozens of states armed with nuclear weapons have not come to pass.

At the time the NPT was concluded, the nuclear stockpiles of both the United States and the Soviet Union/Russia numbered in the tens of thousands. Beginning in the 1970s, U.S. and Soviet/Russian leaders negotiated a series of bilateral arms control agreements and initiatives that limited, and later helped to reduce, the size of their nuclear arsenals. Today, the United States and Russia each deploy more than 1,500 strategic warheads on several hundred bombers and missiles, and are modernizing their nuclear delivery systems.

China, India, and Pakistan are all pursuing new ballistic missile, cruise missile, and sea-based nuclear delivery systems. In addition, Pakistan has lowered the threshold for nuclear weapons use by developing tactical nuclear weapons capabilities to counter perceived Indian conventional military threats. North Korea continues its nuclear pursuits in violation of its earlier denuclearization pledges.


Nuclear-Weapon States:

The nuclear-weapon states (NWS) are the five states—China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and the United States—officially recognized as possessing nuclear weapons by the NPT. The treaty legitimizes these states’ nuclear arsenals, but establishes they are not supposed to build and maintain such weapons in perpetuity. In 2000, the NWS committed themselves to an “unequivocal undertaking…to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.” Because of the secretive nature with which most governments treat information about their nuclear arsenals, most of the figures below are best estimates of each nuclear-weapon state’s nuclear holdings, including both strategic warheads and lower-yield devices referred to as tactical weapons.

China

  • About 260 total warheads.

France

  • About 300 total warheads.

Russia

  • April 2017 New START declaration: 1,765 strategic warheads deployed on 523 ICBMs, SLBMs, and strategic bombers.(Note: In March 2016, the U.S. State Department issued the latest fact sheet on its data exchange with Russia under New START, sharing the numbers of deployed nuclear warheads and New START-accountable delivery systems held by each country.)
  • The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) estimates: roughly 2,700 non-deployed strategic and deployed and non-deployed tactical warheads. And 2,510 additional warheads awaiting dismantlement.

United Kingdom

  • About 120 strategic warheads, of which no more than 40 are deployed at sea on a nuclear ballistic missile submarine at any given time. The United Kingdom possesses a total of four ballistic missile submarines.
  • Total stockpile is estimated up to 215 warheads.

United States:

  • April 2017 New START declaration: 1,411 strategic nuclear warheads deployed on 673 ICBMs, SLBMs, and strategic bombers.
  • FAS estimates approximately 2,300 non-deployed strategic warheads and roughly 500 deployed and non-deployed tactical warheads.
  • In a January 2017 speech, Vice President Joe Biden announced that as of September 30, 2016, the United States possessed 4,018 active and inactive nuclear warheads. (Note: This number does not include warheads awaiting dismantlement.)
  • Biden also announced in January 2017 that approximately 2,800 warheads are retired and await dismantlement.

Non-NPT Nuclear Weapons Possessors:

  • India, Israel, and Pakistan never joined the NPT and are known to possess nuclear weapons.
  • India first tested a nuclear explosive device in 1974. That test spurred Pakistan to ramp up work on its secret nuclear weapons program.
  • India and Pakistan both publicly demonstrated their nuclear weapon capabilities with a round of tit-for-tat nuclear tests in May 1998.
  • Israel has not publicly conducted a nuclear test, does not admit or deny having nuclear weapons, and states that it will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Nevertheless, Israel is universally believed to possess nuclear arms, although it is unclear exactly how many.

The following arsenal estimates are based on the amount of fissile material—highly enriched uranium and plutonium—that each of the states is estimated to have produced. Fissile material is the key element for making nuclear weapons. India and Israel are believed to use plutonium in their weapons, while Pakistan is thought to use highly enriched uranium.

IndiaBetween 100-120 nuclear warheads.
IsraelAn estimated 80 nuclear warheads, with fissile material for up to 200.
PakistanBetween 110-130 nuclear warheads.


States of Immediate Proliferation Concern:

Prior to the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran pursued an uranium-enrichment program and other projects that provided it with the capability to produce bomb-grade fissile material and develop nuclear weapons, if it chose to do so. Iran’s uranium enrichment program continues, but it is restricted and monitored by the nuclear deal. In contrast, North Korea has the material to produce a small number of nuclear weapons, announced its withdrawal from the NPT, and tested nuclear devices. Uncertainty persists about how many additional nuclear devices North Korea has assembled beyond those it has tested. In September 2005, Pyongyang “committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs.”

