Kara Love — If John Bolton Is Right, Pearl Harbor Was Perfectly Legal

"Preemptive war."

Counterpunch
If John Bolton Is Right, Pearl Harbor Was Perfectly Legal

Kara Love, attorney

Atomic Scientists — How US nuclear force modernization is undermining strategic stability: The burst-height compensating super-fuze

First strike capability, neutralizing nuclear deterrence.

Russian planners will almost surely see the advance in fuzing capability as empowering an increasingly feasible US preemptive nuclear strike capability—a capability that would require Russia to undertake countermeasures that would further increase the already dangerously high readiness of Russian nuclear forces. Tense nuclear postures based on worst-case planning assumptions already pose the possibility of a nuclear response to false warning of attack. The new kill capability created by super-fuzing increases the tension and the risk that US or Russian nuclear forces will be used in response to early warning of an attack—even when an attack has not occurred.

The increased capability of the US submarine force will likely be seen as even more threatening because Russia does not have a functioning space-based infrared early warning system but relies primarily on ground-based early warning radars to detect a US missile attack. Since these radars cannot see over the horizon, Russia has less than half as much early-warning time as the United States. (The United States has about 30 minutes, Russia 15 minutes or less.)

The inability of Russia to globally monitor missile launches from space means that Russian military and political leaders would have no “situational awareness” to help them assess whether an early-warning radar indication of a surprise attack is real or the result of a technical error.

The combination of this lack of Russian situational awareness, dangerously short warning times, high-readiness alert postures, and the increasing US strike capacity has created a deeply destabilizing and dangerous strategic nuclear situation.
When viewed in the alarming context of deteriorating political relations between Russia and the West, and the threats and counter-threats that are now becoming the norm for both sides in this evolving standoff, it may well be that the danger of an accident leading to nuclear war is as high now as it was in periods of peak crisis during the Cold War....

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
How US nuclear force modernization is undermining strategic stability: The burst-height compensating super-fuze
Hans M. Kristensen, Matthew McKinzie and Theodore A. Postol

The Saker calls BS on the report.

The Vineyard of the Saker
Dangerous risks of W76-1/Mk4A with new AFS
The Saker

Sputnik — US Study on 'Decapitating' Russia, China May Raise Fear of Surprise Nuke Attack

US Congress choses to up the ante while also undercutting Trump's attempt to negotiate nuclear arms reduction with Russia. This will just move the hands of the doomsday clock closer to midnight and the onset of nuclear winter.

USA, USA, USA.

Meanwhile, John McCain and Lindsey Graham are doing their best to start WWIII.

And people are obsessing about Donald Trump being crazy and irresponsible?

Sputnik International
US Study on 'Decapitating' Russia, China May Raise Fear of Surprise Nuke Attack

Sputnik — Nuclear Poker: Why the US Can't Trick Russia Into Changing Its Nuclear Doctrine

Interesting look at US and Russian military policy.

Accordingly, Alexandrov suggested that US lawmakers' proposal is based on the understanding that a nuclear war is unwinnable, and to try to trick Russia into abandoning its established doctrine.

"In essence, the US is repeating the technique of Leonid Brezhnev's Soviet Union, which unilaterally renounced the first use of nuclear weapons. This was done because at the time, the USSR had a significant superiority in conventional forces over NATO. As a result, the use of nuclear weapons was judged to be disadvantageous, since all of Western Europe could be captured without their use. In that situation, it's worth noting, NATO banked on the use of tactical nuclear weapons, which became a deterrent against possible Soviet attack."

Today, Alexandrov noted, the situation has been flipped on its head. Russia can no longer resist the combined might of NATO in a long war using only conventional weaponry. 

"Therefore, since the 1990s, our doctrine provides for the possibility of using nuclear weapons first in case of a serious threat to Russia's national security." "Thus, the Democrats' initiative is aimed at achieving strategic superiority over Russia, and possibly China," the analyst suggested. "Of course, Moscow should not give in to this kind of demagogy. Russia must continue to retain the right to use tactical nuclear weapons first," he emphasized.

Ultimately, Alexandrov noted, Russia has already taken the necessary measures to move to a new generation of nuclear weaponry, from the Iskander tactical missile complex and the Kh-101 strategic cruise missile, which has a range of 5,000 km, to new ballistic missiles capable of overcoming US missile defenses. "All of this has forced the US to maneuver in this way, and to try to outplay Russia in the nuclear field," the analyst concluded.

Sputnik International
Nuclear Poker: Why the US Can't Trick Russia Into Changing Its Nuclear Doctrine

Rostislav Ischenko — NATO Missile Shield Is Practically Guaranteeing a Russian First Strike

"Every General Staff relies on the fact that if the enemy's intentions are unclear they should be interpreted as aggressive (otherwise, they could be late to respond)"…

Under these circumstances, there is no time evaluate the situation and the intention. Anything that can be characterized as a threat of nuclear attack against Russia should cause intercontinental missiles to be launched immediately. Otherwise, there is a high chance that they would be destroyed at their sites.

The limited (after the reduction according to the INF) amount of carriers and warheads leave no hope that there will be enough missiles for an adequate response after any disarming strike.

This increases the risk of nuclear confrontation up to the level of the 1980’s, when it was the highest in the history of USSR - US relations, except for the two critical weeks of the Cuban Missile Crisis, from October 15th to 28th, 1962. (That crisis, by the way, was provoked by the deployment of American medium-range ballistic missiles Jupiter in Turkey.)

Do you feel safer?

Russia Insider
NATO Missile Shield Is Practically Guaranteeing a Russian First Strike 

Rostislav Ischenko,  RIA Novosti

Translated by Julia Rakhmetova and Rhod Mackenzie

The author is a famous Ukrainian former political analyst and diplomat forced to migrate to Russia following the Maidan coup. He is a columnist for the International Information Agency “Rossyia Segodnya”See also

If the United States ever ends up stumbling into a major conventional or nuclear war with Russia, the culprit will likely be two military boondoggles that refused to die when their primary mission ended with the demise of the Soviet Union: NATO and the U.S. anti-ballistic missile (ABM) program.Consortium News

Escalations in a New Cold War

Jonathan Marshall

Argues that the US and NATO needs to ramp up against a resurgent Russian military, in other words, a new Cold War and resultant arms race including nuclear.

Lexington Institute

Attempts To Downplay Growing Russian Military Threat Won’t Wash

Daniel Gouré