Iran:

  • No known weapons or sufficient fissile material stockpiles to build weapons.
  • The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the institution charged with verifying that states are not illicitly building nuclear weapons, concluded in 2003 that Iran had undertaken covert nuclear activities to establish the capacity to indigenously produce fissile material.
  • July 2015: Iran and six world powers negotiated a long-term agreement to verify and significantly reduce Iran’s capacity to produce material for nuclear weapons.
  • As part of this agreement, the IAEA and Iran concluded an investigation into Iran’s past nuclear weapons-related activities. The agency concluded that Iran had an organized program to pursue nuclear weapons prior to 2003. Some of these activities continued through 2009, but there were no indications of weaponization activities taking place after that date.

North Korea:

  • Estimated to have enough plutonium for approximately 10 plutonium based warheads as of late 2016.
  • North Korea operates its 5-megawatt heavy-water graphite-moderated reactor used to extract plutonium in the past for nuclear warheads on an intermittent basis since August 2013. There has also been activity at North Korea’s reprocessing facililty in 2016, indicating that Pyongyang has likely separated plutonium from the reactor’s spent fuel.
  • Unveiled a centrifuge facility in 2010, but unclear if Pyongyang is using the facility to produce highly-enriched uranium for weapons.
  • Experts estimate that if North Korea is producing highly-enriched uranium, it could have the material for an additional 4-8 uranium based warheads as of 2015, bringing the total to 14-18 warheads. By 2020, experts estimate that North Korea could have anywhere between 20-100 nuclear warheads based on the rate of its stockpile growth and technological improvements.

Syria:

  • September 2007: Israel conducted an airstrike on what U.S. officials alleged was the construction site of a nuclear research reactor similar to North Korea’s Yongbyon reactor.
  • The extent of Syrian-North Korean nuclear cooperation is unclear, but is believed to have begun in 1997.
  • Investigations into U.S. claims uncovered traces of undeclared man-made uranium particles at both the site of the destroyed facility and Syria’s declared research reactor.
  • Syria has not adequately cooperated with the IAEA to clarify the nature of the destroyed facility and procurement efforts that could be related to a nuclear program.

States That Had Nuclear Weapons or Nuclear Weapons Programs at One Time:

  • Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine inherited nuclear weapons following the Soviet Union’s 1991 collapse, but returned them to Russia and joined the NPT as non-nuclear-weapon states.
  • South Africa secretly developed but subsequently dismantled its small number of nuclear warheads and also joined the NPT in 1991.
  • Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program prior to the 1991 Persian Gulf War, but was forced to verifiably dismantle it under the supervision of UN inspectors. The U.S.-led March 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent capture of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein definitively ended his regime’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.
  • Libya voluntarily renounced its secret nuclear weapons efforts in December 2003.
  • Argentina, Brazil, South Korea, and Taiwan also shelved nuclear weapons programs.

Sources: Arms Control Association, Federation of American Scientists, International Panel on Fissile Materials, U.S. Department of Defense, and U.S. Department of State.

Posted: April 7, 2017

Rex Tillerson meets with Foreign Minister Lavrov and President Putin

Finally, they met.  Rex Tillerson spent several hours speaking with Foreign Minister Lavrov and, after that, with President Putin.  Tillerson  and Lavrov then held a rather bizarre joint press conference in which Tillerson mantrically repeated all the nonsense we are now used to hear about Russia while Lavrov logically demolished each US argument one by one.  I suppose I could discuss the entire press conference word by word, but it wasn’t that interesting and, besides, I expect Tillerson to suffer from the “Kerry syndrome”: being on his best behavior while in Moscow only to turn rabid again as soon as he is back in DC.  Still, those interested can read the full transcript of the press confence here.

Let me just summarize why, all in all, this trip is not bad news (can’t quite call it “good news” either)

For one thing – when two superpowers are talking to each other they are usually trying to avoid an escalation.  Second, Tillerson met with Putin.  If Tillerson had come to Moscow just to deliver the usual torrent of threats and accusations he would not have been seen by Putin (or, for that matter, by Lavrov).  This means that something of some substance was discussed.  Not agreed upon, but at least discussed.  Third, while both parties admitted that they had plenty of differences, they did signal that they wanted an improvement in relations.  I think that the following sentence by Tillerson is absolutely crucial:

I expressed the view that the current state of U.S.-Russia relations is at a low point and there is a low level of trust between our two countries. The world’s two foremost nuclear powers cannot have this kind of relationship.

I fully understand that coming from somebody most likely already infected with the “Kerry Syndrome” this might not be much.  But, friends, this is better than nothing!

Please get me right: I am so horrified by the rabid insanity of the Trump administration that at this point I will be grateful to God “just” if there is not direct war between the USA and Russia.  That is the only thing I still hold some hope for.  Because other than that, the picture is very, very gloomy.

In prototypical Neocon-style, the Americans have completely painted themselves into a corner.  They have made SO MANY frankly stupid statements about Syria and Assad that they simply cannot backtrack any more.  Just like there is exactly ZERO chance that the Americans will ever accept an independent and honest investigation into what really happened during the latest chemical incident (I don’t call it an “attack” because I am not even sure that there was an attack).  This is like 9/11 – there is NO WAY the US Nomenklatura will EVER allow an independent investigation into that event either.  They are fully committed.  They cannot go back now.

I often get the feeling that the Americans, knowing full well how wrong they are, often deliberately paint themselves into a corner just to be in a way “protected from reality” by being stuck; in a way, that makes them almost immune to fact-based and logical arguments.  Whatever may be the case, Russia and the USA will not work together in Syria.  And that means that the entire idea of the USA defeating Daesh is dead in the water forever.  Russia and Iran might help the Syrians push Daesh out of most of Syria, but even that will not ‘defeat’ Daesh in a meaningful way.  Furthermore, I have come to the conclusion that Israel has played a key role in the coup against Trump and that Israel will now do everything in its power to keep Daesh fighting for as long as possible (more about that in my next analysis next week).  Daesh could most definitely be crushed by a joint US-Russian effort.  Now, thanks to Trump Daesh, has a brand new lease on life.  Well done, Donald!

So here is what is happening: the Trump policy, if you want to call it that, towards the war in Syria was delivered stillborn.  The Americans themselves killed it with their fantastically stupid aggression against Syria and the “sarin gas” fairly tale they used as a pretext.  Trump has been completely neutered, his “Mad Dog” will bark a lot but get nothing done, as for McMaster – he can go right back on writing more of the kind of strategy documents which got the US Army defeated pretty much everywhere.

That is option one.

Option two is infinitely worse: the crazies keep on doubling-down and we have WWIII.  I prefer option one.  This is why I think that the Tillerson to Moscow is a success: it moves the planet just a little closer to option one and a little further way from option two.

At this point in time, this is all we can still hope for: that the spineless imbeciles who run the USA today do not trigger WWIII.  If they somehow manage NOT to trigger WWIII in the next four years, we will still owe them an immense debt of gratitude for that (even if we despise for everything else they will no doubt do next).

One more thing: make no mistake – the situation today is far more dangerous than the Cuban missile crisis.

During the Cold War both sides were ruled by rational men.  Not necessarily kind men, but fundamentally rational men.  It was self-evident for everybody involved that you could never, ever, take the risk of a real nuclear war breaking out.  There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the Soviets never had any intention of invading western Europe.  But IF they had done so, there is also no doubt in my mind that the USA would never have escalated to the level of strategic nuclear weapons.  I have known plenty of senior US officers, ranging Navy intelligence officers, to senior analysts of the Office of Net Assessment, to officers who worked on the YF-22/23 program to one member of the Joint Chiefs.  They all agreed that going to nuclear war was simply something which no US President would ever do.  One of them put it simply “we are not going to trade Boston for Munich”.  They were all patriots, but they knew crazy when they saw it and war between the USA and the USSR is a crazy, civilization ending, idea.

Nowadays we clearly have already two US administrations which are willing to engage into what I call a “game of nuclear chicken” with Russia because they are too stupid to realize that Russia will not back down when cornered (and she is cornered in both the Ukraine and Syria) and that Russia can simply wipe the entire USA off the face of the earth (and the USA can do likewise to Russia).  When I hear of the notion of imposing a no-fly zone over Syria against the will of Russia I get a knot in my stomach because I fully understand where this could lead.

This is much worse than the Cuban missile crisis and it will, alas, last much longer.

I hope and pray that Tillerson will not completely forget his words about  two foremost nuclear powers cannot have this kind of relationship when he comes back to DC and that he will find the courage in himself to repeat these words when faced with the hysterical crowds demanding blood in Congress, in the US Ziomedia and in the Executive Branch swamp.

As for Trump, let him get his foreign policy advice from Ivanka just like Clinton got his from Hillary.  The damage is already done.  Now they both belong to the same trash heap of history.

The Saker

===

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: